1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How come more schools aren't getting into trouble with the NCAA?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Mizzougrad96, Dec 13, 2010.

  1. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    The reason they got away from the TV ban is that it indirectly punished the schools the banned team was playing. I can understand the rationale for effectively eliminating that punishment.

    Ware's feat of winning the Heisman without playing one game on live television will never be duplicated.
     
  2. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    That's why I liked the TV ban. It draws constant attention to the offending school.

    "I know you wanted to watch Oregon-USC, but you can't because the Trojans cheat." :D

    Then the conferences can put pressure on teams to stay above the board.

    Just my opinion...
     
  3. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Sounds good on paper but it clearly didn't work when it was implemented.
     
  4. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Yeah, schools complained and the NCAA caved.
     
  5. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    The schools are the NCAA.
     
  6. Jake_Taylor

    Jake_Taylor Well-Known Member

    I'm working part time at the local paper -- a non-metro daily in a BCS conference town -- and there are three full timers at a place where football, men's basketball, women's basketball, baseball, soccer and lacrosse all get heavy coverage. I'm essentially working as the ASE as a part timer and the beat guys have so much on their plate they aren't doing any kind of big investigations anytime soon, even if they wanted to.

    These days everybody cheats, but most schools that caught and pretend to show remorse get slapped on the wrist. Guys like Rick Majerus and Larry Brown have gotten their schools hit hard for relatively minor violations because instead of apologizing sorry they said the rules were stupid and they weren't sorry.
     
  7. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    The main thing that bothered me about the Means scandal, unless I missed something, is that Means didn't get compensated, but his coach did for delivering him to Alabama.

    I know it would have been against the rules, but unless Means profited from being shopped around, it almost seems like, dare I say it, like slavery.

    If that ended up being the case, I'd argue that Alabama was much, much worse than SMU. At least at SMU, the players did get compensated for deciding to play football there, unlike Means, whose coach profited off of him.
     
  8. McNuggetsMan

    McNuggetsMan Active Member

    One part that I found interesting about the SMU story was that they were supposed to be able to come back in 1988 and play only seven games but the school elected to just shut it down for two years instead of trying to come back half-assed.

    It seems like that might be a good punishment that the NCAA could hand out that would certainly hurt the school but wouldn't be the death penalty. Prevent a school from playing 12 games in a season. Limit them to 11 or 10. That will still give them enough games to cover the conference schedule but would limit the school's ability to load up on money-making buy games. This seems like a really tough that could be used to really smack down some of the biggest offenders. Alabama and USC should have both been hit with this kind of penalty.
     
  9. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    How is what happened to Means any different than what happened to Newton?
     
  10. Jake_Taylor

    Jake_Taylor Well-Known Member

    I have an easier time believing that Means didn't know he was being shopped around than I do with Newton. But on the surface and from what's been proven there's not much difference at all.
     
  11. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I think a better penalty is to gut scholarships (20, 40 whatever) for several years. The only thing worse than no football for some of these places would be watching a team go 2-10 and lose to former doormats. Tickets would still be sold, TV contracts honored.
     
  12. Blitz

    Blitz Active Member

    It's easy as hell to get a kid there and "take care" of him for four or five years.
    The passage of money from individual to individual is easy to pull off.
    The stuff happens at most all schools of any size.
    D-II and below, probably not as much or any. And this only really applies to revenue sports such as basketball and football.
    But does the Swede tennis player who signs on at Ole Miss or Tennessee get a bone thrown to them here and there.
    Quite often.
    This sort of thing is easy to pull off and it happens all the time at schools everywhere.
    That's why you should never turn another school in, regardless of how sour the grapes are.
    Especially when you choose to do it, say, two months after the incident happened.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page