Probation for champs

[AboutWeston]

Am I missing something? Is this worse than the men's team at UCONN? Or not?

This seems to me to be very embarrassing for women's college basketball and for that matter Baylor in general.

http://news.yahoo.com/ncaa-puts-baylor-basketball-3-years-probation-193606973--spt.html

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Am I missing something? Is this worse than the men's team at UCONN? Or not?

This seems to me to be very embarrassing for women's college basketball and for that matter Baylor in general.

http://news.yahoo.com/ncaa-puts-baylor-basketball-3-years-probation-193606973--spt.html

On the women's side, eh, embarassing yes, all that major, no. In fact, I suspect if the women's violations were all there was to it, we might never have heard about them and / or only heard about them because of the championship / Griner connection.

On the men's side, it was a bit more sordid. I don't know the exact men's UConn details but I think it is probably comparable - not exactly the same and a bit more extensive (maybe) but comparable.

I still remember talking to a well respected compliance officer many years ago who pointed out that the compliance officers job is to interpret the rules as favorably as possible for their institution - but not beyond what could be considered reasonable. Some schools go too far, by interpreting the rules obviously incorrectly, which is just not appropriate. The second thing I was told was that violations (real and otherwise) are a dime a dozen. Sorting out the significant and real from the completely insignificant and / or not real at all (something you guys experienced) is what makes the NCAA's job even more difficult.

 

[Dairyair]

A) Don't care about the men...sorry, I just don't.
B) Not sure how "embarrassing " this is for the women...minor crime (IMO) and virtually NO penalties...it sure isn't like they lost a schollie or was banned from post-season play. As someone said in another thread, "minor violations" for a shot at BG would rate high on the risk/reward scale.

 

[easttexastrash]

I don't find this embarrassing at all. Mulkey contacted BG and her parents after BG had already verballed so it is not as if she gained any sort of recruiting advantage from the contact. Mulkey's comments (see below) about her AAU game attendance also makes it pretty clear that the NCAA found no evidence of violations in that situation.

Signing BG is what motivated those other players to sign with Baylor. They all played on the same AAU team and surely knew that they had the makings of a national championship team. These are the same girls who are basically all declaring the same major, albeit in a bit of an embarrassing one. Someone on this board even used the word "clustering." The clustered to Baylor just like they clustered with their majors.

"The other matters were related to my daughter's participation in summer basketball," she said. "While I am and will always be a mother first, I do recognize that there has to be a balance between my role as a mother of a prospect and my role as a head coach. I have always tried to strike that balance and appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate to the NCAA staff such balancing efforts dating back to when Makenzie was in the seventh grade. I am pleased that my efforts to find the appropriate balance between a mother and a coach were recognized."

I have to wonder if Vopel will ever get an interview from Mulkey again. She sure was quick to jump on this and admonish Mulkey.

 

[Icebear]

I don't find this embarrassing at all. Mulkey contacted BG and her parents after BG had already verballed so it is not as if she gained any sort of recruiting advantage from the contact. Mulkey's comments (see below) about her AAU game attendance also makes it pretty clear that the NCAA found no evidence of violations in that situation.

Signing BG is what motivated those other players to sign with Baylor. They all played on the same AAU team and surely knew that they had the makings of a national championship team. These are the same girls who are basically all declaring the same major, albeit in a bit of an embarrassing one. Someone on this board even used the word "clustering." The clustered to Baylor just like they clustered with their majors.

"The other matters were related to my daughter's participation in summer basketball," she said. "While I am and will always be a mother first, I do recognize that there has to be a balance between my role as a mother of a prospect and my role as a head coach. I have always tried to strike that balance and appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate to the NCAA staff such balancing efforts dating back to when Makenzie was in the seventh grade. I am pleased that my efforts to find the appropriate balance between a mother and a coach were recognized."

I have to wonder if Vopel will ever get an interview from Mulkey again. She sure was quick to jump on this and admonish Mulkey.

Her comments simply divert from the real issue. It had nothing to do with being a mother first. There is nothing in the rules preventing her from attending her daughters games or running the camps. What is inappropriate is what she did with those opportunities sitting with the parents of potential and current recruits.

 

[easttexastrash]

Her comments simply divert from the real issue. It had nothing to do with being a mother first. There is nothing in the rules preventing her from attending her daughters games or running the camps. What is inappropriate is what she did with those opportunities sitting with the parents of potential and current recruits.

