Actually it is bigger. Far more players involved with far more money involved for longer. It just wasn't directly run by the school's administration but they were still aware of it.This is big, but is not bigger than the SMU mess in the '80s. No death penalty will be given. Not for this, and probably not ever again.
This is big, but is not bigger than the SMU mess in the '80s. No death penalty will be given. Not for this, and probably not ever again.
No. Its not. There's a difference (not huge, but a difference) between mainly one rogue booster providing the benefits outlined in the article to players, and a coalition of boosters and the athletic department systematically paying recruits to attend the university (SMU). Seriously, this is bad. SMU was worse.This is big, but is not bigger than the SMU mess in the '80s. No death penalty will be given. Not for this, and probably not ever again.
This is way, way bigger.
It's not a 'rogue' booster when it is known by and in some cases solicited by the coaching staffs and school administrators. This is exactly the same rules wise. It doesn't matter that a few less people were bankrolling it. The boosters are not the violations.No. Its not. There's a difference (not huge, but a difference) between mainly one rogue booster providing the benefits outlined in the article to players, and a coalition of boosters and the athletic department systematically paying recruits to attend the university (SMU). Seriously, this is bad. SMU was worse.This is big, but is not bigger than the SMU mess in the '80s. No death penalty will be given. Not for this, and probably not ever again.
This is way, way bigger.
So any violations between 2003 and 2008 are repeat violations. Anything between 2003 and 2005 are violations while still on probation. Assuming the statute of limitations is moved back. (and if ever there was a case where that would be easily warranted)The case concerned violations of NCAA bylaws governing recruiting, financial aid, playing and practice season restrictions, honesty standards and institutional monitoring of the baseball program. This is the institution's fifth major infractions case; the university appeared before the committee in 1995 (baseball, football, women's golf and men's tennis), 1981 (football), 1964 (men's basketball) and 1955 (football)...
Because this case was determined to be major in nature, the university is considered a repeat violator, as specified in NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.3.1. It appeared to the committee that the university either did not follow through with corrective measures outlined in its annual compliance reports from the previous case, or that the measures failed to prevent similar violations from occurring...
The university shall be placed on two years of probation beginning February 27, 2003, and ending February 26, 2005...
As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Miami shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case (February 27, 2003).
...
The Sporting News disagrees : Sporting News LinkyNo. Its not. There's a difference (not huge, but a difference) between mainly one rogue booster providing the benefits outlined in the article to players, and a coalition of boosters and the athletic department systematically paying recruits to attend the university (SMU). Seriously, this is bad. SMU was worse.
The Miami Hurricanes, in what could be the biggest scandal in college football history, just made the SMU Mustangs of the 1980s look like jaywalkers.
Nothing in that article wasn't going on during the 80s. They got a moderate penalty for cheating then and they'll get another one now. It also took 6 years after it became obvious and only after they had stopped winning a ton.Sex, money, bling, TVs, food, an abortion, parties (and there one assumes drugs), contracts to injure opposing playersa snapshot of the most degenerate program in the history of the sport. How the NCAA would not simply close the doors on Miami athletics is going to be the next big story. You can't survive something like this. Every rule that exists to promote the integrity of college football was discarded by players, coaches, boosters, and officials at the U. And the evidence is overwhelming, a deluge of first hand verification.
That last part made me :LOLtartarIf the ncaa doesn't say the following I'd say every team in the ncaa should pay its players and recruits....."Miami I sentence you to death. For 20 years you are not allowed any football scholarships. You will exist as a walk-on program only. You forego all wins for 20 years and will participate in no television revenue for ten years. No bowl games and no conference payouts will be given. All trophies for last ten years are to be returned and you will never be allowed to be called tha U publicly again or you will pay $1,000,000 for each time that stupid thugs talk is mentioned. Good luck and godspeed."
Sports media and reality are hardly matching.The Sporting News disagrees : Sporting News LinkyNo. Its not. There's a difference (not huge, but a difference) between mainly one rogue booster providing the benefits outlined in the article to players, and a coalition of boosters and the athletic department systematically paying recruits to attend the university (SMU). Seriously, this is bad. SMU was worse.
The Miami Hurricanes, in what could be the biggest scandal in college football history, just made the SMU Mustangs of the 1980s look like jaywalkers.
If the ncaa doesn't say the following I'd say every team in the ncaa should pay its players and recruits....."Miami I sentence you to death. For 20 years you are not allowed any football scholarships. You will exist as a walk-on program only. You forego all wins for 20 years and will participate in no television revenue for ten years. No bowl games and no conference payouts will be given. All trophies for last ten years are to be returned and you will never be allowed to be called tha U publicly again or you will pay $1,000,000 for each time that stupid thugs talk is mentioned. Good luck and godspeed."
The totality of the tOSU allegations, if they had (or are) proven to be true, were definitely worse then USC's. There were more players supposedly involved, more cars, and basically TP signing things for cash, stealing team equipment to sell, etc.Sports media and reality are hardly matching.The Sporting News disagrees : Sporting News LinkyNo. Its not. There's a difference (not huge, but a difference) between mainly one rogue booster providing the benefits outlined in the article to players, and a coalition of boosters and the athletic department systematically paying recruits to attend the university (SMU). Seriously, this is bad. SMU was worse.
The Miami Hurricanes, in what could be the biggest scandal in college football history, just made the SMU Mustangs of the 1980s look like jaywalkers.
The media made Ohio State's issues to be worse than USC's.
SMU's AD and Administration were directly involved. Miami just accepted donations from the guy. They didn't set it all up. The NCAA wasn't warning Miami about this while it was going on like they did to SMU.
The change in times and economy make this look a lot worse than the SMU case. It's still very bad, but still not on SMU level.
This Miami booster provided 1.5x that amount in one strip club alone and that's just on his credit card after his wad of cash for the night ran out. He did this for way more players and coaches knew (even tagged along) and that's just one of the three (I think) strip clubs they mentioned and only one small fraction of the whole laundry list of impermissible benefits and recruiting violations.Eventually, the NCAA investigation revealed that from 1985 to 1986, 13 players had been paid a total of $61,000 from a slush fund provided by a booster. Payments ranged from $50 to $725 a month, and had started only a month after SMU had been slapped with its latest probation.
You guys saying it's not as bad as SMU are incorrect and haven't compared (or simply don't know) the SMU case very well.In 1994, Tony Russell, a former UM academic advisor, pleaded guilty to helping more than 80 student athletes, 57 of whom were football players, falsify Pell Grant applications in exchange for kickbacks from the players themselves. The scandal dated all the way back to 1989 and secured more than $220,000 in federal grant money. Federal officials later said that Russell had engineered "perhaps the largest centralized fraud ... ever committed" in the history of the Pell Grant program.
In late 1995, the NCAA concluded that, in addition to the fraudulent Pell Grants facilitated by Russell, the university had also provided or allowed over $400,000 worth of other, improper payments to Miami football players. The NCAA also found that the university had failed to wholly implement its drug testing program, and permitted three football student-athletes to compete without being subject to the required disciplinary measures specified in the policy. Finally, the NCAA concluded, the university had lost institutional control over the football program