Syracuse slapped hard by NCAA

[The Funster]

If you had proof this was done, or would have happened, maybe, but there is not.

That would also be a legal nightmare for the NCAA if they did that, and would almost certainly be overturned on appeal.

From the NCAA report:

Over two academic years, two institutional staff members provided three men's basketball student-athletes with impermissible academic assistance and/or services not generally available through the institution's student-athlete support services by creating and providing coursework to the student-athletes.

This occurred 2010-2012. I don't think it is a stretch to infer that aiding 3 players would have had a substantial effect on the team's overall APR for two seasons.

 

[Jerry1714]

Wouldn't the lack of ships tell potential recruits that the starting job is all but theirs for lack of competition?

Maybe, UConn should cut down to 6 schollys if you think this how it works and it is a benefit

 

[7774]

Cuse did not get off easy. The loss of ships alone will cause a lot of second thoughts for the signed class as they can easily back out. For those that haven't committed yet but had Cuse high on their list this will mean trouble. This will likely push JB to retirement and Hopkins is no lock, as others have stated. Even if he was locked he is unproven and brings a second level of question to the recruits. The real losers in this are the local fans. Not only do they have to deal with all of these problems with their beloved team for the next 3+ years but they have to live in Syracuse while this happens.

I would be beyond stunned if any of their 2015 class changes their mind. They got off very easy when you look at what they did and the punishment they got compared to our APR punishment.

 

[Jaker]

Wouldn't the lack of ships tell potential recruits that the starting job is all but theirs for lack of competition?

Cuse did get off easy, JB will be back next season and it will be business as usual.

 

[Excalibur]

then you are clueless

If the penalties are even remotely equivalent (which they are), the prudent decision is to cheat and hope you don't get caught. That's the point that you seem willfully blind to.

 

[Jerry1714]

From the NCAA report:

Over two academic years, two institutional staff members provided three men's basketball student-athletes with impermissible academic assistance and/or services not generally available through the institution's student-athlete support services by creating and providing coursework to the student-athletes.

This occurred 2010-2012. I don't think it is a stretch to infer that aiding 3 players would have had a substantial effect on the team's overall APR for two seasons.

You would need to infer that these players (outside of Melo which seems clear) would have been academically ineligible without the benefits, than you would need to punish based on an inference.

 

[7774]

If the penalties are even remotely equivalent (which they are), the prudent decision is to cheat and hope you don't get caught. That's the point that you seem willfully blind to.

Exactly, when you cheat for 10 years and this is the punishment, where is the incentive to not cheat?

 

[Jerry1714]

If the penalties are even remotely equivalent (which they are), the prudent decision is to cheat and hope you don't get caught. That's the point that you seem willfully blind to.

I am not blind to it, I have an understanding on how a judicial decision or one from an administrative body can be reached, which clearly you do not.

And they are not remotely close, 1 got a 1 year ban, 1 got a year ban, probation, loss of 12 scholarships, recruiting restrictions, vacating wins, ect.

 

[David 76]

It makes no sense to argue that the punishment for accurately and honestly reporting a student's failure should be less severe than the punishment for fraudulently and dishonestly covering it up?

By the way, dropping out of school only affected the APR because it caused the students to fail classes.

I disagree. Ask Nixon

 

[The Funster]

You would need to infer that these players (outside of Melo which seems clear) would have been academically ineligible without the benefits, than you would need to punish based on an inference.

Now I think you are being deliberately obtuse. What would be the point in giving impermissible assistance to students who wouldn't have been declared academically ineligible?

 

[Excalibur]

I am not blind to it, I have an understanding on how a judicial decision or one from an administrative body can be reached, which clearly you do not.


And they are not remotely close, 1 got a 1 year ban, 1 got a year ban, probation, loss of 3 scholarships, recruiting restrictions, vacating wins, ect.

Sh!+, I don't know how a judicial decision is reached? I've apparently been in the wrong profession for the last 13 years. Back to the career drawing board . . .

