UCONN Recruiting Violations


#1

This is looking serious for UCONN. I don’t think the Big Ten will give UCONN a second look now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5228593

Kansas ticket scandal, Michigan self imposed sanctions with possible more action by the NCAA, questions about Bledsoe at Kentucky, USC report due out next week. Plenty going on in NCAA compliance (or lack of) space.

Personally, it wouldn’t surprise me if the NCAA came down pretty hard on all these programs - if they just give slaps on the wrist, they look impotent. If they hit one or two hard, there will be screams of favoritism, so I’m betting tough sanctions for all.


#2

[quote=“Great Santini, post:1, topic:1201”]This is looking serious for UCONN. I don’t think the Big Ten will give UCONN a second look now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5228593

Kansas ticket scandal, Michigan self imposed sanctions with possible more action by the NCAA, questions about Bledsoe at Kentucky, USC report due out next week. Plenty going on in NCAA compliance (or lack of) space.

Personally, it wouldn’t surprise me if the NCAA came down pretty hard on all these programs - if they just give slaps on the wrist, they look impotent. If they hit one or two hard, there will be screams of favoritism, so I’m betting tough sanctions for all.[/quote]

Let’s get the entire story for these two before we start making conclusions. I am all for the NCAA coming down hard on them if they are found guilty.

So far the only people implicated in the KU ticket scandal are AAU guys (Pump Bros) and employees in the KU ticketing department. The potential connection is KU has deep connections to the Pump Brothers (as do many, many Universities around the country) and one of current player’s father was involved. We still don’t know if the KU coaching staff had a role.

As for Bledsoe, we need to get the facts before anything happens. NYT wrote an article. To my knowledge, the NCAA isn’t even investigating yet.

I think Oklahoma could be in some serious trouble right now.


#3

[quote=“Great Santini, post:1, topic:1201”]This is looking serious for UCONN. I don’t think the Big Ten will give UCONN a second look now.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5228593

Kansas ticket scandal, Michigan self imposed sanctions with possible more action by the NCAA, questions about Bledsoe at Kentucky, USC report due out next week. Plenty going on in NCAA compliance (or lack of) space.

Personally, it wouldn’t surprise me if the NCAA came down pretty hard on all these programs - if they just give slaps on the wrist, they look impotent. If they hit one or two hard, there will be screams of favoritism, so I’m betting tough sanctions for all.[/quote]

Come on, now. Who was the last significant program on which the NCAA had come down hard?

They just negotiated a TV deal for the men’s tournament. That’s what they do, and that’s all they are interested in. They cash a check, and don’t want to be bothered by this menial “compliance” stuff. :-[ >:(


#4

1987


#5
Come on, now. [b]Who[/b] was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?

1987

There is a school called “1987”? :wink: Is that the 'Stangs you are talking about?


#6

There is some talk that USC is going to lose a bunch of scholarships. Vacating wins is meaningless. Taking away scholarships, limiting/eliminating TV and bowls are the only punishments that have any teeth. They also should go after coaches who cheat and leave (cf. Pete Carrol and John Calipari).


#7

Source: Findings on USC coming Friday

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5234097


#8
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. [b]Who[/b] was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

There is a school called “1987”? :wink: Is that the 'Stangs you are talking about?

I plead poor eyesight…besides, how many on here remember when SMU was significant?


#9
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. [b]Who[/b] was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

There is a school called “1987”? :wink: Is that the 'Stangs you are talking about?

I plead poor eyesight…besides, how many on here remember when SMU was significant?

Craig James still seems bitter about the National Championship.


#10

SMU was the best team money could buy in college football at the time. Some of the guys took a paycut when they went pro (USFL & NFL).


#11

A little off tangent…but still Texas college football. Anybody read “Semi Tough” by Dan Jenkins? I think I hurt myself laughing!


#12
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. Who was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

23 years is a long time. I’ll take bets that they get the “slap on the wrist”.

I remember Auburn being in-eligible for a bowl game when they were undefeated under Terry Bowden, but that’s the worst thing I can remember. They were still ranked by the polls, and it was only for the one season, so they kept on rolling.


#13
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. Who was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

23 years is a long time. I’ll take bets that they get the “slap on the wrist”.

I remember Auburn being in-eligible for a bowl game when they were undefeated under Terry Bowden, but that’s the worst thing I can remember. They were still ranked by the polls, and it was only for the one season, so they kept on rolling.

SMU just made their first bowl game since 1984…of course, with 50% of the teams now going to bowls…


#14
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. Who was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

23 years is a long time. I’ll take bets that they get the “slap on the wrist”.

