NCAA College Football 2010 *Catch All*

sheared wrote:
Three months ago, who would have thought that Oregon would be closer to probation than Auburn right now. I don't think they'll get anything, but still... I figured someone would have said something wrong in the Newton case by now.

A serious cloud still hangs over Auburn, and last week the airwaves down here were dominated by tapes (You can find em on youtube) allegedly proving that Cam new his daddy was shopping him, and imply that Auburn had ponied up 200K. Still, the Auburn case will ultimately boil down to whether or not a money trail exist, and those kind of cases can drag on. We could be waiting for years for the truth to come out.

i38warhawk wrote:
Ohio State should be losing scholarships and receive a post season ban for the 2011 season.

Yup, the Buckeyes are going to get slammed. You can read about a similar case back in the 90s at Bama, where they suffered a bowl ban, vacated wins and the loss of 25 scholarships over three years. Tressel's infractions are arguably worse than what happened with the Tide.

Maybe I have missed some items but I thought that Ohio States infractions were around the selling of "gear" by the players and Tressel's failure to report that infraction?

Is there more to it?

If there isn't, then I would say that unpaid "loans" from booster of 24k is a bit more serious than the sale of some jersey's and awards. IMO

gizmo wrote:
Maybe I have missed some items but I thought that Ohio States infractions were around the selling of "gear" by the players and Tressel's failure to report that infraction?

Is there more to it?

Yeah, now there are e-mails from April when Tressel was informed of the violations. So he let those guys play all season without reporting it, and then they made that questionable deal to play the bowl game and sit out this fall. But it looks like they should have been out 5 games last fall if it had been reported when it should have been.

And now Tressel is suspended for the opening two games this fall against Nobody and Who Universities which doesn't really mean sh*t. If his players get 5 games he should get 5 for not reporting them, at least.

I won't argue against this.

Stele wrote:
If his players get 5 games he should get 5 for not reporting them, at least.
.

So, we're looking at them as equalling out to the Bama situation referenced because they were both covered up for a season leading to success that may not have been experienced otherwise?

I can follow that, I was looking at it from the weight of the original infractions, and, to my mind, there was some disparity.

Thanks for helping me catch up.

iaintgotnopants - doh, Internet tone ambiguity strikes again!

Today as I drove in, I dreamed of a world where everyone was required to put emoticons in their posts. How else can we solve this dilemma?

Tressell requested that his suspension be raised to 5 games to match his players.

First thing he's done right with this whole mess.

Stele wrote:
Tressell requested that his suspension be raised to 5 games to match his players.

First thing he's done right with this whole mess. ;)

With the schedule Ohio State has he could miss most of the regular season, honestly.

Stele wrote:
Safety tip: Jokes should end with or or :lol:

By the way, I whole-heartedly concur with this!! Be safe, everyone.

The NCAA ruling on Newton opened up a whole can of worms that, unless they change their rules, is going to make for a free-for-all of parents shopping their kids around. Why the hell not! But, the worst part about it from my perspective, is that some much less egregious violations are going to cause a school to get slammed while Auburn goes off free.

The whole idea of vacating wins really means very little. Auburn has (for now) won the championship. That will be huge to the school in terms of alumni donations, recruiting success, and the power of the Auburn "brand." That short term gain for the coach, the athletic dept./director, and the school will more than make up for the pains they may feel 10 years down the road if they finally decide that Newton knew about the money. Hell, do I still feel the pain of the "Bush push" game where USC beat ND in the final seconds using a player who should have been ineligible? Yup.

It seems like the NCAA needs to move faster on some of these issues. I know they are cognizant of giving the benefit of the doubt to the players, but maybe they need a more bad-ass investigative arm to really get to the bottom of these things.

DSGamer wrote:
Stele wrote:
Tressell requested that his suspension be raised to 5 games to match his players.

First thing he's done right with this whole mess. ;)

With the schedule Ohio State has he could miss most of the regular season, honestly.

