FB: American Southwest Conference

[DFWCrufan]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

he was lending the car so the kid could go to a job interview... Interview with Blake Jackson on the stupid ncaa ruling

https://twitter.com/KurtisQuillin/status/1182403761240772615?s=20

[DFWCrufan]

That is really a shame.  Without really knowing the details it seems like the coach was trying to help a kid out who needed help.  Sure he might not have done it for any other student at the school but how many non-football players do the coaches interact with on a level where they would trust a college kid with borrowing a car.  If the NCAA is really concerned I also bet there are thousands of coaches out there who have given a kid a meal they weren't supposed to or given them a ride to the airport.  I know borrowing a car is somewhat of a step up from that but it was a 10 year old Subaru not a 2016 Lexus.  Back in the day I helped a few assistant coaches move in and out of apartments/homes while I was playing.  They would always pay me what they would pay anyone else to move their stuff but typically they would leave the actual exchange of money to a wife or girlfriend if they could.  I always thought that was funny as a 18-22 year old kid.  Now I understand they were just watching their backside in the event of stuff like this unfortunately.

Here is the interview with 2016 QB and Cleveland Browns WR Blake Jackson.
https://www.centexsportsfan.com/episode/blake-jackson-10-10-19/

[Pat Coleman]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

he was lending the car so the kid could go to a job interview... Interview with Blake Jackson on the stupid ncaa ruling

https://twitter.com/KurtisQuillin/status/1182403761240772615?s=20

For 18 months?

[jamtod]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

he was lending the car so the kid could go to a job interview... Interview with Blake Jackson on the stupid ncaa ruling

https://twitter.com/KurtisQuillin/status/1182403761240772615?s=20

For 18 months?

That's a lot of job interviews

[DFWCrufan]

From what blake said, that's how i'm taking it

[UMHB03]

From the fine folks at Dave Campbell's Texas Football:

https://twitter.com/Tepper/status/1182348900956540928

Greg Tepper
@Tepper

Hello, I'm the managing editor of Dave Campbell's Texas Football, and we will not recognize this ruling. UMHB is the 2016 national champion forever. Thank you.

That's the approach that I hope everyone takes. The 2016 title was not a gift from the NCAA. UMHB earned it on the field, fair and square (the minor infractions did not give them any competitive advantage), and everyone knows it. It will always righfully belong to UMHB, and hopefully every honest publication/organization will recognize that. If this disgracefully excessive penalty is upheld upon appeal, then the NCAA obviously doesn't qualify as honest or legitimate, and their decision should be viewed as invalid.

[TLU02SA]

From the fine folks at Dave Campbell's Texas Football:

https://twitter.com/Tepper/status/1182348900956540928

Greg Tepper
@Tepper

Hello, I'm the managing editor of Dave Campbell's Texas Football, and we will not recognize this ruling. UMHB is the 2016 national champion forever. Thank you.

That's the approach that I hope everyone takes. The 2016 title was not a gift from the NCAA. UMHB earned it on the field, fair and square (the minor infractions did not give them any competitive advantage), and everyone knows it. It will always righfully belong to UMHB, and hopefully every honest publication/organization will recognize that. If this disgracefully excessive penalty is upheld upon appeal, then the NCAA obviously doesn't qualify as honest or legitimate, and their decision should be viewed as invalid.

That is not right! These are the very same excuses you hear from every D1 school that is caught violating NCAA rules!  This is DIII.  No pay, no athletic scholarships, no extra benefits because you are an athlete!  Athletics is secondary.  Education is primary.  This is simple.  An athlete received an extra benefit because he was a member of the football team.  Under the rules, he is ineligible.  Because UMHB used an ineligible player, they must vacate their wins.  Semantics aside, this is deserved.

[TLU02SA]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

I am confused.  Where in any article does it say UMHB's coach was trying to help a kid out?  That is complete speculation!  The intention of loaning a car for 18 months to an athlete on the football team he was coaching....C'Mon!

[Mr. Ypsi]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

I am confused.  Where in any article does it say UMHB's coach was trying to help a kid out?  That is complete speculation!  The intention of loaning a car for 18 months to an athlete on the football team he was coaching....C'Mon!

If you're trying to bribe a kid, it is customary to 'loan' a current Lexus, not a 10 year-old Subaru, which needed to be towed as soon as he lent it to another kid on the team.

