Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... +decisions

In particular, they are comparing recent decisions involving The Ohio State University and Auburn University (and others). Some have even suggested the NCAA plays favorites in these types of situations based in part or in whole on financial considerations.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

karlhungis wrote:http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... +decisions

In particular, they are comparing recent decisions involving The Ohio State University and Auburn University (and others). Some have even suggested the NCAA plays favorites in these types of situations based in part or in whole on financial considerations.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

It's like listening to any politician talk: they are lying when their mouth is moving.

Not one word about why the OSU 6 are able to play in the Sugar Bowl.

Duck07 wrote:Not one word about why the OSU 6 are able to play in the Sugar Bowl.

It also looks bad when the Sugar Bowl CEO helped in the situation: http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootbal ... ble-122910

Everytime they respond to these issues, they come off looking even worse. Can't wait to see what happens with the USC appeal. I use to feel their'd be no way they'd lighten sanctions, now I'm not so sure. Somebody said it on another thread, but I'll reiterate it by saying I think this is a tipping point, that'll continue to fester like gangrene.

nehalem wrote:Everytime they respond to these issues, they come off looking even worse. Can't wait to see what happens with the USC appeal. I use to feel their'd be no way they'd lighten sanctions, now I'm not so sure. Somebody said it on another thread, but I'll reiterate it by saying I think this is a tipping point, that'll continue to fester like gangrene.

If I had to guess, I would say that USC will see a reduction in their penalty following the appeal. Then the NCAA will cross it's fingers and hope that the next team that steps out of line is not one of their cash cows so they can drop the hammer on them in the hopes of making an example out of them. I will admit that the idea of having a Husky in charge of the NCAA does worry me. I don't think the ducks would be shown much consideration if we were to have any sort of transgression.

karlhungis wrote:

nehalem wrote:Everytime they respond to these issues, they come off looking even worse. Can't wait to see what happens with the USC appeal. I use to feel their'd be no way they'd lighten sanctions, now I'm not so sure. Somebody said it on another thread, but I'll reiterate it by saying I think this is a tipping point, that'll continue to fester like gangrene.

If I had to guess, I would say that USC will see a reduction in their penalty following the appeal. Then the NCAA will cross it's fingers and hope that the next team that steps out of line is not one of their cash cows so they can drop the hammer on them in the hopes of making an example out of them. I will admit that the idea of having a Husky in charge of the NCAA does worry me. I don't think the ducks would be shown much consideration if we were to have any sort of transgression.

That would be the worse thing they could do in terms of damage control; making them look even more capricious and arbitrary than they do now. It might even get our ridiculous Senate involved.

I agree that the NCAA will likely reduce the $C penalty. Especially, now that they are apparently taking into account "I didn't know it was against the rules" and "I didn't know my parents were doing it" argument.

The last thing we need is the Senate to get involved. They need to concentrate on their own issues.

"The last thing we need is the Senate to get involved. They need to concentrate on their own issues."

Agreed

nehalem wrote:

karlhungis wrote:

nehalem wrote:Everytime they respond to these issues, they come off looking even worse. Can't wait to see what happens with the USC appeal. I use to feel their'd be no way they'd lighten sanctions, now I'm not so sure. Somebody said it on another thread, but I'll reiterate it by saying I think this is a tipping point, that'll continue to fester like gangrene.

If I had to guess, I would say that USC will see a reduction in their penalty following the appeal. Then the NCAA will cross it's fingers and hope that the next team that steps out of line is not one of their cash cows so they can drop the hammer on them in the hopes of making an example out of them. I will admit that the idea of having a Husky in charge of the NCAA does worry me. I don't think the ducks would be shown much consideration if we were to have any sort of transgression.

That would be the worse thing they could do in terms of damage control; making them look even more capricious and arbitrary than they do now. It might even get our ridiculous Senate involved.

Actually, it would be the opposite if they didn't reduce the penalties. Again, the entire case against SC rests on the testimony of one man, who has a shady background and has changed his story multiple times based on who he was telling. If this was a court case, it would have been dismissed because the prosecution would have failed to make its case. It would be like the NCAA finding us guilty of something based on what a little "birdie" told Clownzano.

By finding that SC has served a 1 year post-season ban and scholarship limits, you've punished them more than you have other schools in similar agent situations. It certainly was no worse than the agent on staff at UNC and they weren't punished that harshly.

[quote="Duck07"]

By finding that SC has served a 1 year post-season ban and scholarship limits, you've punished them more than you have other schools in similar agent situations. [\quote]

USC had reduced scholarships? I thought that didnt take effect until after their appeal.

karlhungis wrote:

Duck07 wrote:
By finding that SC has served a 1 year post-season ban and scholarship limits, you've punished them more than you have other schools in similar agent situations.

USC had reduced scholarships? I thought that didnt take effect until after their appeal.

I believe the reduced scholarships is taking place this season, thus the amount of early enrollee's for them.

Duck07 wrote:

karlhungis wrote:

Duck07 wrote:
By finding that SC has served a 1 year post-season ban and scholarship limits, you've punished them more than you have other schools in similar agent situations.

USC had reduced scholarships? I thought that didnt take effect until after their appeal.

I believe the reduced scholarships is taking place this season, thus the amount of early enrollee's for them.

I thought they were loading up on EE's in preparation for the restrictions that hit next year. I think they still plan on taking 25 guys for the 2011 class as well.