Page 1 of 1
South Carolina cited for "Failure to Monitor"
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:42 pm
by EncinitasDuck
http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... re-monitor
Six schollies over two years and 50% cut in recruiting trips which was self-imposed by the school.
Thoughts on whether this is a more seriouis infraction than ours? Seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Maybe the one guy that stayed in the hotel for a year was a bit out of bounds but everything else seems pretty small.
Re: South Carolina cited for "Failure to Monitor"
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:25 pm
by Elduderino
EncinitasDuck wrote:http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... re-monitor
Six schollies over two years and 50% cut in recruiting trips which was self-imposed by the school.
Thoughts on whether this is a more seriouis infraction than ours? Seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Maybe the one guy that stayed in the hotel for a year was a bit out of bounds but everything else seems pretty small.
Take this with the understanding that I'm somewhat of a pessimist.......but I think we're going to get hit harder than this. Going to be real hard to shake the image of us paying for a player. Just my opinion.
Re: South Carolina cited for "Failure to Monitor"
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:12 pm
by squintsdd
From what I understand, this stems from a player, or players, receiving impermissable benefits. Depending on what, and how much, this could be a little more serious than Oregon
Re: South Carolina cited for "Failure to Monitor"
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:37 am
by Bud Lee
NCAA committee on infractions chairman Britton Banowsky said it was obvious early on that South Carolina wanted to get at the truth and in some instances did more than was required during the enforcement process.
See...play nice and help and the NCAA will be kind in return.
Thoughts on whether this is a more seriouis infraction than ours?
Wait...did I miss something? Was there an actual infraction?
Re: South Carolina cited for "Failure to Monitor"
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:03 am
by Phalanx
Yes, there was a heinous infraction. We 'might' have paid a guy too much as a scout, who 'might' have influenced a guy to decide to make Oregon his third choice, and who never actually played a down in a game before he decided to go somewhere else. Then, the school released the expenditure in the quarterly financial statements for all to see when they should have hidden it. Clearly, we are big fat cheaters who only win because of our cheating ways.
Re: South Carolina cited for "Failure to Monitor"
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:16 am
by Bud Lee
who 'might' have influenced a guy to decide to make Oregon his third choice
Uhm...if he choose y'all would the allegation not be that he influenced the "guy" to make Oregon his first choice.
Clearly, we are big fat cheaters who only win because of our cheating ways
Clearly....I don't know how y'all live with yourselves.
In all seriousness, just sounded like something was finalized from the post. Just wondering if things went from being "alleged infractions" to being "infractions."
It didn't look good that the "guy" didn't stick around. Kind of look like he was getting out of dodge...just saying...it would actually looked better if he did stay to play a down.
Re: South Carolina cited for "Failure to Monitor"
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:15 am
by EncinitasDuck
Just wondering if things went from being "alleged infractions" to being "infractions."
I've been a Duck fan for 35 years so believe me when I say my glasses are as Green and Yellow as anyone's and I would love to believe we have done no wrong. That said, I'm also a realist and have a hard time believing we're totally innocent in this matter or that we will skate through this with no penalty.
For those of you who feel otherwise, please continue to do so. I just hope you don't have too much sand in your eyes when you pull your head out.