Despite your hating, UMHB was, and is, the national champion in 2016 to pretty much every D3 fan.

[TLU02SA]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

I am confused.  Where in any article does it say UMHB's coach was trying to help a kid out?  That is complete speculation!  The intention of loaning a car for 18 months to an athlete on the football team he was coaching....C'Mon!

If you're trying to bribe a kid, it is customary to 'loan' a current Lexus, not a 10 year-old Subaru, which needed to be towed as soon as he lent it to another kid on the team.

Despite your hating, UMHB was, and is, the national champion in 2016 to pretty much every D3 fan.

Ummm.... Really, you are defending your position because it was a 10 year old car?  It was an extra benefit that he only received because he played football.  You are saying that if a student majoring in Biology who does not play athletics would have been lent that same car by the Head Football coach? 

Also, I don't hate.  Hating is ugly!

[Mr. Ypsi]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

I am confused.  Where in any article does it say UMHB's coach was trying to help a kid out?  That is complete speculation!  The intention of loaning a car for 18 months to an athlete on the football team he was coaching....C'Mon!

If you're trying to bribe a kid, it is customary to 'loan' a current Lexus, not a 10 year-old Subaru, which needed to be towed as soon as he lent it to another kid on the team.

Despite your hating, UMHB was, and is, the national champion in 2016 to pretty much every D3 fan.

Ummm.... Really, you are defending your position because it was a 10 year old car?  It was an extra benefit that he only received because he played football.  You are saying that if a student majoring in Biology who does not play athletics would have been lent that same car by the Head Football coach?

I've heard that 'Coach Fred' is a really nice guy all around.  Can you be absolutely certain that he wouldn't have done the same thing for a non-athlete that he took a liking to?

I am not so much defending UMHB, as saying that the punishment was GROSSLY disproportionate to the offense.  Or do you also advocate 10 years at hard labor for jaywalking?

[bleedpurple]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

I am confused.  Where in any article does it say UMHB's coach was trying to help a kid out?  That is complete speculation!  The intention of loaning a car for 18 months to an athlete on the football team he was coaching....C'Mon!

If you're trying to bribe a kid, it is customary to 'loan' a current Lexus, not a 10 year-old Subaru, which needed to be towed as soon as he lent it to another kid on the team.

Despite your hating, UMHB was, and is, the national champion in 2016 to pretty much every D3 fan.

Ummm.... Really, you are defending your position because it was a 10 year old car?  It was an extra benefit that he only received because he played football.  You are saying that if a student majoring in Biology who does not play athletics would have been lent that same car by the Head Football coach?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone is arguing that no violation occurred. I think the issue is that anyone with any common sense at all can see the penalty doesn't fit the crime. Defenders of the decision can lean on:
Athlete receives benefit
Athlete ineligible
Victories are vacated

But if no judgment is allowed to be exercised in the implementation of this policy, then that is a fatal flaw in the system that will effectuate absurd decisions like this.

On the field, I don't like it when the CRU wins a national championship. On the field, I don't like it when Mount wins championships. On the field, I like it when Whitewater wins championships.  But after the season of fair competition (including playoffs) is completed, we crown our champion. And regardless of the shade of purple winning it in any particular year, the winner IS our champion. For the year 2016, UMHB is OUR champion. For the NCAA to vacate the championship is ludicrous, especially when they wouldn't have gotten a sniff of it without the self-reporting. This is really disturbing. Standing firmly with the CRU on this one.

[jamtod]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

I am confused.  Where in any article does it say UMHB's coach was trying to help a kid out?  That is complete speculation!  The intention of loaning a car for 18 months to an athlete on the football team he was coaching....C'Mon!

If you're trying to bribe a kid, it is customary to 'loan' a current Lexus, not a 10 year-old Subaru, which needed to be towed as soon as he lent it to another kid on the team.

Despite your hating, UMHB was, and is, the national champion in 2016 to pretty much every D3 fan.

Ummm.... Really, you are defending your position because it was a 10 year old car?  It was an extra benefit that he only received because he played football.  You are saying that if a student majoring in Biology who does not play athletics would have been lent that same car by the Head Football coach?

I've heard that 'Coach Fred' is a really nice guy all around.  Can you be absolutely certain that he wouldn't have done the same thing for a non-athlete that he took a liking to?