Hey, it's not like they play the Little Sisters of the Poor. Oh, wait.


DATE OPPONENT LOCATION TIME RESULTS TV
Sat. Sept. 3 AKRON Columbus TBA
Sat. Sept. 10 TOLEDO Columbus TBA
Sat. Sept. 17 at Miami, Fla. Miami, Fla. TBA
Sat. Sept. 24 COLORADO Columbus TBA
Sat. Oct. 1 MICHIGAN STATE Columbus TBA

Never mind...they do. (I would remove MSU from that statement, but it'd be less funny.)

Just caught Blue Chips on HBO the other day. Still so weird when the kid (Ricky?) asks for a bag of cash. He's all "I've been around, I know what I'm worth, other schools offered me this, if you match it I'm yours"

Sounds about like what Newton's dad did.

firesloth wrote:
It seems like the NCAA needs to move faster on some of these issues. I know they are cognizant of giving the benefit of the doubt to the players, but maybe they need a more bad-ass investigative arm to really get to the bottom of these things.

The FBI was brought into in Cam Newton fiasco. I don't know exactly what they did, but it was the FBI.

i38warhawk wrote:
firesloth wrote:
It seems like the NCAA needs to move faster on some of these issues. I know they are cognizant of giving the benefit of the doubt to the players, but maybe they need a more bad-ass investigative arm to really get to the bottom of these things.

The FBI was brought into in Cam Newton fiasco. I don't know exactly what they did, but it was the FBI.

Supposedly, they are investigating a whole operation that involves paying off a bunch of players and gambling fraud - that is, that's the rumor I heard. No idea if there's any truth to it.

Former Auburn players admit receiving money on HBO's Real Sports, airing tonight.

I guess this is still our off-season 2011 thread right?

...and once Oregon gets busted hard too, the 2011 NC game will have never happened!!

This is old hat for Auburn.

A friend of mine played JUCO ball with Rudi Johnson and rode in the Navigator that he got when he signed with the Tigers.

Yeah Charles Barkley went to Auburn in the early 80s and even he said he got money.

And yesterday, Fiesta Bowl CEO fired, for political contributions, reimbursements, and a bunch of shady things.

And now today a special task force is being formed. What a mess.

I've heard a few interesting points recently given all that's gone one.

#1 - I think Ralph Nader, of all people, has talked about getting rid of athletic scholarships altogether.

#2 - Bill Simmons was recently talking about an idea where you take away scholarships based on athletes graduating.

The problem I see is this. Once athletes have to scrape together grants and financial aid, wouldn't this *increase* the likelihood of them getting paid cash to play for a team?

I'm not sure what can be done about this. The way boosters are about NCAA football right now it's essentially a semi-pro league that's marginally connected to colleges.

DSGamer wrote:
I've heard a few interesting points recently given all that's gone one.

#1 - I think Ralph Nader, of all people, has talked about getting rid of athletic scholarships altogether.

#2 - Bill Simmons was recently talking about an idea where you take away scholarships based on athletes graduating.

The problem I see is this. Once athletes have to scrape together grants and financial aid, wouldn't this *increase* the likelihood of them getting paid cash to play for a team?

I'm not sure what can be done about this. The way boosters are about NCAA football right now it's essentially a semi-pro league that's marginally connected to colleges.

It's pretty easy, really. The NCAA could take college sports off TV. Take the money out of it, and college sports would become much more clean and oriented around student/athletes. If take away TV, you pretty much end boosters interest in screwing up the sport.

But we don't want that. We want our entertainment and have endorsed every hypocritical move the NCAA makes to "legitimize" college sports. Personally, I'm tired of really caring who pays who, and who is breaking what rules. Seriously, I don't care. The NCAA is a joke.

I'll watch the teams and players that are ruled eligible. But i won't spend much time believing that they are more pure than the teams and players that get in trouble.

