Syracuse self imposes one year ban for THIS season | Page 5 | The Boneyard

Syracuse self imposes one year ban for THIS season

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the entire ride into work this morning, I listened to Greenberg from Mike and Mike go on a tirade about how unfair this was to the kids presently on the team. I really didn't listen to Mike and Mike back then, but was he as vocal in his support of the innocent UConn kids when they went through their ordeal? Before anyone answers, I'm betting NO.
 
you think it would make the front page of espn or on of the photos for mens bball... nope a little link on the top right
 
Since this is the basketball program's 2nd NCAA Tournament ban for infractions under Boeheim's watch, does this taint his legacy? Two time offenders have a tougher time getting people to forget. Or since there was 22 years between the bans do people forget?

By the way, back in 1992 the NCAA didn't agree with Syracuse's suggested penalties and instituted stronger penalties. The NCAA had more teeth back then though. Now they're running scared from the P5 conferences and I would not be surprised if the NCAA accepts this rather meaningless ban and tells everyone to move on.

N.C.A.A. Calls a Two-Year Foul on Syracuse (1992 infractions announced)
 
"I think the basketball coach should have been aware some of these problems were occurring," he said. "There were some things that could have indicated some problems. Had there been a little more attention to those problems initially, the rest of this would not have occurred."

Can you give him the benefit of a doubt twice?
...
"Although one violation is one too many, there was no pattern to the violations here," said Kenneth Shaw, the Syracuse chancellor. "This is not a maverick athletic program."

Uh apparently not.
 
Andddd there's already a t-shirt: http://www.mannysonline.com/product.aspx?id=17420&l=Default

Cuse_Strong_ad_2015.jpg
 
.-.
I have a special use in mind for that t-shirt. I'm sure many of you are thinking about that same use.
 
.-.
UMass said:
For the entire ride into work this morning, I listened to Greenberg from Mike and Mike go on a tirade about how unfair this was to the kids presently on the team. I really didn't listen to Mike and Mike back then, but was he as vocal in his support of the innocent UConn kids when they went through their ordeal? Before anyone answers, I'm betting NO.
Expand ...

Its one thing if NCAA screws over some kids - par for the course.

But here we have Syracuse screwing over their own current players to hopefully benefit the program in the future. I think that's what Greenberg and others in the media are so upset about. It's disgusting.

UConn's administration thought the current students were being wronged by the NCAA and went to bat for them. Unfortunately the media didn't seem to care, but as I fan I appreciate that they tried. Syracuse doesn't have anything to be proud about.
 
Jerry1714 said:
I, nor do you, know all the facts.

I think the APR is garbage but its the rules, 1 year ban if you screw up, we screwed up. We knew the rules and requirements and did not meet them.

I think Cuse will get hit with a scholly or 2 loss still (and a 2 year ban is still an option), but when has a team got hit with a two year ban? Has it ever happened in basketball?
Expand ...

Yes and no.

Yes, you are absolutely right that no one knows the facts despite this investigation being ongoing for 8 freaking years there have been few leaks.

Yes UConn knew the rules for the APR and the rules did not change. However you are wrong about a key part, the punishment. The punishment was what was changed. During the years UConn was well below the APR level the initial punishment was set at warning, loss of scholarship and then after repeated misses on APR score with no improvement a NCAAT ban. The NCAA changed the punishment without giving schools (UConn) a chance to improve the scores. The scores were literally already in before the punishment was changed. So yes UConn knew they would be punished but the severity was thought to be much lower.

The best way to frame it is knowing the law for stealing a candy bar in a nice area of town is a fine of $100. You steal the candy bar thinking you can get away with it once because you haven't had any issue before, it's not hurting anyone much you don't have any cash on hand and you are hungry. You get caught and have to pay the fine. You are set to pay the fine after some back and forth with paperwork. Suddenly the newly elected judge who you had fired when he was a teenager decides stealing a candy bar is a felony (but only for those who steal from that one store because he doesn't want to be mean to people who live in poorer areas) punishable by a year in jail. Of course this punishment is going to go back retroactively for a year. Even though there are others who have stolen from the store, you are the only one who has stolen in the past year. You knew it was a crime to steal but you didn't know the penalty. Congrats you are fd and in jail for a year.

People are frustrated because of the way this is being portrayed by the media. UConn and Calhoun were demonized for the APR penalty. Cuse is being portrayed as a victim for what may be straight cheating.

Really, many are jumping the gun.
 
caw said:
Yes and no.

Yes, you are absolutely right that no one knows the facts despite this investigation being ongoing for 8 freaking years there have been few leaks.