And what did she do? What has been proven that she did? Has there been any proof that she used sitting with parents to her advantage? The NCAA apparently was satisfied with what they found when it comes to that subject.

 

[Icebear]

And what did she do? What has been proven that she did? Has there been any proof that she used sitting with parents to her advantage?

Kitty's account and Voepel's

 

[easttexastrash]

Kitty's account and Voepel's

Kitty is a bitter Texas Tech fan and Vopel is a reporter who was not involved in the investigation. I'll go with the NCAA, who completed a thorough investigation. You can go with a bitter Baylor rival and Vopel if you so choose.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You seem determined to believe that Mulkey is guilty of more despite the results of a three year investigation that says otherwise. I guess it will always be similar to the way some Tennessee fans fell about the Maya situation.

 

[HuskyNan]

Kitty is a bitter Texas Tech fan and Vopel is a reporter who was not involved in the investigation. I'll go with the NCAA, who completed a thorough investigation. You can go with a bitter Baylor rival and Vopel if you so choose.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You seem determined to believe that Mulkey is guilty of more despite the results of a three year investigation that says otherwise. I guess it will always be similar to the way some Tennessee fans fell about the Maya situation.

Three things:

1. Kitty is a guest on our board. If you don't like what she said, fine, but you've gone about as far as you're going to be allowed in name-calling. It would lend more credibility to your argument if you attacked the post rather than the poster.
2. Mechelle Voepel has been accused of bias by just about every fan base which actually means she's pretty objective. In truth, she grew to prominence at a Big 12 region newspaper, the Kansas City Star. Her sources of information for Big 12 teams have been impeccable, which may be why she's the first national correspondent to put out an article.
3. If Baylor fans want their team to be a an elite team and championship contender every year, they're going to have to get used to an uncomfortable life under the hot spotlights. It's the B Side of that double-edged sword called Success.

 

[Icebear]

Kitty is a bitter Texas Tech fan and Vopel is a reporter who was not involved in the investigation. I'll go with the NCAA, who completed a thorough investigation. You can go with a bitter Baylor rival and Vopel if you so choose.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You seem determined to believe that Mulkey is guilty of more despite the results of a three year investigation that says otherwise. I guess it will always be similar to the way some Tennessee fans fell about the Maya situation.

No there is distinct difference. One is a pattern of behavior that all parent/coaches are supposed to know is wrong and which events regularly put procedures in place to control for all coaches, even if an event has no such procedures in place the coaches know it is wrong, and a coach from DFW becoming part of the college staff with four starters from that AAU program. Where was the institutional control?

The other was a one time event caused by an office employee dialing and handing a phone to a guest.

As I said it is politic.

Your dismissal of Kitty neglects that none of the facts were disputed but rather were confirmed and the Voepel, too, was simply accurate. Attaboy and others have been through the recruiting process and understand the extent to which coaches are supposed to go. My family has been through it on both the men's and women's side with my nephew and my cousin's daughter.

 

[Benny]

When I read Mulkey`s reaction to the sanctions I hear Jim Calhoun talking. Blame the communications on the compliance department and hide behind the mother/daughter relationship on the AAU charges. Kemba Walker probably saved Calhoun from being a pariah. Griner will save Mulkey, but she is under the microsope now and better take some personal responsibility for bending the rules.
Voepel has written some tremendously positive articles on Mulkey: http://espn.go.com/espnw/title-ix/7732367/kim-mulkey-life-highlight-reel-title-ix-success. I think she showed courage exposing questions other coaches were raising about the Baylor recruiting process. Hopefully this issue is not the start of a series of revelations about the women`s game that will reveal its recruiting is the same cesspool as the men`s. I think that`s why this story has bothered me, especially the AAU coach appearing on Baylor`s staff. Those guys always seem to be trouble.

 

[Icebear]

The AAU issue is the easiest to solve. A rule should be established that no coach may serve on a college staff who served on an AAU staff with a current player. Lot's of college out there. No need to follow or precede the talent.

 

[meyers7]

A) Don't care about the men...sorry, I just don't.
B) Not sure how "embarrassing " this is for the women...minor crime (IMO) and virtually NO penalties...it sure isn't like they lost a schollie or was banned from post-season play. As someone said in another thread, "minor violations" for a shot at BG would rate high on the risk/reward scale.