I've had a similar thought. When you get to the point in your thinking where you realize that NCAA football is only loosely affiliated with the actual colleges, then why not treat it like a fundraiser each college holds? The college won't give the team funds (i.e. the taxpayer won't give the program money).

Rather the team will be a money-making enterprise that acts almost like a profit-center for the colleges. Players can transfer at will and play without going to school. Perhaps schools that have actual students graduate can get some state funds, but otherwise these football teams will be run as autonomous organizations that have a loose affiliation with colleges.

DSGamer wrote:
I've had a similar thought. When you get to the point in your thinking where you realize that NCAA football is only loosely affiliated with the actual colleges, then why not treat it like a fundraiser each college holds? The college won't give the team funds (i.e. the taxpayer won't give the program money).

Rather the team will be a money-making enterprise that acts almost like a profit-center for the colleges. Players can transfer at will and play without going to school. Perhaps schools that have actual students graduate can get some state funds, but otherwise these football teams will be run as autonomous organizations that have a loose affiliation with colleges.

I don't get this. The team represents my school. The players go there. They (believe it or not) go to the same classrooms I did, and take some of the same classes I did. At least one member of the Aggie basketball team (and I only follow three, I think) is constantly tweeting about tests that he has coming up, and college life in general.

This is how sports are: You cheer a team that represents something you have a strong connection to, either a school or in the case of the pros, your town. And with the pros, you're lucky if a player or two on the team is even from there; they may literally have no connection to the city whatsoever. People don't care; you're from Houston, you cheer for Houston.

DSGamer wrote:
I've had a similar thought. When you get to the point in your thinking where you realize that NCAA football is only loosely affiliated with the actual colleges, then why not treat it like a fundraiser each college holds? The college won't give the team funds (i.e. the taxpayer won't give the program money).

Rather the team will be a money-making enterprise that acts almost like a profit-center for the colleges. Players can transfer at will and play without going to school. Perhaps schools that have actual students graduate can get some state funds, but otherwise these football teams will be run as autonomous organizations that have a loose affiliation with colleges.

I don't know how it works at other schools, but at the University of Arkansas I was told that athletics and academics were completely separate entities. Unconnected financially and as I understood it unfunded by the taxpayers. Athletics pays the tuition and fees to the university for the student athletes. The funding comes from the boosters, proceeds from sporting events and the sale of merchandise (although not all licensed merchandise is sold by them).

Now basketball and football are the big money makers. However, athletics still has to pay for track, swimming, volleyball, softball, baseball (although they might be self sufficient), gymnastics, womens soccer, tennis, and golf. So even though they do make a lot from football, it's usually spent on other programs.

i38warhawk wrote:

I don't know how it works at other schools, but at the University of Arkansas I was told that athletics and academics were completely separate entities. Unconnected financially and as I understood it unfunded by the taxpayers. Athletics pays the tuition and fees to the university for the student athletes. The funding comes from the boosters, proceeds from sporting events and the sale of merchandise (although not all licensed merchandise is sold by them).

Now basketball and football are the big money makers. However, athletics still has to pay for track, swimming, volleyball, softball, baseball (although they might be self sufficient), gymnastics, womens soccer, tennis, and golf. So even though they do make a lot from football, it's usually spent on other programs.

I'm not so sure that's true.

#1 - Scholarships are largely considered a leveling force in college football and all D1 schools can offer them. I'm pretty sure those come out of the general funds for the school including all other non-academic related extracurricular activities. I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

#2 - Colleges have bands, put on theater productions, run symposiums and other programs through student government. My understanding is that, at least as it originally began, college sports were just one aspect of the non-academic offerings a school might have.

You'll often hear colleges talk about cutting funding for women's soccer or something. Then you have Title IX which mandates some level of fairness. So I think the tie between the general operations of a school and sports may still be close. Maybe not as close, due to boosters and sponsorships, but still tied.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I don't get this. The team represents my school. The players go there. They (believe it or not) go to the same classrooms I did, and take some of the same classes I did. At least one member of the Aggie basketball team (and I only follow three, I think) is constantly tweeting about tests that he has coming up, and college life in general.

