FB: American Southwest Conference

[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?

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.

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.

You are having a hard time grasping what is so punitive about vacating a National Championship?  Maybe you are still numb from the Tommies getting drop-kicked from the MIAC.

[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.

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.

What does it actually mean though? They played in the game. I watched it and saw they won. Are the memories gone? No.

Yes, it sucks for the players. No doubt. Coach should have followed the rules.

On the other hand, an ineligible player was in the game also. Did it impact competition? I don't know. Did coach letting a guy use his car before he was even on campus away him to attend instead of going elsewhere? Probably not, but the D3 committee saw all the evidence and thought it was a big enough deal

Maybe I'm being too dismissive of this, but it's not a death penalty. It's not a post season ban.

Unfortunately, I don't think we get to scratch our loss from the record books to UMHB in 2017

[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?

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.

I disagree with this!  If this was D1, I would agree due to the fact that D1 football is primarly a media company and secondarily a college football institution.  Unfortunately, this is not D1, this is DIII.  DIII exists and stands on the fact that the athletes are students, just like every other student on campus. 

Yes, UMHB was right to self-report.  That doesn't mean they should not suffer the consequences of the violation.  That said, I don't think this self-reporting was entirely voluntary.  From the articles I have read, UMHB's coach lent the car when the athlete was a "prospective student-athlete".  Despite knowing this, he did not inquire with compliance to determine whether that was permissible.   Those are not the actions of an innocent person and someone brought this to light.

Look, apparently there is a fundamental difference in how I view DIII athletics and how you view D3 athletics.  If schools like UMHB think that D3 football should look like D1 football, then maybe those schools should not be in DIII athletics.   

[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?

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.

What is the saying?  One bad apple spoils the bunch....

[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?

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.

OK. So TLU won a national championship in softball this year. Let's say later this year, the TLU compliance officer finds out that an assistant coach drove some players to the airport, doctors office and job interview during the school year. It's an NCAA violation, so those players were technically ineligible to play. TLU self reports the violations and imposes its own penalties. The NCAA still vacates TLU's lone NCAA national championship. You think that would be fair? I doubt 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.

OK. So TLU won a national championship in softball this year. Let's say later this year, the TLU compliance officer finds out that an assistant coach drove some players to the airport, doctors office and job interview during the school year. It's an NCAA violation, so those players were technically ineligable to play. TLU self reports the violations and imposes its own penalties. The NCAA still vacates TLU's lone NCAA national championship. You think that would be fair? I doubt it.

If what you said were true, yes!  But I want to point out that UMHB did not just provide a ride to the airport, doctors office or job interview.  The UMHB head coach provided his car to a football player for 18 months! Not exactly apples to apples you are comparing there.

By the way, I am very very proud of TLU's Softball team.  Coach Wilson has done a fantastic job.  I have had much fun watching them for several years, including their winning the national championship this past year.  They are my favorite TLU team to watch!

[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?

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.

OK. So TLU won a national championship in softball this year. Let's say later this year, the TLU compliance officer finds out that an assistant coach drove some players to the airport, doctors office and job interview during the school year. It's an NCAA violation, so those players were technically ineligable to play. TLU self reports the violations and imposes its own penalties. The NCAA still vacates TLU's lone NCAA national championship. You think that would be fair? I doubt it.

If what you said were true, yes!  But I want to point out that UMHB did not just provide a ride to the airport, doctors office or job interview.  The UMHB head coach provided his car to a football player for 18 months! Not exactly apples to apples you are comparing there.

By the way, I am very very proud of TLU's Softball team.  I have had much fun watching them for several years, including their winning the national championship this past year.

So what's the criteria for getting the championship title vacated. One ride to the doctor? Two rides? Loaning a car for a week? A month? Loaning a 20 year old car? A 10 year old car? If a minor self-reported violation get's a title vacated, while wholesale academic fraud at large name brand schools get a slap on the wrist, then something is wrong.

