Syracuse slapped hard by NCAA

[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.

 

[pj]

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.

I agree. Note the question mark. I was responding to @Jerry1714's assertion that there was no need for the fraudulent coverup to be punished more severely than the honest mistake.

 

[Chin Diesel]

A bunch of different positions here and almost everything is based on assumptions.

None of us know for certain the effects of the scholarship losses. It's a judgement/perspective call. I'm in the camp that 3 schollies a year for four years will be significant. A one or two year loss of scholarships can be masked. Four years is a signifcant amount of time. Maybe 'cuse makes it through unscathed. The scholarship loss has used up all of their margin for error. They have to be perfect with recruiting and injuries for four years. I think that is highly unlikely.

Some people are saying the punishments will never be enforced because the NCAA will reduce the punishments before the end of the sanctions. If that's the case, does it matter what the NCAA does at all? If you are going to suggest the NCAA will reduce the sanction in the future, what makes you so certain you know at what future point it will be and to what extent they rescind sanctions in the future?

It's absolutely reasonable to suggest the NCAA could have re-calculated SU's APR downward based off of illegal coursework.

 

[temery]

A great bubblehead movie. Top three movies about submarines along with Crimson Tide and the all-time best, Down Periscope.

Glad you included Down Periscope. Just watched it again. A classic.

 

[Jerry1714]

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.

I think UConn's ban was ridiculous due to the fact it was retroactively imposed. It was an utter joke. So no it was not appropriate, never said it was (not implying you said I did)

I also think Syracuse should have gotten more, for 2 reasons, I have no idea (well I know what the NCAA said, but it makes no sense to me) why the more lenient penalty guide was used over the harsher one. Under the harsher one they would have received a 2 year ban, which given the penalties I think would have been appropriate espicailly in light of the fact that JB is a 2X offender. I also HATE that they despite the fact they knew their was violations prior to 2004 they did not punish prior to that so Cuse could keep their title. Of all things this probably pisses me off the most.

The issue I have is that this is not an APR issue, had some of these things not been done would it had to let to one? Sure, but this is a different situation and has to be looked at in that sense (IMO).

I think the APR is an absolute joke and could go on for days about it and the obvious issues that resulted from it, i.e., transfers, recruiting, perception of the program, ect. If Cuse got an APR ban and was able to choose when they took it, I would freak out. But that is not what this case is.

Losing 3 schollys a year for 4 years is huge. A CBS writer said it would be very difficult for Cuse to even stay relevant during this time. You have to be perfect with recruiting and have no injuries. Cuse has 2 guys hurt and 1 big recruit bust, if this happens during those 4 years, they will have their version of Pat Lenehan logging serious minuets. There is so much more than this, but most people seem to get it except for a couple of guys, but there is no helping them, so I will not go on and on about it.

 

[ctchamps]

I think UConn's ban was ridiculous due to the fact it was retroactively imposed. It was an utter joke. So no it was not appropriate, never said it was (not implying you said I did)

I also think Syracuse should have gotten more, for 2 reasons, I have no idea (well I know what the NCAA said, but it makes no sense to me) why the more lenient penalty guide was used over the harsher one. Under the harsher one they would have received a 2 year ban, which given the penalties I think would have been appropriate espicailly in light of the fact that JB is a 2X offender. I also HATE that they despite the fact they knew their was violations prior to 2003 they did not punish prior to that so Cuse could keep their title. Of all things this probably pisses me off the most.

The issue I have is that this is not an APR issue, had some of these things not been done would it had to let to one? Sure, but this is a different situation and has to be looked at in that sense (IMO).

I think the APR is an absolute joke and could go on for days about it and the obvious issues that resulted from it, i.e., transfers, recruiting, perception of the program, ect. If Cuse got an APR ban and was able to choose when they took it, I would freak out. But that is not what this case is.

Losing 3 schollys a year for 4 years is huge. A CBS writer said it would be very difficult for Cuse to even stay relevant during this time. You have to be perfect with recruiting and have no injuries. Cuse has 2 guys hurt and 1 big recruit bust, if this happens during those 4 years, they will have their version of Pat Lenehan logging serious minuets. There is so much more than this, but most people seem to get it except for a couple of guys, but there is no helping them, so I will not go on and on about it.