It's a matter of degrees. There are certainly players who play 3 or 4 years, do go to classes, do go to student activities, etc. And certainly at schools that don't get the best prospects or in sports that don't have such a huge draw to go pro, this is more likely to happen. I played college sports, so I know this is true.

However, I think that number is dropping and with all the "one and dones" in college basketball you're definitely seeing a non-trivial number of athletes for whom college is the thing they have to do to play basketball. It was notorious here in Oregon that when Chad Johnson (now Ochocinco for the kids) was at Oregon State he attended like 5 classes and left after New Years. So he basically flunked out of a single semester and promptly left college to begin preparing for the draft. This happens enough to call into question the integrity of college athletics.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

This is how sports are: You cheer a team that represents something you have a strong connection to, either a school or in the case of the pros, your town. And with the pros, you're lucky if a player or two on the team is even from there; they may literally have no connection to the city whatsoever. People don't care; you're from Houston, you cheer for Houston.

Sure. My problem isn't with cheering for someone who is from out of state or who is a hired gun. Colleges are places where people go from around the country or world. My point is that once you have players being paid by boosters or agents and once you have athletes barely attending school it starts to look like a farce. There are most certainly athletes who take school seriously, graduate, etc. But if tomorrow you took away the requirement to actually go to the school there would be a non-trivial number of student-athletes who would just become athletes. So we're working really hard to keep up the facade of something that just isn't there anymore.

So we're working really hard to keep up the facade of something that just isn't there anymore.

That doesn't mean it's not a goal worth striving for.

I don't think it's not there; even in football, the vast majority never go pro. Becoming a pro is the exception in any sport; it's just that the Kevin Durants and Chad Johnsons get all the press.

I'm all for high standards for class attendance and performance. Hell, I'm sick of all the SEC players who aren't really going to class, and getting paid under the table, to boot!

Enforcing these things is the NCAA's job. They are incompetent and unprincipled, but that doesn't mean their job shouldn't be done. It means they should be reformed. If congress wants to go after MLB, they should go after the NCAA tomorrow. I'm not normally in favor of big government, but the NCAA has a monopoly that directly controls the fates of every college athlete in America.

Tannhausered by Grump on one of my points, but pleased to be aligned with a man of his stature.

I can say that from my experience on campus, most of the players at Arkansas were going to class.

I can't count the times I've been in class with top players or seen them coming an going to a class.

Plus they had mandatory study time every day.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
I don't think it's not there; even in football, the vast majority never go pro. Becoming a pro is the exception in any sport; it's just that the Kevin Durants and Chad Johnsons get all the press.

I'm all for high standards for class attendance and performance. Hell, I'm sick of all the SEC players who aren't really going to class, and getting paid under the table, to boot!

Enforcing these things is the NCAA's job. They are incompetent and unprincipled, but that doesn't mean their job shouldn't be done. It means they should be reformed. If congress wants to go after MLB, they should go after the NCAA tomorrow. I'm not normally in favor of big government, but the NCAA has a monopoly that directly controls the fates of every college athlete in America.

I definitely think that is fair. I would say the NCAA has a much bigger responsibility to take care of its athletes than MLB. It absolutely exploits the fact that their core labor force are the brand spanking new adults, least prepared to make informed decisions in the interest of their long-term benefit. And they get the bonus of playing them in a manner that makes it nearly impossible for them to organize. And even if they did, the four-year limit on eligibility makes hard for it to be a cohesive bargaining partner.

And the athletes are held to their LOI, even though the same team offers 29 scholarships when it only has 25, and has to turn 4 people away.

There's a lot of screwed up with NCAA football right now.

Stele wrote:
And the athletes are held to their LOI, even though the same team offers 29 scholarships when it only has 25, and has to turn 4 people away.

There's a lot of screwed up with NCAA football right now.

As discussed previously, offers from schools should be binding. Oversigning is unbelievably unethical.