You got our penalty wrong.

That aside, for Syracuse you have two meaningless penalties (vacating wins and the few pennies that they have to return because of it along with the one-year same season ban which has no affect on recruiting and does not induce players to transfer), and two that have teeth (the recruiting restrictions and scholarship losses).

Our postseason ban for the following year, which can and did induce transfers and affect recruiting, is the most meaningful penalty assigned to either program, plus we lost two scholarships. They lost more scholarships for a longer period of time. You don't think that's remotely close? There are only two explanations as to why you think that, and neither makes you look very good . . .

 

[Excalibur]

Now I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

The first possible explanation . . .

 

[Jerry1714]

Now I think you are being deliberately obtuse. What would be the point in giving impermissible assistance to students who wouldn't have been declared academically ineligible?

Just because there is money missing and I am the account for the company cannot lead to me being found guilty of embezzlement. This is not a hard concept.

If the NCAA wants institute this rationale, fine go ahead, I am all for it, but they do not, and never have. They have a penalty structure and precedent to follow to. This is how it works.

No one outside of UConn fans are using your rationale, and there is a reason why

 

[Jerry1714]

Sh!+, I don't know how a judicial decision is reached? I've apparently been in the wrong profession for the last 13 years. Back to the career drawing board . . .

You got our penalty wrong.

That aside, for Syracuse you have two meaningless penalties (vacating wins and the few pennies that they have to return because of it along with the one-year same season ban which has no affect on recruiting and does not induce players to transfer), and two that have teeth (the recruiting restrictions and scholarship losses).

Our postseason ban for the following year, which can and did induce transfers and affect recruiting, is the most meaningful penalty assigned to either program, plus we lost two scholarships. They lost more scholarships for a longer period of time. You don't think that's remotely close? There are only two explanations as to why you think that, and neither makes you look very good . . .

I guess you have, but we have the same profession is my guess, and there is a reason why there are so many lawyer jokes.............

Find me precedent and use the penalty structure of the NCAA. I won't get into the whole we take 1 year now instead of 2 years as a comprise to many factors........

This is 1st year stuff, maybe you slept through it though..........

 

[David 76]

Stop dumping on espn. I just watched great coverage on espn

 

[upstater]

Maybe, UConn should cut down to 6 schollys if you think this how it works and it is a benefit

Why? It's 3 scholarships, not 8. Big difference.

Are you trying to troll this thread?

Teams usually go 8-9 deep. 6 players leaves you hamstrung.

So please.

Players 10-13 are on the bench.

Get real.

 

[upstater]

You would need to infer that these players (outside of Melo which seems clear) would have been academically ineligible without the benefits, than you would need to punish based on an inference.

No, you wouldn't have to do that. Every single university would automatically sanction any student who didn't turn in their own work. A Harvard kid was suspended for the semester in the middle of semester for doing this.

In fact, this is the crux of the UNC case as well.

 

[Jerry1714]

No, you wouldn't have to do that. Every single university would automatically sanction any student who didn't turn in their own work. A Harvard kid was suspended for the semester in the middle of semester for doing this.

In fact, this is the crux of the UNC case as well.

Clearly you missed the point, but you also think losing 3 schollys for 4 years is not big deal because a team plays 8-9 guys in a normal rotation.

You would think someone who post over 17k times on a message board would understand the sports they comment about.

 

[David 76]

Jerry, I don't see your difficulty in seeing the difference between our one year ban and their's. One destroys a team. The other has no tangible effect. They did not have to accept SU's self ban. And you don't know that the NCAA would have even imposed a ban.
And certainly interfering with the rules to foster equality is much worse than reporting your shortcoming (and then having the NCAA change the consequences after the fact)
I think SU deserved a two year ban. Maybe 2 plus the one they volunteered.