I'm glad you took the time with this explanation because staying with the argument about this not being an APR issue led many, including myself, to totally misunderstand where you were coming from. You were trying to clarify this is not an APR issue which everyone agrees.

Scholarship reduction does hurt. We are seeing that with UConn. However it is not a given. I'm still suspicious about Arizona's recruiting for instance. When Lute starting developing Alzheimer's and his assistant had an affair with Lute's wife, the infighting led to the revelation that boosters were greasing the recruiting wheels. How do we know those same guys are not at work there now? We don't and we won't know if the Syracuse people who set up shop with the YMCA will still be in play in the future with some other means. I'm describing the best case scenario for Syracuse given the restrictions. They get ten quality players and better than average walk ons. It's not a guarantee of happening. Nor is the scenario you describe. We'll just have to wait and see.

Which is why it ticks me off that a second season ban was not in play and the infraction penalties did not go to their NC. That would have been definitive punishment and really distinguished the situation from the APR crud. And like you I felt that the APR was a travesty on so many levels. What makes things worse is that people will equate what UConn did to what Syracuse did based on the similarity of the punishment. And that brings injustice to a whole other level.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

http://www.syracuse.com/orangesport...far_did_school_go_keep_fab_melo_eligible.html

After reading the above, I can only ask the how the "management heavyweights," who attended what sounded like a crisis meeting, can look at themselves in the mirror? It's not the fact that a rule/rules were broken. Hell, the Cuse screwed up, got caught, will be punished. I'll leave the outrage and arguments over the severity of the punishment to others.

But, the documented actions of the "heroic" meeting participants and other higher-ups, involved later in the process, are pretty close to cowardly. "Management" came up with an action plan. The Plan was given to lower level people along with orders resolve the problem. Problem? "Managements" solution smelled so bad that it couldn't be ignored, even by the NCAA. The Cuse was caught.

So, in addition to the NCAA punishment/sanctions, "Management," in full righteous indignation mode, takes immediate action to hold those really responsible, accountable; firing a Receptionist (probably the typist) and reassigning two lower-level AD staffers. These people will be referred to as "rogues" in the appeal. I am so glad I never worked for a coward or cowards.

Somebody, please tell me I'm reading this wrong.

 

[temery]

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.

A 1 year ban when the team wasn't going to make the tournament isn't a 1 year ban.

 

[CL82]

A great bubblehead movie. Top three movies about submarines along with Crimson Tide and the all-time best, Down Periscope.

Run Silent Run Deep is a decent one.

I've got a great story about Hellcats of the Navy. The captain of the sub told the crew to follow Ronald Reagan's lines as if they were orders coming from him. While they were still moored Reagan started practice his lines. "All ahead full" "Hard a starboard" "Back 1/3" as the sub strained at the lines until the captain came to bridge and shouted "All stop, all stop, for god's sake all stop!"

 

[storrsroars]

What makes things worse is that people will equate what UConn did to what Syracuse did based on the similarity of the punishment. And that brings injustice to a whole other level.

That's already happening in media. I was driving home from PIT airport yesterday, listening to the afternoon hosts go ballistic over the injustices Pitt dealt with having two "convicted cheaters" in their conference. If I had conceal carry, I'd have Elvis'd my car radio.

The hosts could not make a distinction between UConn not meeting the APR requirements and and Cuse providing illegal assistance while engaging in a cover-up. I honestly think the hosts confused the Nate Miles incident - which did not benefit UConn one iota with the APR issue since the timing was similar so they lumped everything into JC being a cheater (although they made a distinction that JC was a "one-time convict" while JB was a "two-time convict".

Their main point was whether Pitt would've fared better in the BET through either playing weaker UConn/Cuse teams or getting better seeding had 4 & 5-star recruits with questionable academics been prevented from playing for UConn/Cuse. Even my wife, the Pitt fan, saw through that.

To their credit, most callers didn't see it that way. The prevailing sentiment was that Pitt had only one team under Dixon worthy of a FF appearance. And that team lost to Nova on a buzzer-beater. Nobody else was in Pitt's way other than Pitt.

And how are you guys having a conversation on best sub movies without acknowledging "Das Boot" as the clear #1?