I am not so much defending UMHB, as saying that the punishment was GROSSLY disproportionate to the offense.  Or do you also advocate 10 years at hard labor for jaywalking?

Considering it started while the kid was still a recruit (May, came on campus in August) and lasted for 18 months, I suspect he wouldn't have had a chance to do that for a non-athlete.

The only additional punishment is the vacating the wins, which seems to be par for the course when an ineligible athlete plays. Disregarding the NCAA official record books is pretty easy if one is so inclined and this punishment doesn't impact the future of the program at all, so I'm having a hard time grasping what is so punitive about it.

[TLU02SA]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

I am confused.  Where in any article does it say UMHB's coach was trying to help a kid out?  That is complete speculation!  The intention of loaning a car for 18 months to an athlete on the football team he was coaching....C'Mon!

If you're trying to bribe a kid, it is customary to 'loan' a current Lexus, not a 10 year-old Subaru, which needed to be towed as soon as he lent it to another kid on the team.

Despite your hating, UMHB was, and is, the national champion in 2016 to pretty much every D3 fan.

Ummm.... Really, you are defending your position because it was a 10 year old car?  It was an extra benefit that he only received because he played football.  You are saying that if a student majoring in Biology who does not play athletics would have been lent that same car by the Head Football coach?

I've heard that 'Coach Fred' is a really nice guy all around.  Can you be absolutely certain that he wouldn't have done the same thing for a non-athlete that he took a liking to?

I am not so much defending UMHB, as saying that the punishment was GROSSLY disproportionate to the offense.  Or do you also advocate 10 years at hard labor for jaywalking?

I seriously doubt that any state's laws provide for 10 years of hard labor for jaywalking and I am not saying that UMHB's coach is not a "nice guy all around."  I don't know the guy and have never met him. 

My point is, UMHB agreed to comply with the NCAA rules for DIII.  Otherwise, it would not be participating in this division. What I have seen on this board today is a bunch of apologist claiming to be champions of this division but acknowledging (or at least implying) they did not follow those rules.

This is DIII.  The entire point of DIII is a true student-athlete. I am not saying that a student-athlete shouldn't have aid to complete their college education. My point is that a student-athlete cannot be elevated above a non-student athlete in obtaining that aid.  It is my opinion that UMHB did not comply with the NCAA's DIII rules here. They allowed athletes to receive a benefit on the basis of their athletic ability, participation and/or performance.  First, for 18-months with the first athlete. Second, with another athlete who had the unfortunate circumstance to receive a broken car.

[TheChucker]

This is dumb. It appears to me like he was trying to help a kid out way more than he was trying to game the system. Dumb mistake on his part, but not "take their Championship away" dumb/intentional.

Pat, any insight into how successful appeals like that this are?

I am confused.  Where in any article does it say UMHB's coach was trying to help a kid out?  That is complete speculation!  The intention of loaning a car for 18 months to an athlete on the football team he was coaching....C'Mon!

If you're trying to bribe a kid, it is customary to 'loan' a current Lexus, not a 10 year-old Subaru, which needed to be towed as soon as he lent it to another kid on the team.

Despite your hating, UMHB was, and is, the national champion in 2016 to pretty much every D3 fan.

Ummm.... Really, you are defending your position because it was a 10 year old car?  It was an extra benefit that he only received because he played football.  You are saying that if a student majoring in Biology who does not play athletics would have been lent that same car by the Head Football coach?

I've heard that 'Coach Fred' is a really nice guy all around.  Can you be absolutely certain that he wouldn't have done the same thing for a non-athlete that he took a liking to?

I am not so much defending UMHB, as saying that the punishment was GROSSLY disproportionate to the offense.  Or do you also advocate 10 years at hard labor for jaywalking?

Considering it started while the kid was still a recruit (May, came on campus in August) and lasted for 18 months, I suspect he wouldn't have had a chance to do that for a non-athlete.

The only additional punishment is the vacating the wins, which seems to be par for the course when an ineligible athlete plays. Disregarding the NCAA official record books is pretty easy if one is so inclined and this punishment doesn't impact the future of the program at all, so I'm having a hard time grasping what is so punitive about it.

100-200 players and supporting families who had nothing to do with this minor recruiting violation, a violation that was self reported (and 25% of the coach's annual wages taken) and didn't impact competition, get their title and records expunged. That seems deeply punitive for the action.