 

[Dooley]

If you don't think Syracuse's covering up all of these instances of criminal and academic issues has any impact on APR, then I don't know what to tell you. If they properly reported over all of these years, there is no guarantee that they would have had a minimum 930 score. The message that the NCAA is sending by giving Syracuse an equivalent punishment as UCONN: cheat, but don't get caught. But if you do get caught cheating, you won't get any worse of a penalty if you simply played by the "rules" and reported your student-athlete eligibility accurately.

http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2013/06/syracuse_basketball_football_p.html

"SU's 2011-12 basketball score of 878 has been averaged with SU's previous three years to arrive at the overall APR number of 933. That overall number includes the 2008-09 school year, SU's worst single season since the NCAA started calculating the APR.

That season, Jonny Flynn, Eric Devendorf and Paul Harris left SU to play professional basketball, and Sean Williams transferred. The Orange lost seven APR points and posted a score of 865. Next year, the 865 will be replaced by the 2012-13 single-season score as the NCAA computes SU's four-year rolling basketball average."

Refresher on APR from the NCAA page...

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/academic-progress-rate-qa

How is APR calculated?

It’s a term-by-term calculation of the eligibility and retention of all student-athletes. A score of a thousand means every student-athlete on that team stayed eligible and returned to school. You begin losing points for students who are not eligible and/or are not retained.

What effect have the increased standards had on member teams and schools?

The increased standards for young people coming out of high school have them better prepared. We think the increased standards while they are in college, progress-toward degree standards, are helping more get degrees.

The increased APR standards have done a couple of things. They have caused schools to evaluate or re-evaluate their recruiting practices and making sure they are bringing in students who can be successful academically. They have caused them to evaluate their level of academic support for students who might need additional help being successful. The increased standard caused schools to consider their retention strategies to do all they can to retain student-athletes — even those who are being challenged academically. Ultimately, it’s just setting higher expectations and understanding among the teams that they must do well academically in order to achieve some of the benefits like postseason competition.

What can teams or schools do to help meet the minimum requirements for APR?

They can ensure they are recruiting and admitting students who can be successful on campus. They can provide a level of academic support that meets the needs of the student-athletes. They can develop meaningful improvement plans for individuals and their teams when they need help. They can emphasize a team culture that makes academics a priority to reach team success.

 

[ctchamps]

Clearly you missed the point, but you also think losing 3 schollys for 4 years is not big deal because a team plays 8-9 guys in a normal rotation.

You would think someone who post over 17k times on a message board would understand the sports they comment about.

Are the infractions the same? No. Syracuse has had three infraction vs. one for UConn. Is the duration the same? No. At least a dozen years at Syracuse for all three infractions vs. one year for UConn for one questionable infraction. One year because the NCAA went retroactive after creating the rule.

Was the punishment the same. No Syracuse received the more severe punishment. The debate resides over the degree of punishment Syracuse received relative to what UConn received. I have no clue what the consequences will be for Syracuse based on this punishment. But based on the punishment UConn received I don't think the punishment for Syracuse was severe enough. So if you want to argue UConn's punishment was too severe I would no longer disagree with you. But if you are arguing both punishments were appropriate I strongly disagree with you.

 

[upstater]

If you don't think Syracuse's covering up all of these instances of criminal and academic issues has any impact on APR, then I don't know what to tell you.

Jerry knows basketball. No one else does.

There's no difference between 6 scholarship players on a team or 10.

 

[David 76]

Stop dumping on espn. I just watched great coverage on espn

Well with that edit, my post makes no sense.

 

[ctchamps]

Jerry, I don't see your difficulty in seeing the difference between our one year ban and their's. One destroys a team. The other has no tangible effect. They did not have to accept SU's self ban. And you don't know that the NCAA would have even imposed a ban.
And certainly interfering with the rules to foster equality is much worse than reporting your shortcoming (and then having the NCAA change the consequences after the fact)
I think SU deserved a two year ban. Maybe 2 plus the one they volunteered.

I would have been happy with the punishment if it included one additional year plus penalizing the school for all the years the infractions took place as opposed to arbitrarily stopping at 2003. We've argued this over and over again, but the vast majority of us feel that NC's trump number of wins. JB and Syracuse got to keep the golden prize that they don't deserve.