Actually they did lose 2 scholarships. Per this article:

http://espn.go.com/espnw/college-sp...s-baylor-self-imposed-penalties-text-messages

 

[Bestiarius]

And what did she do? What has been proven that she did? Has there been any proof that she used sitting with parents to her advantage? The NCAA apparently was satisfied with what they found when it comes to that subject.

Just sitting with her parents was an advantage. She shouldn't have done it and she knew it was wrong unless she is stupid, which I'm sure she's not. I was shocked when the NCAA accepted Baylor's take on what the punishment should be. What a joke! It hurt Women's basketball. Those schools that followed the rules must feel like jerks for doing so. This incident is only going to lead to more cheating because the risks don't come anywhere near the benefits. Fans everywhere are encouraging their schools to start cheating because of what happened here.

 

[bruinbball]

She just didn't sit with their parents. She took two players and their parents to a restaurant in between games.

 

[VAUConnFan]

The AAU issue is the easiest to solve. A rule should be established that no coach may serve on a college staff who served on an AAU staff with a current player. Lot's of college out there. No need to follow or precede the talent.

Totally disagree. There is no need to make or change a rule merely because a number of people and programs have benefitted under the current rules. High school coaches, AAU coaches, and parents getting college jobs as a result of relationships with players is nothing new. This position despite often taking issue with those who advance their careers in such a manner(Dick Vitale being among the most high profile example). I just do not believe that the rules need to be changed.

 

[Icebear]

They did not just benefitted but put the integrity of the game at risk. It is not enough that there is not wrong doing there should not even be the appearance of the possibility of wrong doing.

 

[Phil]

Actually they did lose 2 scholarships. Per this article:

http://espn.go.com/espnw/college-sp...s-baylor-self-imposed-penalties-text-messages

Can someone explain what this means?

They are allowed 15 scholarships, they have 13 players, so two were unused. What does it mean to give up a scholarship for a year that is complete?

Isn't this like me agreeing to give up peach ice cream for Lent, the one that just ended? (because I just checked, and I didn't have any)

 

[meyers7]

Can someone explain what this means?

They are allowed 15 scholarships, they have 13 players, so two were unused. What does it mean to give up a scholarship for a year that is complete?

Isn't this like me agreeing to give up peach ice cream for Lent, the one that just ended? (because I just checked, and I didn't have any)

Pretty much. Just like I give up smoking for Lent every year.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Can someone explain what this means?

They are allowed 15 scholarships, they have 13 players, so two were unused. What does it mean to give up a scholarship for a year that is complete?

Isn't this like me agreeing to give up peach ice cream for Lent, the one that just ended? (because I just checked, and I didn't have any)

Actually, the self imposed penalties were put into place before this season - note the other bans of phone calls, etc. This was just the NCAA's stamp of "approval" of the punishments.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Just sitting with her parents was an advantage. She shouldn't have done it and she knew it was wrong unless she is stupid, which I'm sure she's not. I was shocked when the NCAA accepted Baylor's take on what the punishment should be. What a joke! It hurt Women's basketball. Those schools that followed the rules must feel like jerks for doing so. This incident is only going to lead to more cheating because the risks don't come anywhere near the benefits. Fans everywhere are encouraging their schools to start cheating because of what happened here.

Why should the punishment have been that much greater (I could have lived with a couple game suspension of KM). I have been told - by several folks in the business - that these sort of secondary violations are not all that uncommon. Remember, KM was fully in the presence a bunch of other college coaches when she sat with the parents. It was the connection to the much greater men's violations and the recent success of Baylor that made this as prominent as it became.

 

[FairView]

I still don't understand what "probation" entails in this situation? Does it just mean they are being watched more closely and that penalties will be more severe if they get caught?

 

[easttexastrash]

I still don't understand what "probation" entails in this situation? Does it just mean they are being watched more closely and that penalties will be more severe if they get caught?

Damn, I hope we don't get caught on the next one.

 

[Icebear]

Why should the punishment have been that much greater (I could have lived with a couple game suspension of KM). I have been told - by several folks in the business - that these sort of secondary violations are not all that uncommon. Remember, KM was fully in the presence a bunch of other college coaches when she sat with the parents. It was the connection to the much greater men's violations and the recent success of Baylor that made this as prominent as it became.

My understanding was this is not accurate, the other coaches were sitting in a separate area, not in the immediate area.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

My understanding was this is not accurate, the other coaches were sitting in a separate area, not in the immediate area.

What I mean is - the other coaches all saw her sitting with the parents. If she thought it was that "serious" of a violation, I don't think this would be the place to do it.