Every one of the violations mentioned or currently under review took place while someone OTHER than Emmert was at the controls. Kinda hard to blame Emmert. Might want to look closer to home. Slive Needs to go.
How Would You 'Fix' the NCAA?
- Thread starter Redwood Forrest
- Start date
Every one of the violations mentioned or currently under review took place while someone OTHER than Emmert was at the controls. Kinda hard to blame Emmert. Might want to look closer to home. Slive Needs to go.
I have to agree with you BTT. Slive needs to go and the sooner the better. He's stunk up the SEC long enough.
One simple thing will do it: Consistent enforcement...in terms of number of enforcements, degree of punishment, and the strength of evidence on which the punishment is based.
The guys who get hammered and the guys who skate seem to have a lot in common. Other than the punishment.
Just my own crimson colored glasses:
Alabama gets hammered for a booster paying a recruit, but Tennessee skates on Diane Samford paying Tee Martin? Essentially the same facts, different outcome. WTH?
Maurice Clarett declines to answer his phone, so Ohio State skates, but Alabama gets hammered because...well, because they're Alabama and we know what's been going on there for a long time, nevermind that we can't prove anything. We know what we know. WTH?
Cam Newton's father is shopping him to every team in the country, but Cam didn't know about it. So despite the fact that logical reasoning would indicate that Auburn had to outbid other schools for the younger Newton's services, we don't know what we don't know. WTH?
Never you mind about how we knew what we knew about Alabama, with similar evidence, we're Sargeant Schultz (I see noTHINK, I hear noTHINK, I know noTHINK) everywhere else.
How convenient.
It's the selective enforcement I have a problem with. If Ohio State got punished like we did for essentially the same charges, I wouldn't like it, but I could at least accept the viability of the process. As it is, (and to quote Martin Sheen in Apocolypse Now) it seems that the NCAA is handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500 -- when it can catch the idiot that slows down enough to let them do so.
Stop impersonating the Keystone Kops, and I might listen. Until then, go back to silent movies.
The guys who get hammered and the guys who skate seem to have a lot in common. Other than the punishment.
Just my own crimson colored glasses:
Alabama gets hammered for a booster paying a recruit, but Tennessee skates on Diane Samford paying Tee Martin? Essentially the same facts, different outcome. WTH?
Maurice Clarett declines to answer his phone, so Ohio State skates, but Alabama gets hammered because...well, because they're Alabama and we know what's been going on there for a long time, nevermind that we can't prove anything. We know what we know. WTH?
Cam Newton's father is shopping him to every team in the country, but Cam didn't know about it. So despite the fact that logical reasoning would indicate that Auburn had to outbid other schools for the younger Newton's services, we don't know what we don't know. WTH?
Never you mind about how we knew what we knew about Alabama, with similar evidence, we're Sargeant Schultz (I see noTHINK, I hear noTHINK, I know noTHINK) everywhere else.
How convenient.
It's the selective enforcement I have a problem with. If Ohio State got punished like we did for essentially the same charges, I wouldn't like it, but I could at least accept the viability of the process. As it is, (and to quote Martin Sheen in Apocolypse Now) it seems that the NCAA is handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500 -- when it can catch the idiot that slows down enough to let them do so.
Stop impersonating the Keystone Kops, and I might listen. Until then, go back to silent movies.
Actually, my understanding is the booster paid the high school coach, not the recruit. It may seem like a minor difference, but it's pretty significant IMO.
Last edited:
With Cam, yes- they may be allowing AU to hang themselves. But as an overall strategy....I doubt it. As much as I didn't like the ruling on Cam back when he was reinstated- the on the book procedure was followed from the NCAA's standpoint. Slive's actions however were a complete joke. The same applies with the Pryor ruling on the NCAA's end. They acted following existing procedure.
So this why I don't think it was a gaff and it also goes to show why the question in your OP is a very valid one. The NCAA is broken and needs to be fixed, but Emmert is not to blame for this. I believe if you were to pull Emmert aside and ask if he thought the NCAA was broken he would tell you- YES. There is an upcoming convention where rules and policies are reviewed and changed, I forget the actual name of it, and I suspect there will be an overhaul of many of the current procedures.......fingers crossed and don't forget Watergate.
Last edited:
It hurts me to agree with your last sentence, but I think we stand a better chance of ridding the world of poverty, bureaucracy and red tape than fixing the NCAA.While I might be pleased with replacing the NCAA with another entity more aligned with the major conferences, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Unfortunately I believe the more achievable approach is to try to repair the present NCAA.
Gads... It hurt to write that last sentence.DT_fly:
I suggest the building of a giant tolet with a plank installed overhanging the center of the bowl (location suggestion is at Auburn, hey, they think their "S" don't stink). Insert 5 tons of rino dung and maybe for good measure, some elephant dung. Have each current associate of the NCAA walk out to the end of the plank, have a picture taken, then push the .... off the plank so they can join their friends. Once all have been processed, wipe the plank, engage handle and video tape the last little marry go round those butt heads will put the fans through. Now, back to game, fade in, TOUCHDOWN BAMA!