I remember Auburn being in-eligible for a bowl game when they were undefeated under Terry Bowden, but that’s the worst thing I can remember. They were still ranked by the polls, and it was only for the one season, so they kept on rolling.

Alabama was hit pretty hard early in the decade. They got 4 years of probation, a 2 year bowl ban and scholarship losses.


#15
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. Who was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

23 years is a long time. I’ll take bets that they get the “slap on the wrist”.

I remember Auburn being in-eligible for a bowl game when they were undefeated under Terry Bowden, but that’s the worst thing I can remember. They were still ranked by the polls, and it was only for the one season, so they kept on rolling.

SMU just made their first bowl game since 1984…of course, with 50% of the teams now going to bowls…

What is the current bowl count? Isn’t it up to something like 34? That would mean 68 teams – more than 50% (about 120 D-1A schools?). Which would explain the reason for D-1AA games counting toward bowl eligibility. Otherwise, not enough teams for all the bowls.


#16
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. Who was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

23 years is a long time. I’ll take bets that they get the “slap on the wrist”.

I remember Auburn being in-eligible for a bowl game when they were undefeated under Terry Bowden, but that’s the worst thing I can remember. They were still ranked by the polls, and it was only for the one season, so they kept on rolling.

Alabama was hit pretty hard early in the decade. They got 4 years of probation, a 2 year bowl ban and scholarship losses.

I guess that would depend on your definition of “hit pretty hard”.

Probation is meaningless, Alabama has had probation levied on them 4 times in the past 15 years. Even the 2 year bowl ban doesn’t mean as much when you consider they took advantage of another rule to schedule an extra game at the end of the year AT Hawaii.


#17
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. Who was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

23 years is a long time. I’ll take bets that they get the “slap on the wrist”.

I remember Auburn being in-eligible for a bowl game when they were undefeated under Terry Bowden, but that’s the worst thing I can remember. They were still ranked by the polls, and it was only for the one season, so they kept on rolling.

Alabama was hit pretty hard early in the decade. They got 4 years of probation, a 2 year bowl ban and scholarship losses.

I guess that would depend on your definition of “hit pretty hard”.

Probation is meaningless, Alabama has had probation levied on them 4 times in the past 15 years. Even the 2 year bowl ban doesn’t mean as much when you consider they took advantage of another rule to schedule an extra game at the end of the year AT Hawaii.

I would guess there is a pretty big difference in revenue between playing a bowl game, and taking your team to Hawaii.


#18
[quote="Skeeza, post:3, topic:1201"]Come on, now. Who was the last [i]significant[/i] program on which the NCAA had come down hard?[/quote]

1987

23 years is a long time. I’ll take bets that they get the “slap on the wrist”.

I remember Auburn being in-eligible for a bowl game when they were undefeated under Terry Bowden, but that’s the worst thing I can remember. They were still ranked by the polls, and it was only for the one season, so they kept on rolling.

Alabama was hit pretty hard early in the decade. They got 4 years of probation, a 2 year bowl ban and scholarship losses.

I guess that would depend on your definition of “hit pretty hard”.

Probation is meaningless, Alabama has had probation levied on them 4 times in the past 15 years. Even the 2 year bowl ban doesn’t mean as much when you consider they took advantage of another rule to schedule an extra game at the end of the year AT Hawaii.

I would guess there is a pretty big difference in revenue between playing a bowl game, and taking your team to Hawaii.

… not with revenue sharing. That bowl revenue is divided 12 ways amongst the SEC members. Alabama would have recieved 8.5% of the bowl payout.


#19
[quote="Great Santini, post:6, topic:1201"]There is some talk that USC is going to lose a bunch of scholarships. Vacating wins is meaningless. Taking away scholarships, limiting/eliminating TV and bowls are the only punishments that have any teeth. They also should go after coaches who cheat and leave (cf. Pete Carrol and John Calipari).[/quote]

Source: Findings on USC coming Friday

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5234097

UPDATE!

USC says it hasn’t seen report

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5249650


#20
[quote="Great Santini, post:6, topic:1201"]There is some talk that USC is going to lose a bunch of scholarships. Vacating wins is meaningless. Taking away scholarships, limiting/eliminating TV and bowls are the only punishments that have any teeth. They also should go after coaches who cheat and leave (cf. Pete Carrol and John Calipari).[/quote]

Source: Findings on USC coming Friday

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5234097

UPDATE!

USC says it hasn’t seen report

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5249650

Has an university ever been “so famous” for NOT knowing anything?? They should change the name to Sargent Schultz U.