Yes UConn knew the rules for the APR and the rules did not change. However you are wrong about a key part, the punishment. The punishment was what was changed. During the years UConn was well below the APR level the initial punishment was set at warning, loss of scholarship and then after repeated misses on APR score with no improvement a NCAAT ban. The NCAA changed the punishment without giving schools (UConn) a chance to improve the scores. The scores were literally already in before the punishment was changed. So yes UConn knew they would be punished but the severity was thought to be much lower.

The best way to frame it is knowing the law for stealing a candy bar in a nice area of town is a fine of $100. You steal the candy bar thinking you can get away with it once because you haven't had any issue before, it's not hurting anyone much you don't have any cash on hand and you are hungry. You get caught and have to pay the fine. You are set to pay the fine after some back and forth with paperwork. Suddenly the newly elected judge who you had fired when he was a teenager decides stealing a candy bar is a felony (but only for those who steal from that one store because he doesn't want to be mean to people who live in poorer areas) punishable by a year in jail. Of course this punishment is going to go back retroactively for a year. Even though there are others who have stolen from the store, you are the only one who has stolen in the past year. You knew it was a crime to steal but you didn't know the penalty. Congrats you are fd and in jail for a year.

People are frustrated because of the way this is being portrayed by the media. UConn and Calhoun were demonized for the APR penalty. Cuse is being portrayed as a victim for what may be straight cheating.

Really, many are jumping the gun.
Expand ...
I agree with basically everything you said, and yes the punishment did change, not the rules.

There is a ton of national media, mainly outside of Bristol, killing Syracuse for this, people just hear what they want to hear.
 
Semantics. UConn were playing basket ball and a player travelled, you would expect to lose possession. But what if the ref suddenly said travelling is now two shots and the ball. By your logic that would not be a rule change, only a punishment change. I think most would view it differently.

I think a better analogy than minor theft is speeding. Myself and others have used it before. Say on October 31st of last year you were pulled over for speeding. You got your ticket and paid your fine and moved on. On January 2nd of this year, a two truck pulls up to your house and says they are taking your car because of your speeding. You say hey, I paid my ticket but they say oh we changed the law effective Jan 1. the penalty for speeding is forfeiture. You reply, but I haven't sped since then. They reply yes we know but we are applying it retroactively. You probably would perceive that as a law change, but it would only be a penalty change.

Cuse is a different circumstance. The rule was in place. They willfully broke it and then hid it. That must be sanctioned severely to maintain the integrity of the enforcement system.
 
.-.
Just got notified that I have been banned on the Cusefan board. They read the Boneyard, cause I haven't posted on there for years. No big loss. Scumbags.


Damn it's snowing again.
 
uconnell said:
Just got notified that I have been banned on the Cusefan board. They read the Boneyard, cause I haven't posted on there for years. No big loss. Scumbags.


Damn it's snowing again.
Expand ...
I know cto is a regular here, and I always enjoy her posts. But my god, that Cuse board has become pathetic.

It's now a bunch of petty, miserable, childish human beings running that board.

*awaits notification of ban*
 
CL82 said:
I think a better analogy than minor theft is speeding. Myself and others have used it before. Say on October 31st of last year you were pulled over for speeding. You got your ticket and paid your fine and moved on. On January 2nd of this year, a two truck pulls up to your house and says they are taking your car because of your speeding. You say hey, I paid my ticket but they say oh we changed the law effective Jan 1. the penalty for speeding is forfeiture. You reply, but I haven't sped since then. They reply yes we know but we are applying it retroactively. You probably would perceive that as a law change, but it would only be a penalty change.
Expand ...

I think it's even worse than that. UConn was guilty of acting like a university -- having no sham classes, having no summer and intersession classes to let athletes complete the full year academic requirements by January, giving athletes Fs when they failed -- and was punished for it. The APR is a sham created for public relations purposes, so that schools that credit athletes with academic success for fake As in worthless summer and intersession classes can be held up to the public as academic paragons.

So here's the fix for your speeding analogy. It's as if the highway has a minimum speed of 45 and maximum speed of 65, corresponding to traditional academic standards. Everyone drives 75 except UConn who obeys the speed limit. The police (NCAA) create a fake radar gun that records speeds 20 mph too low. All the schools driving 75 then appear to be driving within the legal range, while UConn driving at 60 shows on the radar gun as driving 40. The police/NCAA punish UConn for going below the minimum speed, and brag about how every school but one is obeying the speed limits.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,148
Messages
4,554,831
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom