FB: American Southwest Conference

[UMHB03]

If your own kid steals from the store and then admits it and returns it with an apology, most parents are going to commend him/her for being truthful (integrity) but will still deal out consequences. 

This is true, and nobody is saying that UMHB is blameless or that there should be no consequences. The complaint is the absurd severity of the consequence in light of the minor nature of an infraction that produced no competitive advantage. To use your analogy, nobody would be opposed to the kid who stole from the store getting ticketed by the police and grounded by the parent. They would be opposed to sending the kid to prison for 10 years.

[Pat Coleman]

The NCAA isn't going to see it as minor since it was
1) ongoing, for 18 months, and
2) raised to the coach's attention and he did not seek the guidance of his compliance person.

[UMHB03]

The NCAA isn't going to see it as minor since it was
1) ongoing, for 18 months, and
2) raised to the coach's attention and he did not seek the guidance of his compliance person.

Fair point. However, the punishment still does not fit the "crime".

Wiping wins, especially championships, out of the books should be reserved solely for situations in which the infraction affected or in some way contributed to those wins through a competitive advantage. That was not the case here. If UMHB was paying players to get better athletes, or involved with steroid use, then it could be legitimately argued that those wins were tainted and achieved unfairly. It would be appropriate to remove those wins in a such a case. In this instance, the games, and the 2016 National Title, were won fair and square. The results of the season would have been no different regardless of whether Fredenburg loaned the kid his car or not. Therefore, vacating those legitimate wins is clearly disproportionate to the offense.

It is what it is, but the Infractions Committee really screwed the pooch on this one.

[bleedpurple]

The NCAA isn't going to see it as minor since it was
1) ongoing, for 18 months, and
2) raised to the coach's attention and he did not seek the guidance of his compliance person.

Fair point. However, the punishment still does not fit the "crime".

Wiping wins, especially championships, out of the books should be reserved solely for situations in which the infraction affected or in some way contributed to those wins through a competitive advantage. That was not the case here. If UMHB was paying players to get better athletes, or involved with steroid use, then it could be legitimately argued that those wins were tainted and achieved unfairly. It would be appropriate to remove those wins in a such a case. In this instance, the games, and the 2016 National Title, were won fair and square. The results of the season would have been no different regardless of whether Fredenburg loaned the kid his car or not. Therefore, vacating those legitimate wins is clearly disproportionate to the offense.

It is what it is, but the Infractions Committee really screwed the pooch UMHB on this one.

I think we can all agree the world is a little bit safer place because of this ruling. 

[Pat Coleman]

The NCAA isn't going to see it as minor since it was
1) ongoing, for 18 months, and
2) raised to the coach's attention and he did not seek the guidance of his compliance person.

Fair point. However, the punishment still does not fit the "crime".

Wiping wins, especially championships, out of the books should be reserved solely for situations in which the infraction affected or in some way contributed to those wins through a competitive advantage.

I suspect the NCAA sees it as a competitive advantage to be able to play an ineligible player for two years.

[Inkblot]

In other news, the NCAA has apparently decided to do away with in-conference matchups in the first round of the playoffs. From the manual:

Teams from the same conference may not play each other in the first-round of competition.

[Pat Coleman]

That's interesting enough for me to check to see if it is a typo.

I do see the the header for that section says: "should be followed"

[Inkblot]

That's interesting enough for me to check to see if it is a typo.

I do see the the header for that section says: "should be followed"

I checked last year's manual to make sure, and it said, "Teams from the same conference may play each other in order to maintain geographic proximity." So this sure seems like a conscious change.

[HSCTiger fan]

The NCAA isn't going to see it as minor since it was
1) ongoing, for 18 months, and
2) raised to the coach's attention and he did not seek the guidance of his compliance person.

Fair point. However, the punishment still does not fit the "crime".

Wiping wins, especially championships, out of the books should be reserved solely for situations in which the infraction affected or in some way contributed to those wins through a competitive advantage. That was not the case here. If UMHB was paying players to get better athletes, or involved with steroid use, then it could be legitimately argued that those wins were tainted and achieved unfairly. It would be appropriate to remove those wins in a such a case. In this instance, the games, and the 2016 National Title, were won fair and square. The results of the season would have been no different regardless of whether Fredenburg loaned the kid his car or not. Therefore, vacating those legitimate wins is clearly disproportionate to the offense.

It is what it is, but the Infractions Committee really screwed the pooch on this one.

Isn’t that what they did?  Maybe they did not actually pay cash to a player. But aren’t they in essence paying a player with providing him with a car at no cost to him for 18 months? 

