Alleged Miami Violations "Biggest NCAA Investigators Have Ever Seen"

[fro daddy]

I think there is fear of what it does to the other teams, not just Miami. If the death penalty is given, that leaves an opening for all conference and some non-con teams that they must scramble to fill. If you TV ban them, then you punish every team they play against also. However, if you strip them of scholarships, and I mean a lot of scholarships, ban them from any postseason play for years & if possible back away income from the conference. Those actions hurt only Miami. And I am talking like the loss of 15-20 or more scholarships a season for a minimum of 5 years. Post season ban for a minimum of 5 years. Loss of conference and all shared postseason revenue tied to Football, basketball and any other connected sports for a minimum of 5 years. That would basically kill that program. It would do nearly as much damage, if not more, to the program as killing it for one season. And it would not have any harm spread to the other ACC or noncon opponent schools.

Imagine the impact of losing 100 scholarship athletes from your program over a 5 year period. The impact of no opportunity to play in bowl games for a recruits entire time on campus. The impact of losing 10's of millions of dollars to a program that already struggles with money and a fickle fan base.

 

[Creed]

How much does political correctness come into play here? SMU was considered a rich "white" man's school and the paid player that broke the story was white. Miami is seen as as school that gives opportunities to a lot of african-americans from the poor areas of south Florida. Would the NCAA want to be see as taking away those opportunities?

Really? You think race/color has anything to do with this?

Not directly but I am sure a potential backlash is in the back of their minds. What happens when large retail businesses, low-income housing, schools, YMCAs, etc close in poor areas? There is backlash from the community and the race issue comes up.

 

[knapplc]

How much does political correctness come into play here? SMU was considered a rich "white" man's school and the paid player that broke the story was white. Miami is seen as as school that gives opportunities to a lot of african-americans from the poor areas of south Florida. Would the NCAA want to be see as taking away those opportunities?

Really? You think race/color has anything to do with this?

Not directly but I am sure a potential backlash is in the back of their minds. What happens when large retail businesses, low-income housing, schools, YMCAs, etc close in poor areas? There is backlash from the community and the race issue comes up.

If it's in the back of their minds, it's waaay back, like occupying >1% of their concern over how to proceed. College football is so segregated these days that I doubt there's a team in D1A whose roster is less than 40% Black. SMU's death penalty is such ancient news by today's standards that I doubt most people could name ten guys from their roster without google, and the racial makeup of that team is probably even less well known.

It's an interesting angle on this, but I really think it's a non-issue.

 

[knapplc]

I think there is fear of what it does to the other teams, not just Miami. If the death penalty is given, that leaves an opening for all conference and some non-con teams that they must scramble to fill. If you TV ban them, then you punish every team they play against also. However, if you strip them of scholarships, and I mean a lot of scholarships, ban them from any postseason play for years & if possible back away income from the conference. Those actions hurt only Miami. And I am talking like the loss of 15-20 or more scholarships a season for a minimum of 5 years. Post season ban for a minimum of 5 years. Loss of conference and all shared postseason revenue tied to Football, basketball and any other connected sports for a minimum of 5 years. That would basically kill that program. It would do nearly as much damage, if not more, to the program as killing it for one season. And it would not have any harm spread to the other ACC or noncon opponent schools.

Imagine the impact of losing 100 scholarship athletes from your program over a 5 year period. The impact of no opportunity to play in bowl games for a recruit’s entire time on campus. The impact of losing 10's of millions of dollars to a program that already struggles with money and a fickle fan base.

That's a good possible "new Death Penalty," actually, but even that would have ramifications for the ACC.

 

[wildman]

I think there is fear of what it does to the other teams, not just Miami. If the death penalty is given, that leaves an opening for all conference and some non-con teams that they must scramble to fill. If you TV ban them, then you punish every team they play against also. However, if you strip them of scholarships, and I mean a lot of scholarships, ban them from any postseason play for years & if possible back away income from the conference. Those actions hurt only Miami. And I am talking like the loss of 15-20 or more scholarships a season for a minimum of 5 years. Post season ban for a minimum of 5 years. Loss of conference and all shared postseason revenue tied to Football, basketball and any other connected sports for a minimum of 5 years. That would basically kill that program. It would do nearly as much damage, if not more, to the program as killing it for one season. And it would not have any harm spread to the other ACC or noncon opponent schools.

