NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > Why the NCAA needs to be blown up...
March 15, 2012, 02:16 PM
Read an awesome article on SI yeasterday, and I believe it deserves reading by any and all CFB fans. This is because it points out the arbitrary and petty way the NCAA often operates; it's set of double (/triple and more) standards that it operates under, and the idiotic rules it enforces.

I've heard it so often it really makes me wanta hurl: "The NCAA found them guilty of a serious violation, so they must be cheaters". This article exposes the fact that NCAA findings don't mean too much in reality. The sentence is based more on cooperation (Kissing the NCAA's backside) than it is the offense. Guilt is often based on the flimsiest of evidence in some cases, while good hard evidence is ignored in others.

I've been a broken record o on this, but I'll say it again: the NCAA (and it's rulebook) needs to be restructured at the least, demolished if necessary.

http://tinyurl.com/7lqu6w o
Comment #1 has been removed
March 15, 2012  07:31 PM ET

Just saying....

March 15, 2012  07:38 PM ET

OOORRRRRR....

were you talking....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/movie?v=5esCYD3hOAg&ob=av1n[/youtube]

March 15, 2012  07:52 PM ET

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/movie?v=5esCYD3hOAg&ob=av1n[\youtube]

March 15, 2012  07:58 PM ET

perhaps????

March 15, 2012  09:59 PM ET

At first glance I thought I saw "Why the NCAA needs a blow up doll"

March 15, 2012  09:59 PM ET

Darn

March 16, 2012  05:01 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

At first glance I thought I saw "Why the NCAA needs a blow up doll"

Why can't it be both?

March 16, 2012  05:02 AM ET

And 7 1/2 hours until SDSU takes its first step in dominating the field of 64....

Or loses to NC State.

Either way is all good this year, as we will be much better on the BB front next season.

March 16, 2012  12:08 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Why can't it be both?

Curious minds want to know!

March 19, 2012  02:19 PM ET
QUOTE(#6):

At first glance I thought I saw "Why the NCAA needs a blow up doll"

Maybe if they had one, or at least a few M. Lewinski's, they wouldn't be so brain dead and vindictive when it comes to rules and punishment.

I've said it before, pro'lly say it again: unless we desire the cycle to continue the rule book and NCAA need to change. What form that change takes is up for debate, but the rule book as is will continue to be broken in just about every winning program, and I think it is unnecessary to restrict atheletes from making money that doesn't come from the program, or give an OTF advantage.

Secondly, I don't think that the amount of cooperation should determine the harshness of the penalty. Mostly I feel the burden of proof should be more well defined and penalties likewise.

Punishment should be administered by a totally seperate org from the accusers/judges. As it is the NCAA is judge, jury, and executioner; like the church of the dark ages and more recently the IRS. I can think of no instances where that complete power was not abused.

March 19, 2012  05:23 PM ET

Basketball is a ugly subject for most Trojan fans; 1st and foremost we really suck like a hoover this year (the PAC in general does). And 2nd is that the other half of the "Bush scandall" was the OJ Mayo scandall, which really did involve the U and justified part of the witch hunt (we WERE guilty as charged on that'n).

Best of luck to the Aztecs tho...

March 20, 2012  06:40 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

I don't think that the amount of cooperation should determine the harshness of the penalty.

GA Tech agrees.

March 20, 2012  08:51 AM ET
QUOTE(#11):

I've said it before, pro'lly say it again: unless we desire the cycle to continue the rule book and NCAA need to change. What form that change takes is up for debate, but the rule book as is will continue to be broken in just about every winning program, and I think it is unnecessary to restrict atheletes from making money that doesn't come from the program, or give an OTF advantage.

Secondly, I don't think that the amount of cooperation should determine the harshness of the penalty. Mostly I feel the burden of proof should be more well defined and penalties likewise.

Punishment should be administered by a totally seperate org from the accusers/judges. As it is the NCAA is judge, jury, and executioner; like the church of the dark ages and more recently the IRS. I can think of no instances where that complete power was not abused.

If no restrictions are placed on how much money student-athletes make for outside the program, then you have essentially created a truly minor (professional) league. Highly successful programs and programs with access to (Agent) money will become the only competitive teams. The ON-THE-FIELD advantage is the fact the student-athletes will go to where the money is, and therefore the have/have-not divide becomes uncrossable.

