Study shows NCAA penalties don't punish football teams

[bat123]

I almost don't know how to respond to this especially since our "own" Gene Marsh is quoted here, just renforces my views of ole' Mr. Co-operation Gene-O :mad2:

Dink

 

[Bama1970]

Total Bs

 

[PalmBayBama]

The numbers are skewed by teams like Ole Miss that always lose regardless of probation.

 

[Bama323]

Yeah, it don't effect your performance UNLESS YOU ARE THE ONLY TEAM IN THE COUNTRY TO LOSE 21 SCHOLARSHIP PLAYERS OVER THREE YEARS!! Also, our record the previous 5 years is probably not much better, because we were just recovering from probation then also.

 

[IH8Orange]

I almost don't know how to respond to this especially since our "own" Gene Marsh is quoted here, just renforces my views of ole' Mr. Co-operation Gene-O :mad2:

Dink

Did Gene Marsh look at our record from 1992-1996 and compare it to our record from 1997-2001? Performing a comparison between the five years prior to our 2002 sanctions and the five years after is not a valid sample because the effects of the first sanctions were being felt during the five years prior to the 2002 sanctions.

The study is bunk. Either the data was invalid, as it would be for our 2002 sanctions, or the interpretation was wrong. As in most endeavors that require any cognitive effort, the NCAA is unable to perform at a satisfactory level.

Is it any wonder that student-athletes are constantly in academic or legal trouble with such an incompetent organization in charge?

 

[BigEasyTider]

Here is the deal...

If the conclusion here is true that NCAA penalties do not truly punish football programs -- and I think it's obvious that conclusion is a complete crock, but whatever -- then why in the holy hell do they even bother punishing these damn teams to begin with?

Even if you use their logic, this makes absolutely no sense. If their conclusion is true, and again it obviously isn't, the NCAA has spent 50+ years wasting everyone's time by "punishing" cheaters.

 

[BocaLance]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiigggght.

"I'm not surprised by (They) the findings," he said. The NCAA (were) penalties are not (looking) designed to cripple a program (down) in future competition, "leaving behind (the barrel) a wasteland (of a gun)" for the school's football players in coming seasons, he said.

 

[GrayTide]

The answer is in the last paragraph the period studied was 1987-2002. The affect on our program was not felt until 2003 and beyond.

 

[IH8Orange]

The answer is in the last paragraph the period studied was 1987-2002. The affect on our program was not felt until 2003 and beyond.

We were hit by sanctions in 1995 also. Those effects were evident by 1997.

 

[BAMA504]

Just ask our rivals how much it helps~!~

 

[bat123]

There is no way it could not affect us even with good coaching, the quality and depth was seriously compromised.

 

[Bama 13-0]

So, does this mean that SMU's penalties didn't hurt them? Did they still field a decent team while on the death penalty?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I wonder if they just lumped all NCAA penalties into one bucket or did they take the time to show the ones that only got a slap on the wrist (i.e. Oklahoma and others) and only lost three scholarships over three years compared to the ones such as Bama that lost 21 scholarships over three years? That's a huge difference.

 

[Bama My Heart]

The NCAA penalties might not have affected us as much as they did if we had decent leadership at the helm.

You k now, you can't lead what you don't have. The reason that Coach Bryant was so successful was because he had so many players in key positions.
If a player got hurt or was being disclipined, he had another one that was almost as good to step up. Coach Shula did not have this. When we had injuries to major players, that was it, and we had to do the best that we could.
It was scary there one time as to whether we would have a quaterback to take the field. I think that this guy know less about football than I do and that's saying a lot.