Imagine the impact of losing 100 scholarship athletes from your program over a 5 year period. The impact of no opportunity to play in bowl games for a recruit’s entire time on campus. The impact of losing 10's of millions of dollars to a program that already struggles with money and a fickle fan base.

That would be a decent penalty. But not allowing them to compete period for 2 or 3 years in the sports involved would also only hurt Miami.

 

[irafreak]

Do you think they will vacate the 2001 BCS national championship to Nebraska?

As badly as we got beat in that game, combined with the fact that we were only there due to a freakish calculation of the numbers and added to the fact that we got absolutely depantsed by Colorado the game before, I don't want that title. It would be a bigger embarrassment if they gave it to us. They should just vacate it and leave it alone.

If anyone would be worthy of a vacated title it would've been Oregon. Undefeated and handled Colorado just fine...

 

[GSG]

Get your T-shirts!

http://www.sportscrack.com/tees_dauboatsnhoes.html

 

[Hercules]

Do you think they will vacate the 2001 BCS national championship to Nebraska?

As badly as we got beat in that game, combined with the fact that we were only there due to a freakish calculation of the numbers and added to the fact that we got absolutely depantsed by Colorado the game before, I don't want that title. It would be a bigger embarrassment if they gave it to us. They should just vacate it and leave it alone.

If anyone would be worthy of a vacated title it would've been Oregon. Undefeated and handled Colorado just fine...

they weren't undefeated. they had one loss.

 

[GSG]

Do you think they will vacate the 2001 BCS national championship to Nebraska?

As badly as we got beat in that game, combined with the fact that we were only there due to a freakish calculation of the numbers and added to the fact that we got absolutely depantsed by Colorado the game before, I don't want that title. It would be a bigger embarrassment if they gave it to us. They should just vacate it and leave it alone.

If anyone would be worthy of a vacated title it would've been Oregon. Undefeated and handled Colorado just fine...

they weren't undefeated. they had one loss.

Yep. They lost to unranked Stanford, 49-42 at Autzen

 

[Hercules]

I think there is fear of what it does to the other teams, not just Miami. If the death penalty is given, that leaves an opening for all conference and some non-con teams that they must scramble to fill. If you TV ban them, then you punish every team they play against also. However, if you strip them of scholarships, and I mean a lot of scholarships, ban them from any postseason play for years & if possible back away income from the conference. Those actions hurt only Miami. And I am talking like the loss of 15-20 or more scholarships a season for a minimum of 5 years. Post season ban for a minimum of 5 years. Loss of conference and all shared postseason revenue tied to Football, basketball and any other connected sports for a minimum of 5 years. That would basically kill that program. It would do nearly as much damage, if not more, to the program as killing it for one season. And it would not have any harm spread to the other ACC or noncon opponent schools.

Imagine the impact of losing 100 scholarship athletes from your program over a 5 year period. The impact of no opportunity to play in bowl games for a recruit’s entire time on campus. The impact of losing 10's of millions of dollars to a program that already struggles with money and a fickle fan base.

While I'm sure that drastically limiting their scholarships would hurt their program, it might also be more incentive for a couple rich boosters to spend even more money in the effort to get actual talent to come and play for them.

I don't think there's much you can do in this situation except give them the actual death penalty, and shut the program down for a year or a few years. Right now, if there are football players on that campus, no matter how much they suck, there are going to be boosters giving them money and drugs and prostitutes.

 

[redblooded]

I think there is fear of what it does to the other teams, not just Miami. If the death penalty is given, that leaves an opening for all conference and some non-con teams that they must scramble to fill. If you TV ban them, then you punish every team they play against also. However, if you strip them of scholarships, and I mean a lot of scholarships, ban them from any postseason play for years & if possible back away income from the conference. Those actions hurt only Miami. And I am talking like the loss of 15-20 or more scholarships a season for a minimum of 5 years. Post season ban for a minimum of 5 years. Loss of conference and all shared postseason revenue tied to Football, basketball and any other connected sports for a minimum of 5 years. That would basically kill that program. It would do nearly as much damage, if not more, to the program as killing it for one season. And it would not have any harm spread to the other ACC or noncon opponent schools.

