We think about college football 24/7 so you don't have to.

Posts Tagged ‘N.C.A.A. violations’

U.C.F. Not Considering “Pulling” Appeal

A quick follow-up post go with today’s U.C.F. preview. The university has indeed appealed the one-year postseason ban imposed yesterday by the N.C.A.A., which if not appealed would have taken place during this coming season, the program’s last as part of Conference USA. If U.C.F. wins its appeal – it is not appealing the one-year ban placed on the men’s basketball program, only the one upon the football program – it will not suffer any postseason ban whatsoever, as you might think. If it loses the appeal, however, the Knights will be ineligible for postseason play in 2013, when the program joins the Big East.

Continue Reading »

Tags: , , , , , , ,
     Share   |   Comment   Comments (3)   |   Home  Home

    It’s Open Season on Penn State’s Roster

    It’s open season on Penn State’s roster. We’ve seen this before, in the early days of the sanctions assessed on U.S.C. three years ago and, if you can think back far enough, in the weeks following the penalties levied onto S.M.U. in 1987. There’s something different about this raid, however. One reason may be the fact that everything will be done in the open: Jim Delany, the Big Ten and the N.C.A.A. have essentially turned Penn State’s players into recruits, turning back the clock to those days when, as high school recruits, these same players were available to any school that would have their services.

    Continue Reading »

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
       Share   |   Comment   Comments (5)   |   Home  Home

      Penalties Rock P.S.U.’s Past, Present, Future

      When given no other option, when an error-prone program shows little sign of remorse, waylays an ongoing investigation or hides pertinent facts and figures, the N.C.A.A. assesses penalties focused on the program’s past, present and future. In this vein, Penn State’s penalties fall right in line with those dropped on U.S.C., a recent transgressor against which the N.C.A.A. levied a series of potentially crippling punishments.

      The N.C.A.A. impacts the past by vacating wins; it impacts the present by allowing any current player to transfer without penalty, a wonderful rule, and by levying a postseason ban; it impacts the future by instituting scholarship reductions. Penn State is no different – except in the magnitude of the penalties, which, to cite the buzz word surrounding the ruling over the last 24 hours, were absolutely unprecedented.

      Continue Reading »

      Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
         Share   |   Comment   Comments (10)   |   Home  Home

        A 5-Step Program for the N.C.A.A. Violator

        Committing N.C.A.A. violations is easy. All you have to do is, well, commit violations: sell team paraphernalia, meet an agent for lunch, accept cash donations or have a tutor write your research papers, among a whole other laundry list of potential abuses of the N.C.A.A. rulebook. Getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar is slightly more difficult. There have been three major infractions cases involving football programs over the last 24 months: U.S.C., Ohio State and U.N.C. — Boise State, despite letting incoming freshmen players crash on upperclassmen’s couches, indicating to the N.C.A.A. a lack of institutional control, does not belong on this list.

        Continue Reading »

        Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
           Share   |   Comment   Comments (3)   |   Home  Home

          Compare and Contrast 3 N.C.A.A. Rulings

          The comparison is inevitable, and only natural. We now have three recent N.C.A.A. rulings at our disposal: U.S.C., from June of 2010; Ohio State, from last December; and U.N.C., with the latter’s Public Infractions Report hitting the wires yesterday afternoon. As a quick reminder:

          U.S.C. Impermissible benefits and amateurism violations stemming from Reggie Bush’s relationship with the financiers behind the now-defunct New Era Sports agency, as well as the school’s failure to report said violations, led the N.C.A.A. to cite the university for a lack of institutional control. As a result, the N.C.A.A. penalized U.S.C. 30 scholarships over the next three years and handed out a two-year postseason ban.

          Continue Reading »

          Tags: , , , , , , ,
             Share   |   Comment   Comments (9)   |   Home  Home

            Probation, No Bowl and More for U.N.C.

            The description itself is worrisome – it’s a Public Infractions Report, after all – but the news wasn’t all bad for North Carolina. In its summation, the N.C.A.A. gave five reasons why U.N.C. was able to avoid a more stringent series of penalties. One, the school self-discovered the academic fraud perpetrated by a university tutor. Two, the Tar Heels “took decisive action” when John Blake’s violations first came to light. Three, the school “cooperated fully” in the investigation – though the N.C.A.A. did say that neither the tutor nor Blake complied with investigators. Four, the N.C.A.A. was quick to point out that the university was not a repeat violator.

            Continue Reading »

            Tags: , , , , ,
               Share   |   Comment   Comments (0)   |   Home  Home

              The Nuts-and-Bolts Case Against U.N.C.

              It didn’t take years for the N.C.A.A. to issue its ruling in the case of North Carolina, which first came under investigation in the summer of 2010 for allegedly committing a series of rule-breaking missteps: academic fraud and impermissible benefits, for starters, but don’t sleep on the charges of unethical conduct lobbed toward former defensive line coach John Blake. It only took 609 days – a year and change, one year and two-thirds – for the N.C.A.A. to issues its Public Infractions Report, which on face value presents a sizable step back for a program wholly prepared to turn the page on Butch Davis, rules violations and the specter of incoming N.C.A.A. penalties and probation. The impact of the N.C.A.A. rulings will be felt not by those who stepped out of line, but rather on the program’s brand-new staff.

              Continue Reading »

              Tags: , , , ,
                 Share   |   Comment   Comments (3)   |   Home  Home

                A Disconnect Between 2 N.C.A.A. Rulings

                Scenario A: One player at a B.C.S. conference program accepts wide-ranging impermissible benefits. In response, the N.C.A.A. docks this program 30 scholarships over the following three years and a two-year postseason ban.

                Scenario B: Multiple players accept impermissible benefits at another B.C.S. conference program. In addition, it is discovered that the school’s head coach not only had knowledge of the rule breaking but denied all such knowledge – covered up the information, even. For that, the N.C.A.A. docks the program nine scholarships over the following three years with a one-year postseason ban.

                Continue Reading »

                Tags: , , ,
                   Share   |   Comment   Comments (11)   |   Home  Home
                  Next Page »

                  The Countdown

                  A bottom-to-top assessment of the F.B.S. landscape heading into the 2012 season.