The amount of co-operation SHOULDN'T determine the outcome, but you have to understand the NCAA can gather NO information without the co-operation of the party(ies) involved. They have no subpoena power, nor do they have any legal standing to have anyone outside of the NCAA even talk! Hence, if the coach or player or administrator or whomever leaves the team, they have ABSOLUTLEY NO REASON TO TALK TO THE NCAA. So, the only thing keeping any semblence of law and order in the NCAA is the appearance school presidents/chancellors/etc want to put forward that the NCAA HAS law and order...nothing more, nothing less.

IF your true goal is to have the punishment equal the crime, then the NCAA has to have the ability to truly investigate (and punish). They need to be able to call witnesses, and these witnesses need to be compelled to attend the hearing, regardless of the affiliation (or lack thereof) with the NCAA. These procedings should mimic the Judicial System with the same rights afforded. This, and only this, will make the procedings make sense. The cost of this change would be astronomical. And the legality of such a change would need to be determined.

The other factor is how to punish the guilty party(ies). How, and only as an example, does Reggie Bush get punished? What would be equitable? No laws were broken, so is reparations just? or even fair? So, should reparations fall to the school? It is decidely unjust student-athletes NOT part of the original transgression to be the ones subjected to the "punishment."

March 20, 2012  01:18 PM ET

Another article, an excerpt from a book: "Josh Luchs ILLEGAL PROCEDURE: A Sports Agent Comes Clean on the Dirty Business of College Football"

It's an idea that I have agreed with for awhile.
http://tinyurl.com/Agent-Loans

March 20, 2012  01:29 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

If no restrictions are placed on how much money student-athletes make for outside the program, then you have essentially created a truly minor (professional) league. Highly successful programs and programs with access to (Agent) money will become the only competitive teams. The ON-THE-FIELD advantage is the fact the student-athletes will go to where the money is, and therefore the have/have-not divide becomes uncrossable.The amount of co-operation SHOULDN'T determine the outcome, but you have to understand the NCAA can gather NO information without the co-operation of the party(ies) involved. They have no subpoena power, nor do they have any legal standing to have anyone outside of the NCAA even talk! Hence, if the coach or player or administrator or whomever leaves the team, they have ABSOLUTLEY NO REASON TO TALK TO THE NCAA. So, the only thing keeping any semblence of law and order in the NCAA is the appearance school presidents/chancellors/etc want to put forward that the NCAA HAS law and order...nothing more, nothing less.IF your true goal is to have the punishment equal the crime, then the NCAA has to have the ability to truly investigate (and punish). They need to be able to call witnesses, and these witnesses need to be compelled to attend the hearing, regardless of the affiliation (or lack thereof) with the NCAA. These procedings should mimic the Judicial System with the same rights afforded. This, and only this, will make the procedings make sense. The cost of this change would be astronomical. And the legality of such a change would need to be determined.The other factor is how to punish the guilty party(ies). How, and only as an example, does Reggie Bush get punished? What would be equitable? No laws were broken, so is reparations just? or even fair? So, should reparations fall to the school? It is decidely unjust student-athletes NOT part of the original transgression to be the ones subjected to the "punishment."

I am not advocating "unrestricted" money. For instance, any ties between school and agent(s) should be severely punished. As before I have said agents should be required to apply for a "college license" so to speak, that would come with conditions and be revocable. dealings outside the limits would still be violations. Lastly, agent money should only be permitted in the form of loans, as in the excerpt above.

But mainly I am not arrogant enuff to think I have the answers, even tho I have opinions (I recognize that is all they are). Mainly this thread is to point out that the current system is unredeemably broke and requires 'outside the box' thinking and solutions. I am against any money coming from the programs in any way (agents, HS coach influence, boosters, etc) for reasons you have suggested. But isn't that the problem? In spite of the rules, or in some cases because of, they continue to be disregarded and handslap penalties to those that ACT contrite, death to those that dare stand up to the tyrant (aka Jerry Tarkanian).

March 20, 2012  01:46 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

IF your true goal is to have the punishment equal the crime, then the NCAA has to have the ability to truly investigate (and punish). They need to be able to call witnesses, and these witnesses need to be compelled to attend the hearing, regardless of the affiliation (or lack thereof) with the NCAA. These procedings should mimic the Judicial System with the same rights afforded. This, and only this, will make the procedings make sense. The cost of this change would be astronomical. And the legality of such a change would need to be determined.