You say the result of the season would have been no different. Maybe this kid considered another school but decided to attend and or stay at UMHB because he had a free car. Maybe three or four recruits thought - Maybe I can get a car too. We don’t know.

Most casual fans would know that providing that providing a car to a player would be an infraction.  A coach with his experience dealing with the ncaa would have definitely known he was breaking the rules.

The ncaa should not be overly lenient on schools that self report. If they were, there are schools that would intentionally cheat then self report their “mistake” so they would just get a slap on the wrist.

[Etchglow]

Interesting, Blake Jackson is now in the xfl draft pool.

[UMHB03]

The NCAA isn't going to see it as minor since it was
1) ongoing, for 18 months, and
2) raised to the coach's attention and he did not seek the guidance of his compliance person.

Fair point. However, the punishment still does not fit the "crime".

Wiping wins, especially championships, out of the books should be reserved solely for situations in which the infraction affected or in some way contributed to those wins through a competitive advantage. That was not the case here. If UMHB was paying players to get better athletes, or involved with steroid use, then it could be legitimately argued that those wins were tainted and achieved unfairly. It would be appropriate to remove those wins in a such a case. In this instance, the games, and the 2016 National Title, were won fair and square. The results of the season would have been no different regardless of whether Fredenburg loaned the kid his car or not. Therefore, vacating those legitimate wins is clearly disproportionate to the offense.

It is what it is, but the Infractions Committee really screwed the pooch on this one.

Isn't that what they did?  Maybe they did not actually pay cash to a player. But aren't they in essence paying a player with providing him with a car at no cost to him for 18 months? 

You say the result of the season would have been no different. Maybe this kid considered another school but decided to attend and or stay at UMHB because he had a free car. Maybe three or four recruits thought - Maybe I can get a car too. We don't know.

Most casual fans would know that providing that providing a car to a player would be an infraction.  A coach with his experience dealing with the ncaa would have definitely known he was breaking the rules.

The ncaa should not be overly lenient on schools that self report. If they were, there are schools that would intentionally cheat then self report their "mistake" so they would just get a slap on the wrist.

I get your point, but it's a bit of a stretch. No kid is going to choose to attend a school because the coach let him BORROW a crappy, 10 year old car. Maybe if they were going to be GIVEN a car, but not loaned one. Coach should have known better, but trying to help out a broke college kid with a fairly inocuous favor does not justify punishing an entire team and university by robbing them of 29 hard-earned wins and it's first National Championship. I understand that if one wants to take the Hammurabi-like "letter of the law" approach, perhaps this penalty can be justified, but institutions (including the NCAA) and courts usually use nuance in considering the situation and context of a violation before dropping the hammer in an excessive and inappropriate way. They did not use such discretion in this case, when we all know that the results would have been different if this had happened at Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, UT, etc. (and yes, I know they are two different committees, but the same NCAA).

Also, I don't think many coaches will be willing to deliberately break the rules and self report later, when the self imposed sanctions that go along with it involve being suspended without pay for months. The self reporting and self imposed sanctions should have been taken into account with this infraction, and they obviously weren't. The penalty may be "legally" justifiable, but it is not morally justifiable.

[TLU02SA]

The NCAA isn't going to see it as minor since it was
1) ongoing, for 18 months, and
2) raised to the coach's attention and he did not seek the guidance of his compliance person.

Fair point. However, the punishment still does not fit the "crime".

Wiping wins, especially championships, out of the books should be reserved solely for situations in which the infraction affected or in some way contributed to those wins through a competitive advantage. That was not the case here. If UMHB was paying players to get better athletes, or involved with steroid use, then it could be legitimately argued that those wins were tainted and achieved unfairly. It would be appropriate to remove those wins in a such a case. In this instance, the games, and the 2016 National Title, were won fair and square. The results of the season would have been no different regardless of whether Fredenburg loaned the kid his car or not. Therefore, vacating those legitimate wins is clearly disproportionate to the offense.

It is what it is, but the Infractions Committee really screwed the pooch on this one.

Isn't that what they did?  Maybe they did not actually pay cash to a player. But aren't they in essence paying a player with providing him with a car at no cost to him for 18 months? 

You say the result of the season would have been no different. Maybe this kid considered another school but decided to attend and or stay at UMHB because he had a free car. Maybe three or four recruits thought - Maybe I can get a car too. We don't know.

Most casual fans would know that providing that providing a car to a player would be an infraction.  A coach with his experience dealing with the ncaa would have definitely known he was breaking the rules.

The ncaa should not be overly lenient on schools that self report. If they were, there are schools that would intentionally cheat then self report their "mistake" so they would just get a slap on the wrist.