 

[Paesano]

Are the infractions the same? No. Syracuse has had three infraction vs. one for UConn. Is the duration the same? No. At least a dozen years at Syracuse for all three infractions vs. one year for UConn for one questionable infraction. One year because the NCAA went retroactive after creating the rule.

Was the punishment the same. No Syracuse received the more severe punishment. The debate resides over the degree of punishment Syracuse received relative to what UConn received. I have no clue what the consequences will be for Syracuse based on this punishment. But based on the punishment UConn received I don't think the punishment for Syracuse was severe enough. So if you want to argue UConn's punishment was too severe I would no longer disagree with you. But if you are arguing both punishments were appropriate I strongly disagree with you.

Don't bother. You are far too intelligent for this troll.

Personally, I would love to know which of the future seasons he thinks Cuse will be impacted by these penalties. And by impacted I mean will lose more games than they would have.

 

[Paesano]

then you are clueless

99.9% of the board think you are the clueless one.

 

[Excalibur]

I guess you have, but we have the same profession is my guess, and there is a reason why there are so many lawyer jokes...

Find me precedent and use the penalty structure of the NCAA. I won't get into the whole we take 1 year now instead of 2 years as a comprise to many factors...

This is 1st year stuff, maybe you slept through it though.....

Thanks for the limited academic analysis. Let's make a couple of things clear:

There is very little precedent under the new penalty structure, so analyzing it is a fruitless exercise.

The NCAA, being a non-governmental voluntary private membership organization, doesn't have to follow it even if it exists.

Even if the penalties assessed to Syracuse are consistent with the new structure, the question we're asking is whether the new structure properly considered the penalties imposed under the enforcement model for academic performance. They clearly did not, and the consequence is an economic incentive to violate the restrictions under the new enforcement regime in order to avoid APR shortfalls. That shows me that the NCAA is a poorly run organization without peripheral vision.

You'll eventually learn that the real world is different than law school.

 

[ctchamps]

Don't bother. You are far too intelligent for this troll.

Personally, I would love to know which of the future seasons he thinks Cuse will be impacted by these penalties. And by impacted I mean will lose more games than they would have.

Troll is this forums word du jour for someone over the top I guess. I can't figure out his need to continue the argument. Don't agree he's obtuse. He's deliberately refusing to look at it critically however. I'm wondering if he's being argumentative just for the sake of arguing. Or if he has some relationship with Syracuse.

My feeling is if the university really takes steps to address the wrongs the program will have severe consequences. But my feeling is that the universities BOT's are the problem or in support of the problem. They will continue to ensure things don't really change.

 

[Paesano]

If the penalties are even remotely equivalent (which they are), the prudent decision is to cheat and hope you don't get caught. That's the point that you seem willfully blind to.

EXACTLY! And, although some people would be uncomfortable going there, the same holds for recruiting. You are rewarded for cheating. The difference between Boeheim and Calipari is that Calipari is way better at maintaining plausible deniability. And even though the cuse have good control over ESPN and the local news outlets and police, it pales in comparison to the control Kentucky has over the entire state. You basically can't catch them and, if you get lucky, you won't be able to prove the squid had any knowledge of it. He is the teflon Don of colege basketball. The cuse got caught because Boeheim is careless and stupid.

 

[CL82]

It makes no sense to argue that the punishment for accurately and honestly reporting a student's failure should be less severe than the punishment for fraudulently and dishonestly covering it up?

By the way, dropping out of school only affected the APR because it caused the students to fail classes.

Can't disagree more PJ. Society punishes the cover up severely because it undercuts the enforcement system. Don't believe me? Try under paying your taxes. You'll typically have to the tax, interest on the underpayment and a penalty. Now try committing fraud to hide the under payment. You'll either have a dramatically increased penalty or more likely jail time.

By the way transferring is different than dropping out.