Imagine the impact of losing 100 scholarship athletes from your program over a 5 year period. The impact of no opportunity to play in bowl games for a recruit’s entire time on campus. The impact of losing 10's of millions of dollars to a program that already struggles with money and a fickle fan base.

While I'm sure that drastically limiting their scholarships would hurt their program, it might also be more incentive for a couple rich boosters to spend even more money in the effort to get actual talent to come and play for them.

I don't think there's much you can do in this situation except give them the actual death penalty, and shut the program down for a year or a few years. Right now, if there are football players on that campus, no matter how much they suck, there are going to be boosters giving them money and drugs and prostitutes.

You can give a program the death penalty without giving them the death penalty though I think was the point. As for the rich boosters thing, well that would be a hilarious reaction to harsh sanctions on Miami's part. Somehow I don't think some booster is going to see the solution to this being "well, I guess we'll just have to cheat harder!"

But as far as it only hurting Miami with longer term major scholarship reductions, that's something I don't believe. It hurts entire conferences to basically destroy a team, but the NCAA needs to somehow divorce itself from having money or school's stature play any part of penalties if they want to be taken seriously.

 

[Fuzzy]

From what I heard, much of the NCAA is afraid to use the Death Penalty, because of Tue impact it had on SMU and its conference. Lombardi went on to quote that the Death Penalty war like the nuclear bomb when it came to NCAA punishments. It was something that at all cost the NCAA would try and avoid.

 

[VectorVictor]

SMU's death penalty is such ancient news by today's standards that I doubt most people could name ten guys from their roster without google, and the racial makeup of that team is probably even less well known.

Craig James' ego is that of ten normal guys, so just saying him satisfies your request, yes?

 

[VectorVictor]

I think there is fear of what it does to the other teams, not just Miami. If the death penalty is given, that leaves an opening for all conference and some non-con teams that they must scramble to fill. If you TV ban them, then you punish every team they play against also. However, if you strip them of scholarships, and I mean a lot of scholarships, ban them from any postseason play for years & if possible back away income from the conference. Those actions hurt only Miami. And I am talking like the loss of 15-20 or more scholarships a season for a minimum of 5 years. Post season ban for a minimum of 5 years. Loss of conference and all shared postseason revenue tied to Football, basketball and any other connected sports for a minimum of 5 years. That would basically kill that program. It would do nearly as much damage, if not more, to the program as killing it for one season. And it would not have any harm spread to the other ACC or noncon opponent schools.

Imagine the impact of losing 100 scholarship athletes from your program over a 5 year period. The impact of no opportunity to play in bowl games for a recruit’s entire time on campus. The impact of losing 10's of millions of dollars to a program that already struggles with money and a fickle fan base.

That's a good possible "new Death Penalty," actually, but even that would have ramifications for the ACC.

This is exactly why the "impact to other teams" argument doesn't hold any water--no matter what you do, you're going to impact the teams in that conference with Miami and anyone (including DoNU) that has a non-con game with them. It's impossible to penalize Miami with it not impacting the conference they're in or the teams they agreed to play.

In essence, Fro, instead of giving 'death' to Miami, your idea would turn them into a shambling zombie of a program. That action still has a significant and, ultimately, similar impact to a death penalty--the punishment is simply protracted across, say, a decade or two instead of one or two years. And there's something to be said about a quick, merciful death.

Ultimately, I honestly think any argument against the NCAA death penalty that is predicated on mitigating impact is really disingenuous. Punishment should be metered due to the crimes committed, influenced by past history, and tempered by any good works or openness to cooperation that the institution provides--not by how it will impact the neighbors.

 

[knapplc]

This is a pleasant surprise. Mark Emmert tells USAToday that the COI isn't against using the Death Penalty:

LINK

Asked if a return to the "death penalty" ? shutting down a program for a year or more, a sanction already in the books but used only once against a major-college program (Southern Methodist in 1987) ? would serve that purpose, he said, "We need to make sure that we've got, for the committee on infractions, all the tools they need to create those kinds of deterrents.
"If that includes the death penalty, I'm fine with that."