One of the justifications I keep seeing from those supporting UMHB here is that this was self-reported.  I think that justification glosses over what really happened and the details about how the university learned about the violation.  The COI report reveals that the athletics department was being something less than forthright.  The coaching staff and athletic department at UMHB did not report this.  It was a professor at UMHB who was also the faculty athletics representative who overheard students discussing the issue.  When the professor questioned a student about it, that student informed the professor that the student-athlete had been loaned a car.  The professor informed institutional authorities, who then opened an inquiry into the issue.  The head coach didn't report this to the school.  An assistant coach didn't report this to the school.  The AD didn't report this to the school.  It was a professor.  I just don't understand how anyone can look at these circumstances, admit that UMHB violated the rules (UMHB itself admits that it is a major violation), acknowledged UMHB used an ineligible player (which the COI report explicitly finds that UMHB obtained a competitive advantage) and think that the punishment doesn't fit the violation. That reasoning ignores the facts of the case (facts that UMHB admits and agrees to).

[SW66]

There has to be some in between ground on which to dole out punishment because not all benefits should be considered the same. How do we know if the Hardin Simmons coaches didn't buy an athlete a meal when he was hungry, or buy him some groceries for the week because he had no money. How do we know if the Mt. Union coach didn't pay an athlete to water the artificial turf for the year. What about those extra sneakers bought with money designed for equipment for the team and given to a player. All this takes place whether we want to believe it or not and if we are counting all improprieties the same then why not just have one punishment. ...Someone said offering up a loaner car was a recruiting tool that may have helped the team and I would love to know how on earth you come to that conclusion. Goes like this: Come to our school and you can borrow my old beater I have sitting in the driveway. Thanks coach, that is what I needed to be persuaded to come to UMHB. ...Maybe it went like this: Coach, I am having a hard time making it to school,football practice and holding down a job because my parents couldn't afford a car for me so I will need to give up my dream of being the first person in my family to graduate college and have a better life. Coach Fred : I have an old car sitting in the driveway rusting away so if it will help you keep your studies and your job up then you can borrow it. No one is saying it was right but it didn't alter the outcome of any game regardless of what you think, and it doesn't warrant as  excessive a punishment as handed down. Why even investigate if you know what you are going to do to the school regardless of the crime. No way anyone ever self reports anything to the D3 COI ever again from any school.

[jknezek]

I'm kind of amazed that people think playing an ineligible player should result in anything but a vacated game. This is  consistent across all levels of every sport. We see it all the time in youth and h.s. sports when a kid is ineligible due to paperwork or age or anything else. We have even seen this in the Little League World Series. There is literally no other logical punishment for playing an ineligible player. The NCAA has, to my knowledge, always used this punishment for this circumstance.

I get it stinks to lose a National Title, but what else should the punishment be? The player, who played in the game, should not have played. The game result doesn't count. If UMHB had lost in the second round they would hardly care. The whole outcry is because they won a Natty. Well guess what? That shouldn't and doesn't matter.

Coach blew this big time. Be mad at him. He absolutely knew he could not do this. No NCAA coach can reasonably claim they thought they could loan out a personal vehicle to a perspective or active student athlete. He either didn't care or thought he could get away with something he shouldn't.

Stop being mad at an NCAA that is, for once, being consistent and correct. Blame your coach and no one else. He cost you the National title.

[SW66]

I'm kind of amazed that people think playing an ineligible player should result in anything but a vacated game. This is  consistent across all levels of every sport. We see it all the time in youth and h.s. sports when a kid is ineligible due to paperwork or age or anything else. We have even seen this in the Little League World Series. There is literally no other logical punishment for playing an ineligible player. The NCAA has, to my knowledge, always used this punishment for this circumstance.

I get it stinks to lose a National Title, but what else should the punishment be? The player, who played in the game, should not have played. The game result doesn't count. If UMHB had lost in the second round they would hardly care. The whole outcry is because they won a Natty. Well guess what? That shouldn't and doesn't matter.

Coach blew this big time. Be mad at him. He absolutely knew he could not do this. No NCAA coach can reasonably claim they thought they could loan out a personal vehicle to a perspective or active student athlete. He either didn't care or thought he could get away with something he shouldn't.

Stop being mad at an NCAA that is, for once, being consistent and correct. Blame your coach and no one else. He cost you the National title.

Well if that was the case then no result of any game ever played after a player was deemed ineligible should ever count. Even the ones he didn't play in. If a team made the playoffs but the player only played in one game that year then really they didn't make the playoffs in your scenario because that one game loss may have kept them from making the playoffs and getting wins the said player didn't even play in. So if he wouldn't have played in the championship game then would that still be a win even if all the other games were vacated victories?