Creighton Infractions

[rollskies]

 

[Austin316]

 

[rip7774]

top 5-10 class with a coach on hot seat, reminds me when clemson football was like 5-7 or 6-6 and they bought everyone to solidify Dabo's job when he was new/interim. No rhyme or reason as to how that would work.

 

[Sonofabeach]

Slap on the hand

 

[CL82]

Slap on the hand

Perhaps, or, given that it is not a P5 school, a disproportionately harsh penalty?

 

[Nebraskan18]

Perhaps, or, given that it is not a P5 school, a disproportionately harsh penalty?

Please be this one.

 

[CL82]

Please be this one.

Haha, you know I'm not quite there yet on my level of Creighton dislike yet., even though their fans are:

 

[Nebraskan18]

The ideal scenario for me personally is creighton getting banned from NCAAB for life

 

[rollskies]

 

[huskymedic]

The committee classified the case as Level I-mitigated for the school, Level I-aggravated for the former assistant coach and Level II-mitigated for the athletics director. The committee used the Division I membership-approved infractions penalty guidelines to prescribe the following measures:

• Two years of probation.
• A $5,000 fine plus 1% of the men’s basketball program budget.
• A reduction of men’s basketball scholarships by one per year for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 academic years (self-imposed by the university).
• A reduction of men’s basketball official visits by six during the 2021-22/2022-23 rolling two-year period (self-imposed by the university).
• A reduction in the number of men’s basketball recruiting person days by 10% from the previous four-year average for the two-year probationary period (self-imposed by the university).
• The university will prohibit complimentary admission to home games for all prospects and coaches in November 2021 (self-imposed by the university).
• A two-year show-cause order for the former assistant coach. During that period, any NCAA member school employing him must restrict him from any athletically related duties unless it shows cause why the restrictions should not apply.

 

[mauconnfan]

Obviously anything they did wasn't as bad as UConns APR year . The NCAA is pathetic, Emerett is pitiful!

 

[ucp990411]

Did their players have to take real classes?

 

[HooperScooper]

Anyone know who the assistant coach is that received the 2 year show cause penalty?

 

[huskymedic]

Anyone know who the assistant coach is that received the 2 year show cause penalty?

Preston Murphy

 

[Tiamat7]

Slap on the wrist, but no significant damage to the program.

 

[Fishy]

This wasn’t a major case - penalties seem in line with what they probably deserved.

 

[CL82]

Slap on the wrist, but no significant damage to the program.

Which is all good. As a conference we benefit from their success, at least right now. At least until another BE teams bumps them in the upper half of the league.

 

[CL82]

This wasn’t a major case - penalties seem in line with what they probably deserved.

The big penalty is the show cause. It seems that the NCAA dislikes being lied to. Who knew?

 

[Fishy]

The big penalty is the show cause. It seems that the NCAA dislikes being lied to. Who knew?

He got the show cause for initially accepting the money. I don’t think he lied to the NCAA.

 

[CL82]

He got the show cause for initially accepting the money. I don’t think he lied to the NCAA.

Here, however, when completing the questionnaire and when interviewed by the enforcement staff, the assistant coach did not acknowledge that his conduct ran afoul of core principles and standards of conduct. As such, the assistant coach's failure to acknowledge such conduct establishes further violations. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1, the violations are Level I because they seriously undermine and threaten the integrity of the collegiate model. See Bylaw 19.1.1-(d) (identifying individual unethical or dishonest conduct as an example of Level I behaviors). The COI regularly concludes that Level I violations occur when individuals provide false or misleading information. See Georgia Institute of Technology (2019) (concluding that the assistant coach committed Level I violations when he lied in an interview and denied involvement in the underlying violations and attempted to persuade a student-athlete to lie) and University of the Pacific (2017) (concluding that Level I violations occurred when a head coach and assistant coach were untruthful in their interviews). The assistant coach's actions in filling out the questionnaire and his later denials during his interview were false and misleading. As such, Level I violations occurred.

Link to decision Quoted text is on page 19.

Regarding Bylaw 19.9.3-(e), the panel's analysis is also uncomplicated. This assistant coach's conduct established multiple unethical conduct violations, including his provision of false and misleading information on two occasions. The panel is not indifferent to the frequent arguments that application of this factor results in "double dipping" or holding a party accountable for the underlying conduct and then aggravating the party's case for the same conduct. That, however, is how the NCAA membership has constructed its infractions program. The membership was intentional in identifying certain behaviors that were unacceptable and the mere presence of a violation could result in the application of an aggravating factor. Unethical conduct is one of those behaviors. The COI has regularly applied Bylaw 19.9.3-(e) in similar circumstances where underlying conduct established unethical conduct violations. See USC, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina and Alabama.

Above quote from page 27.

 

[Fishy]

Here, however, when completing the questionnaire and when interviewed by the enforcement staff, the assistant coach did not acknowledge that his conduct ran afoul of core principles and standards of conduct. As such, the assistant coach's failure to acknowledge such conduct establishes further violations. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1, the violations are Level I because they seriously undermine and threaten the integrity of the collegiate model. See Bylaw 19.1.1-(d) (identifying individual unethical or dishonest conduct as an example of Level I behaviors). The COI regularly concludes that Level I violations occur when individuals provide false or misleading information. See Georgia Institute of Technology (2019) (concluding that the assistant coach committed Level I violations when he lied in an interview and denied involvement in the underlying violations and attempted to persuade a student-athlete to lie) and University of the Pacific (2017) (concluding that Level I violations occurred when a head coach and assistant coach were untruthful in their interviews). The assistant coach's actions in filling out the questionnaire and his later denials during his interview were false and misleading. As such, Level I violations occurred.

Link to decision Quoted text is on page 19.

Gotcha.