Creighton Infractions | The Boneyard

Creighton Infractions

rollskies said:
Expand ...

1624367711876.gif
 
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.
 



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.
 
Fishy said:
This wasn’t a major case - penalties seem in line with what they probably deserved.
Expand ...
The big penalty is the show cause. It seems that the NCAA dislikes being lied to. Who knew?
 
CL82 said:
The big penalty is the show cause. It seems that the NCAA dislikes being lied to. Who knew?
Expand ...

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

1624396213993.png

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.
 
Last edited:
CL82 said:
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.
Expand ...

Gotcha.
 

Online statistics

Members online
236
Guests online
2,857
Total visitors
3,093
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,257
Messages
4,389,379
Members
10,196
Latest member
Whizzlerr


.
..
Top Bottom