[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.

OK. So TLU won a national championship in softball this year. Let's say later this year, the TLU compliance officer finds out that an assistant coach drove some players to the airport, doctors office and job interview during the school year. It's an NCAA violation, so those players were technically ineligable to play. TLU self reports the violations and imposes its own penalties. The NCAA still vacates TLU's lone NCAA national championship. You think that would be fair? I doubt it.

If what you said were true, yes!  But I want to point out that UMHB did not just provide a ride to the airport, doctors office or job interview.  The UMHB head coach provided his car to a football player for 18 months! Not exactly apples to apples you are comparing there.

By the way, I am very very proud of TLU's Softball team.  I have had much fun watching them for several years, including their winning the national championship this past year.

So what's the criteria for getting the championship title vacated. One ride to the doctor? Two rides? Loaning a car for a week? A month? Loaning a 20 year old car? A 10 year old car? If a minor self-reported violation get's a title vacated, while wholesale academic fraud at large name brand schools get a slap on the wrist, then something is wrong.

I don't know what the criteria is...I am not on the committee that decides those things.  But a head coach loaning his car to (regardless of the age of the car) and paying the for the insurance that exceeded $5,000 for a member of his team for 18 months seems to meet the criteria for impermissible benefits!  I doubt that giving a ride to a student (athlete or not by a professor, coach, or administrator) to the doctor's office or a job interview would be an NCAA violation but I might be wrong.  But when a coach is providing his property to a prospective athlete and continues to do so after he is enrolled, a line has been crossed.  I don't see this as minor, so I don't agree that this is a "minor self-reported violation".  I guess we can agree to disagree. 

I am just saying, the last time I tried to loan a car for 18 months, I was told I needed to pay $300 per month to Ford Finance!  If you have had a different experience, please enlighten us because we all want that free loaner for 18 months!

[jknezek]

I think the best question we can ask is can anyone find an NCAA case where a team played an ineligible player and didn't have to vacate those wins? I can't.

Is there anyone who thinks the player should have been eligible given the rules as they are written? I suspect not if you are the slightest bit impartial.

Don't be mad at the NCAA. This 100% falls on a longtime coach who should know the rules. Unless someone can find me a case where an ineligible player didn't lead to a vacated game result, or a reason the player should not have been ineligible, this is about as cut and dry as it gets.

Why would UMHB get an exception?

[SW66]

So what would the punishment be for something major like actually paying an athlete or something bigger? What would they do or take from an 0-10 team if UMHB was a bad team? This is just the NCAA using the bully tactics they are known for and flexing their muscle. They already hose D3 with their minimal funding for the schools and the D3 playoffs. These kids pay for a lot of their own education at D3 schools and lending someone a car to actually be able to get an education seems pretty petty. Sure, if it was a recruiting tactic or a benefit paid to get an athlete to your school I would be a little more understanding of the harsh punishment.

[Ron Boerger]

So what would the punishment be for something major like actually paying an athlete or something bigger? What would they do or take from an 0-10 team if UMHB was a bad team? This is just the NCAA using the bully tactics they are known for and flexing their muscle. They already hose D3 with their minimal funding for the schools and the D3 playoffs. These kids pay for a lot of their own education at D3 schools and lending someone a car to actually be able to get an education seems pretty petty. Sure, if it was a recruiting tactic or a benefit paid to get an athlete to your school I would be a little more understanding of the harsh punishment.

I imagine that in this case the AA would assess financial penalties, forbid the school from participating in post-season play (which the current self-assessed, ill-defined probation does not include), maybe even ban the coach from being able to coach. 

And, unfortunately for all concerned, apparently initially the car was provided to the student before enrolling at UMHB; from the D3football.com summary (emphasis mine):

The head coach was aware that he was still a prospective student-athlete when he initially provided use of the vehicle and continued to allow the student-athlete to use the vehicle once he enrolled full time and competed at the institution beginning in August 2016.