I vote for this one.
I vote for this one.
I doubt this will come across how I intend it to but here it goes. I think the NCAA needs to make less things a "violation". Steve Spurrier (and I've heard other coaches say this as well) mentioned a couple of years ago that a lot of the rules are so tedious that you can be breaking a rule and not even know it. The rule book needs to inject some form of common sense into it (I know, fat chance) and "real world" thinking.
Scale it back, deal with truly "major" issues. There is a point where there are so many rules made they become dang near impossible to monitor or enforce.
Scale it back, deal with truly "major" issues. There is a point where there are so many rules made they become dang near impossible to monitor or enforce.
Absolutely. I remember a thread on here a year or so ago about a Mobile recruit, I think BJ Scott who had to sit a game because when he was senior in HS and being recruited by Bama he and a HS friend were flown to Tuscaloosa for a basketball game by his friend's father who was an Alabama graduate. The ruling was something like Scott and this boy became friends and played ball together starting in the 9th grade. This would not have been considered a secondary violation had Scott known this boy prior to the 9th grade, but since he didn't it was considered a secondary violation. And one of the worst violations is when the NCAA considered Jerri Spurrier writing thank you notes to recruits who had just signed with USCe. Now tell me both of these offenses give a competitive advantage.
The first question that needs to be answered is: what are the rules supposed to accomplish? Why is it illegal to pay for play, or offer gameday experiences, etc? Why are scholarships limited? The assumed answer is that the NCAA is trying to legislate "equality" between institutions. If Bama, ND, Texas, USC (the crazy one), etc and afford 180 scholarships then all the talent goes there, and not to the non-CFB royalty schools. My answer to this is, why is that the NCAA's job?
There are pros and cons with any system, the old way, many a talented player sat the bench for 4 years and never got the chance to show his stuff. On the other hand, because of this new way, there are a lot of players that have no chance to play at all because the overal total number of scholarships and players is reduced. So lesser players that were only playing because they love the game are cut out as players are pushed down all around the system.
So my answer is, shut the NCAA out completely of managing anything but game rules. There really shouldn't be anything the school should be involved in with private agreements between anyone away from the school anyway. If the school paid the player, Title IX would matter, but if I am able to sell my books, personal property, etc and no one cares, why is it any different for the players. If I get a job, its not the schools business what I do or what I am paid, as long as I am not breaking any laws. Places with boosters willing to pay players to "turn on" their automatic sprinklers are perfectly legal under the law. The school has no knowledge or responsibility. To keep it simple and removed, you can make rules that no one can be paid on school premises. That would prevent the $100 handshakes in front of other players.
The real key is that this format gets more players in school, which is supposed to be the focus of the colleges. Being paid to be there saves the colleges money, not requiring the scholarship. Removing limits on practice teams allow more players to play. As long as the funds come from private individuals, its no body's business if it happens.
Focus on adademic fraud, game cheating, things like gambling, etc, that are concrete crimes and prosecutable through the school or the law, and remove the things that are against the rules because it isn't "fair".
The resulting system will not be as balanced as what we have, but it won't be hypocritical either.
There are pros and cons with any system, the old way, many a talented player sat the bench for 4 years and never got the chance to show his stuff. On the other hand, because of this new way, there are a lot of players that have no chance to play at all because the overal total number of scholarships and players is reduced. So lesser players that were only playing because they love the game are cut out as players are pushed down all around the system.
So my answer is, shut the NCAA out completely of managing anything but game rules. There really shouldn't be anything the school should be involved in with private agreements between anyone away from the school anyway. If the school paid the player, Title IX would matter, but if I am able to sell my books, personal property, etc and no one cares, why is it any different for the players. If I get a job, its not the schools business what I do or what I am paid, as long as I am not breaking any laws. Places with boosters willing to pay players to "turn on" their automatic sprinklers are perfectly legal under the law. The school has no knowledge or responsibility. To keep it simple and removed, you can make rules that no one can be paid on school premises. That would prevent the $100 handshakes in front of other players.
The real key is that this format gets more players in school, which is supposed to be the focus of the colleges. Being paid to be there saves the colleges money, not requiring the scholarship. Removing limits on practice teams allow more players to play. As long as the funds come from private individuals, its no body's business if it happens.
Focus on adademic fraud, game cheating, things like gambling, etc, that are concrete crimes and prosecutable through the school or the law, and remove the things that are against the rules because it isn't "fair".
The resulting system will not be as balanced as what we have, but it won't be hypocritical either.
I agree with Athens for the most part. The scope of what the NCAA regulates is simply too broad. Worrying about a kid getting a ride home from a 7 on 7 passing/receiving camp or to and from a recruiting visit shouldn't fall within that scope of regulation. The universities shouldn't be held responsible for things that happen off campus and with people (not directly affiliated with the college) that they have no realistic way of monitoring or doing anything about.
Latest threads
-
NBA Draft 2025 - Top 100 available player rankings (including the 3 Alabama guys)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 0
-
-
Wisconsin sues UMiami for contract interference in player transfer kerfuffle.
- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
