Carolina - failure to monitor - sanctions

BamaSully

1st Team
Oct 13, 1999
511
17
137
Jackson, TN
First of all, could someone please give me a quick appraisal of what happened? Somehow I missed it - doesn't seem like it got much media coverage.

Secondly, if failure to monitor was in the findings, how the heck did they get off so light?

Thanks in advance

Sully
 

BamaSully

1st Team
Oct 13, 1999
511
17
137
Jackson, TN
The search function is your friend. Type in the key words of the topic you're interested in and see how many links pop up for you to read.
Um thank you Staci. :)

Did that...nothing of substance...thus the question

ESPN only says something about improper benefits to players on a trip up north somewhere. The dollar values weren't that high. Nevermind I guess.

The "failure to monitor" threw me. I thought that was typically applied to more severe offenses.
 
Last edited:

TRU

All-SEC
Oct 3, 2000
1,383
69
167
Tampa, FL
From the NCAA:

"They wanted to ask all the hard questions of all the right people," Banowsky said. "Even went beyond what the NCAA staff was doing. We see that less likely than we see the other approach and the report reflects how pleased the committee was with their diligence."

Well, had USCe taken the other approach and lawyered up the NCAA would have left town with its tail between it's legs and USCe would have gotten off scott free. They were stupid to cooperate.
 

USCBAMA

All-SEC
Sep 21, 2001
1,847
81
67
Columbia, SC, Richland
USC basically took a different approach than the NCAA had seen before. They went in embarrassed and apologetic and pretty much asked the NCAA ahead of time what punishments were expected, telling the NCAA they would not appeal or protest the NCAA ruling and would self-imposed whatever the NCAA recommended. They were willing from the start to dismiss or reassign anyone the NCAA felt necessary (the compliance officer who was the root of the problems was reassigned). Spurrier basically said if his program did something wrong they would pay whatever penalty the NCAA deemed apprpriate, and then backed it up.

I think this approach was refreshing to the NCAA and they accepted USC's recommended penalties without added punishment.
 

CapstoneTider

Suspended
Dec 6, 2000
7,453
5
0
USC basically took a different approach than the NCAA had seen before. They went in embarrassed and apologetic and pretty much asked the NCAA ahead of time what punishments were expected, telling the NCAA they would not appeal or protest the NCAA ruling and would self-imposed whatever the NCAA recommended. They were willing from the start to dismiss or reassign anyone the NCAA felt necessary (the compliance officer who was the root of the problems was reassigned). Spurrier basically said if his program did something wrong they would pay whatever penalty the NCAA deemed apprpriate, and then backed it up.

I think this approach was refreshing to the NCAA and they accepted USC's recommended penalties without added punishment.
I am glad it worked for someone. We tried the kiss butt tell all and it bit us hard.
 

We_are_Bama

All-American
Dec 11, 2008
3,184
358
107
Hmm. It sure does seem like the last few cases involving failure to monitor have been taken pretty lightly by the NCAA.