So the NCAA (arguably) does see that part of it as a recruiting inducement.   

[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.

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.

Incorrect. It is not deserved. This is trying to kill a fly with a stick of dynamite. Meanwhile, you have many of the NCAA cash cows literally paying players and institutionalizing rape, and they get less punishment than the Crusaders did.

The NCAA has proven it's hypocrisy and illegitimacy with this decision, unless sanity prevails and the penalty is lifted. UMHB earned the 2016 National Title on the field, fair and square. The NCAA cannot "taketh away" what it did not "giveth", except in the superficial, technical sense. In case anyone forgot who the true 2016 champs are, here's the proof:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsYvi-eU67w

[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?

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.

I disagree with this!  If this was D1, I would agree due to the fact that D1 football is primarly a media company and secondarily a college football institution.  Unfortunately, this is not D1, this is DIII.  DIII exists and stands on the fact that the athletes are students, just like every other student on campus. 

Yes, UMHB was right to self-report.  That doesn't mean they should not suffer the consequences of the violation.  That said, I don't think this self-reporting was entirely voluntary.  From the articles I have read, UMHB's coach lent the car when the athlete was a "prospective student-athlete".  Despite knowing this, he did not inquire with compliance to determine whether that was permissible.   Those are not the actions of an innocent person and someone brought this to light.

Look, apparently there is a fundamental difference in how I view DIII athletics and how you view D3 athletics.  If schools like UMHB think that D3 football should look like D1 football, then maybe those schools should not be in DIII athletics.

He was not a prospective student, the player was on the squad so it wasn't in the category of bribing a prospect (which is kinda silly if it is a beater 2006) no one is saying there should not be any punishment, there was, and it was accepted. Then the "committee" went beyond their previously accepted punishment. (what 3 years now) - Hey you know what, this is going to burn bright in the 2019 Cru and TLU is coming up - Run it up! do not let this distract, ETBU. HSU, TLU bury them and keep on! Keep your eye on Stagg, UMU or UWW whoever is there and bring home 2019!

[jamtod]

He was not a prospective student, the player was on the squad so it wasn't in the category of bribing a prospect (which is kinda silly if it is a beater 2006) no one is saying there should not be any punishment, there was, and it was accepted. Then the "committee" went beyond their previously accepted punishment. (what 3 years now) - Hey you know what, this is going to burn bright in the 2019 Cru and TLU is coming up - Run it up! do not let this distract, ETBU. HSU, TLU bury them and keep on! Keep your eye on Stagg, UMU or UWW whoever is there and bring home 2019!

I'm not sure what this means, but the student-athlete is described as a "prospect." Perhaps already a student but not officially on the football team yet, at that point? It started in May.

First, two football staff members provided a football student-athlete, who was a prospect at the time, impermissible transportation. The head coach was aware of the transportation but did not check with compliance to see if it was allowed.

and this

The head coach was aware that he was still a prospective student-athlete when he initially provided use of the vehicle and continued to allow the student-athlete to use the vehicle once he enrolled full time and competed at the institution beginning in August 2016.

No doubt this will only motivate the current UMHB squad and I wouldn't want to be standing in their way.

[Etchglow]

Unfortunately, I think that the majority of wins for those two seasons are gone for good after looking through the NCAA Major Infractions database.  I only managed to find three instances where impermissible financial aid or benefits were provided and vacation of records wasn't required (granted, I only looked at violations of the same bylaws that UMHB violated).  The three cases were Baruch College 2016,
University of Southern Maine 2007, and University of the South 1993. 

Oh well, I guess we just need to win the title again this year.  Two years in a row sounds better than two out of the last three anyways...  Here are the game notes for tomorrow's game:
https://cruathletics.com/news/2019/10/11/football-returns-home-to-face-etbu-this-week.aspx

Looks like a little shuffling around but no major changes on the roster...