 

[ctchamps]

That's already happening in media. I was driving home from PIT airport yesterday, listening to the afternoon hosts go ballistic over the injustices Pitt dealt with having two "convicted cheaters" in their conference. If I had conceal carry, I'd have Elvis'd my car radio.

The hosts could not make a distinction between UConn not meeting the APR requirements and and Cuse providing illegal assistance while engaging in a cover-up. I honestly think the hosts confused the Nate Miles incident - which did not benefit UConn one iota with the APR issue since the timing was similar so they lumped everything into JC being a cheater (although they made a distinction that JC was a "one-time convict" while JB was a "two-time convict".

Their main point was whether Pitt would've fared better in the BET through either playing weaker UConn/Cuse teams or getting better seeding had 4 & 5-star recruits with questionable academics been prevented from playing for UConn/Cuse. Even my wife, the Pitt fan, saw through that.

To their credit, most callers didn't see it that way. The prevailing sentiment was that Pitt had only one team under Dixon worthy of a FF appearance. And that team lost to Nova on a buzzer-beater. Nobody else was in Pitt's way other than Pitt.

What station? The media has no love for JC so he will never get a pass. That Nate Miles thing was Jeff Hathaway and Emmert. They had it in for JC. JC was not blameless. He pushed the wrong buttons with the media and administrators. But injustice is injustice.

 

[storrsroars]

What station? The media has no love for JC so he will never get a pass. That Nate Miles thing was Jeff Hathaway and Emmert. They had it in for JC. JC was not blameless. He pushed the wrong buttons with the media and administrators. But injustice is injustice.

It's Pittsburgh radio, 93.7 FAN. Hosts Joe Starkey and Chris Mueller.

 

[ctchamps]

It's Pittsburgh radio, 93.7 FAN. Hosts Joe Starkey and Chris Mueller.

It's just homerism than. I expect locals with an axe to grind to suggest such nonsense and ignore details. But it is good to know that many informed people understood the picture. It's the casual fan not aware of UConn and the BE conference and only read the headlines about the APR that concerns me. But my concern is tempered by all the positives that JC achieved.

Fluck the haters.

 

[caw]

A 1 year ban when the team wasn't going to make the tournament isn't a 1 year ban.

They still had a shot when it was announced. Maybe not a good one but they were probably on the bubble at the time (or closer than UConn was).

 

[The Funster]

I think UConn's ban was ridiculous due to the fact it was retroactively imposed. It was an utter joke. So no it was not appropriate, never said it was (not implying you said I did)

I also think Syracuse should have gotten more, for 2 reasons, I have no idea (well I know what the NCAA said, but it makes no sense to me) why the more lenient penalty guide was used over the harsher one. Under the harsher one they would have received a 2 year ban, which given the penalties I think would have been appropriate espicailly in light of the fact that JB is a 2X offender. I also HATE that they despite the fact they knew their was violations prior to 2004 they did not punish prior to that so Cuse could keep their title. Of all things this probably pisses me off the most.

The issue I have is that this is not an APR issue, had some of these things not been done would it had to let to one? Sure, but this is a different situation and has to be looked at in that sense (IMO).

I think the APR is an absolute joke and could go on for days about it and the obvious issues that resulted from it, i.e., transfers, recruiting, perception of the program, ect. If Cuse got an APR ban and was able to choose when they took it, I would freak out. But that is not what this case is.

Losing 3 schollys a year for 4 years is huge. A CBS writer said it would be very difficult for Cuse to even stay relevant during this time. You have to be perfect with recruiting and have no injuries. Cuse has 2 guys hurt and 1 big recruit bust, if this happens during those 4 years, they will have their version of Pat Lenehan logging serious minuets. There is so much more than this, but most people seem to get it except for a couple of guys, but there is no helping them, so I will not go on and on about it.

I understand where you are coming from a lot better.

 

[jibsey]

Some of the infractions had to do with keeping Melo eligible. The NCAA should have pulled their championship but they didn't. This probably won't effect their program much as long as they manage their scholarships well. They got off easy.

In 2012 when Syracuse was ranked #1 Melo was made eligible on a grade change for a course that was completed over a year before. Boeheim knew a meeting was taking place to improve Melo's eligibility but he kept his nose purposely out of it. A professor who was likely pressured said to submit a 3-5 page paper and the grade was changed from C- to B-. If I write a paper now maybe I can improve my 1972 GPA.