What level of "infractions" would you be okay with?

[Elf]

It usually isn't the coach or any university official that hands the money over. It is done through boosters, businesses and other back channel ways.

 

I would like to think that it hasn't happened here but I am sure it probably has to some extent.

And every school has compliance departments that watch out for this very thing. If the compliance department is doing their job they should catch things like you mentioned.

[Guy Chamberlin]

If Aqib Talib was not thrown out of the game for the deliberate facemask tackle he made yesterday, then nobody should be thrown out of any game.

 

http://nesn.com/2016/02/aqib-talib-committed-facemask-on-purpose-first-personal-foul-was-b-s/

[Bowfin]

part of me says "i feel confident that most other schools are doing it, so is it really cheating?"

 

Ahh, the "Lance Armstrong" defense.

 

The answer to that is if even every other school except one is doing it and one is not, then it is absolutely still cheating, just done on a more massive scale.

[Bowfin]

Navy seals have a motto: if you're not cheating, you're not trying.

 

Actually, the original saying (as stolen from the U.S. Army) was, "If you go into a war and expect it to be a fair fight, then you haven't trained hard enough". That is about the only acceptable carry over that would apply to sports.

[Enhance]

part of me says "i feel confident that most other schools are doing it, so is it really cheating?" the other part says "do we want to go down this road and get the USC treatment 10 years down the road?"

Personally, I'd rather endure rough times than win a title and later be stripped of it. The BCS stripping USC of the title, and the sanctions/coaches that followed, pretty much sent that program down the toilet. I think they need to get the right coach in there because they've been recruiting really well still.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

If Aqib Talib was not thrown out of the game for the deliberate facemask tackle he made yesterday, then nobody should be thrown out of any game.

 

http://nesn.com/2016/02/aqib-talib-committed-facemask-on-purpose-first-personal-foul-was-b-s/

 

Think you may have missed the point of the thread.

 

 

Yeah, I was thinking of the Rules Change thread.

[JJ Husker]

It usually isn't the coach or any university official that hands the money over. It is done through boosters, businesses and other back channel ways.

 

I would like to think that it hasn't happened here but I am sure it probably has to some extent.

I'm curious, why would you like to think it hasn't happened here?

 

A few posts back you were sticking up for cheating like there was nothing wrong with it. What changed?

[junior4949]

On one hand, I'd like to think it hasn't happened here. On the other hand, I have to believe it has. When a coach breaks the law by tampering with witnesses and withholding a weapon wanted in a felony, one has to assume we've probably broken some NCAA rules.

[teachercd]

Uh oh...3...2...1

[cm husker]

On one hand, I'd like to think it hasn't happened here. On the other hand, I have to believe it has. When a coach breaks the law by tampering with witnesses and withholding a weapon wanted in a felony, one has to assume we've probably broken some NCAA rules.

You really should do some research. I know he's a public figure so the standard is higher, but you're toeing the line of libel.

[Landlord]

 

On one hand, I'd like to think it hasn't happened here. On the other hand, I have to believe it has. When a coach breaks the law by tampering with witnesses and withholding a weapon wanted in a felony, one has to assume we've probably broken some NCAA rules.

You really should do some research. I know he's a public figure so the standard is higher, but you're toeing the line of libel.

 

 

 

That's not really libel. It's factually accurate. Osborne locked the gun away in a safe, and talked to the woman before the police did.

[cm husker]

 

 

On one hand, I'd like to think it hasn't happened here. On the other hand, I have to believe it has. When a coach breaks the law by tampering with witnesses and withholding a weapon wanted in a felony, one has to assume we've probably broken some NCAA rules.

You really should do some research. I know he's a public figure so the standard is higher, but you're toeing the line of libel.

Would have to prove falsity of statements, actual malice and damages. This is not even close to libel.

I know the standard. Which is why I stated "toed the linel" and pointed out the fact Osborne is a public figure and subject to a higher standard. I was also using a little message board hyperbole to match the original posts tone (tampering with witnesses and withholding evidence).

 

That said, everyone involved other than a single prosecutor has said categorically that TO did not "withhold evidence." In fact, he immediately notified the police it was in his possession and locked it in a secure place until it was requested.

 

There's also no evidence he "tampered with witnesses." He had an obligation to the program and the player to understand the nature and veracity of a charge so he could determine an appropriate punishment prior to waiting for a full legal outcome.

 

Does anyone have any evidence at all that he actually tampered with a witness or otherwise suborned perjury or encouraged people to make false statements to law enforcement?

[cm husker]

 

 

 

On one hand, I'd like to think it hasn't happened here. On the other hand, I have to believe it has. When a coach breaks the law by tampering with witnesses and withholding a weapon wanted in a felony, one has to assume we've probably broken some NCAA rules.

You really should do some research. I know he's a public figure so the standard is higher, but you're toeing the line of libel.

 

That's not really libel. It's factually accurate. Osborne locked the gun away in a safe, and talked to the woman before the police did.

There's a looooong jump between what you just wrote and "tampering with witnesses and withholding evidence." Attaching intent is certainly an important factor.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

On one hand, I'd like to think it hasn't happened here. On the other hand, I have to believe it has. When a coach breaks the law by tampering with witnesses and withholding a weapon wanted in a felony, one has to assume we've probably broken some NCAA rules.

You really should do some research. I know he's a public figure so the standard is higher, but you're toeing the line of libel.

 

That's not really libel. It's factually accurate. Osborne locked the gun away in a safe, and talked to the woman before the police did.

There's a looooong jump between what you just wrote and "tampering with witnesses and withholding evidence." Attaching intent is certainly an important factor.

 

 

 

 

What I just wrote fits the legal descriptions of tampering with witnesses and withholding evidence. If you want to talk about those things in the true, literal definition of the words, that's fine, but legally, that's what they were.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

On one hand, I'd like to think it hasn't happened here. On the other hand, I have to believe it has. When a coach breaks the law by tampering with witnesses and withholding a weapon wanted in a felony, one has to assume we've probably broken some NCAA rules.

You really should do some research. I know he's a public figure so the standard is higher, but you're toeing the line of libel.

 

That's not really libel. It's factually accurate. Osborne locked the gun away in a safe, and talked to the woman before the police did.

There's a looooong jump between what you just wrote and "tampering with witnesses and withholding evidence." Attaching intent is certainly an important factor.

 

 

 

 

What I just wrote fits the legal descriptions of tampering with witnesses and withholding evidence. If you want to talk about those things in the true, literal definition of the words, that's fine, but legally, that's what they were.

 

 

 

Where are you pulling your legal standards? Hope you're not an attorney...

 

Have you heard the term "intent"?

 

Do you think any time you possess a piece of evidence or speak to a potential witness, you are withholding and tampering, respectively?