"Mimick the judicial system" is a goal I am in total agreement with. There should be separation between investigative and judiciary powers. There should be burden of proof. When someone like Paul dee is integral in handing down a sentence, a mistrial should be declared.

I realize the lack of subpoena power limits the effectivity of the NCAA, and it not being legal matters they investigate I imagine it would be a constitutional violation if they were given such rights. Think maybe there is a reason for that? Also for the 5th? Peeps shouldn't have to hand their accusers the ammo to blow their head off. If there is no real evidence, then there should be no "going to trial". Simple as that. Most of all, testimony in "he said, she said", with no real evidential determinant, should be discarded (see Lloyd lakes testimony on the contents and date of a phone call vs Todd Mcnairs. No evidence on the contents, just that there was a phone call. Yet known felon Lloyd Lakes testimony is accepted, even tho he has many inconsistencies including the year.

No, I'm no lawyer, but I recognize a railroad when I see one. I also recognize slaps on the wrist. And both are bad practice for an org overseeing an entity as big as CFB.

March 20, 2012  02:00 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

The amount of co-operation SHOULDN'T determine the outcome, but you have to understand the NCAA can gather NO information without the co-operation of the party(ies) involved. They have no subpoena power, nor do they have any legal standing to have anyone outside of the NCAA even talk!

As far as Subpoena power, legal above board agents solves that problem, at least as far as agents are concerned. From the excerpt:

"9. The NCAA would retain paperwork on all transactions. And the NCAA would have access to agent phone and bank records, which they do not currently have, in order to track activities, movement of money, etc. This would allow for the equivalent of subpoena power for any requested documents; otherwise an agent would be immediately removed from participation in the loan program."

This of course depends on:
"1. Any certified agent who wishes to participate could register to lend money to athletes."
and the ability to regulate agent-player legal transactions.

All I'm saying is keep an open mind. don't view things thru current NCAA specs; they've proven over and over to be the wrong prescription. Lets listen to peeps that have good ideas and not just say it'll never work. And WTF, if it doesn't what has changed? It doesn't work now...

March 20, 2012  02:20 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

The other factor is how to punish the guilty party(ies). How, and only as an example, does Reggie Bush get punished? What would be equitable? No laws were broken, so is reparations just? or even fair? So, should reparations fall to the school? It is decidely unjust student-athletes NOT part of the original transgression to be the ones subjected to the "punishment."

This is the perfect example. If agent loans were as described in the article no rules are broken, Reggie is still a Heisman hero and not an outcast, The 2004 BCS NCG is still on the books as it ended OTF.

And most of all there is no OTF advantage (It is my opinion there never was anyway, it didn't lure Bush to USC, it didn't enhance his ability, and the money didn't come from the program, except in a really outlandish way; the agents were considered boosters cuz they gave summer employment. I mean seriously, does anyone believe this was an OTF for USC?). But this isn't about USC. The same loans would have been available to Cam Newton, Terrelle Pryor.
Instead of trading trinkets for tats, they could've gotten loans. Not saying the Cam Newton pay for play goes away, but what actually should have been investigated with an iron fist went away on it's own, replaced by a tatoo scandall. Hmmm...seems to me resources could be better allocated, and if LL's testimony is good enuff, but Cam telling a recruiter "the money was too much" (http://tinyurl.com/money-too-much) isn't? BTW, what ever happened to 'that guy'? Anyone else wonder why that part of the story 'dissappeared'?

 
March 21, 2012  09:26 AM ET

The proposal put forth is preposterous....legalizing agents giving money does not alter anything, other than there exists the farce of "its legal." There will ALWAYS be the fringe factor, and people who are not on "the List" will STILL have runners, etc. Further, the idea that agents will loan players money (the article lists $10k per year) and have NO WAY to get repaid if the college player can't make it in the pros is naive, at best. Agents will have the terms written such that they will not lose money, ever.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Irving: Fans don't deserve the Cavs
    Views
    7084
    Comments
    680
  2. 2
    Red Sox dodged two injury scares
    Views
    2924
    Comments
    495
  3. 3
    Trump taking a legit run at the Bills
    Views
    2191
    Comments
    106
  4. 4
    Why the Raiders have lost 111 of 160 games
    Views
    5512
    Comments
    66
  5. 5
    Bruins can't count on shut-down D
    Views
    1476
    Comments
    59

SI.com

SI Photos