FB: American Southwest Conference

[Pat Coleman]

Then the "committee" went beyond their previously accepted punishment. (what 3 years now)

The committee didn't accept UMHB's punishment previously. This is the first ruling they have made on it.

[UMHB03]

It would be frustrating to have the NCAA withdraw it's recognition of the 2016 National Championship, but the reality is, UMHB still won it on the field. The NCAA didn't give it to them, and it isn't theirs to take away. UMHB earned it. Whether or not the hypocritical NCAA arbitrarily chooses to severely penalize UMHB for far less serious offenses than other programs at higher (and higher EARNING $$$) levels have gotten away with, it doesn't change the fact that UMHB won that championship and proved to be the top team in D3 that year. We can at least take solace in that.

[SW66]

I don't see how they could even consider it a benefit to use that car, when the said student probably could have bought a Mercedes for the price it costs to attend UMHB. The financial burden alone for some D3 athletes to attend a university is astronomical compared to what is given to a D1 athlete with their scholarships. Probably cost him and his family far more than the cost of a loaner car to attend college and compete and some families just can't swing that cost and provide all the necessities to live day to day. Not everyone is blessed in that regard.

[DFWCrufan]

Then the "committee" went beyond their previously accepted punishment. (what 3 years now)

The committee didn't accept UMHB's punishment previously. This is the first ruling they have made on it.

Thanks Pat, I was under the assumption that it had. But, I also have to change my position in understanding that the student was a prospective athlete, I was not aware of that from conversations with some involved, so to TLU01 I do retract my statement of the player not being a prospective student.

[wm4]

Then the "committee" went beyond their previously accepted punishment. (what 3 years now)

The committee didn't accept UMHB's punishment previously. This is the first ruling they have made on it.

Thanks Pat, I was under the assumption that it had. But, I also have to change my position in understanding that the student was a prospective athlete, I was not aware of that from conversations with some involved, so to TLU01 I do retract my statement of the player being a prospective student.

I highly recommend taking the time to read the full report.  It's very informative.  I'm not going to say whether the punishment fit the crime, but it is very helpful to read the full report.

[TheChucker]

I feel really bad for the juniors and seniors on the 2016 team. A big part of joy from being on a successful college team is sharing those memories years down the road. In today's electronic media age, a big part of sharing those memories is going back and looking at team records, scores, recaps and such. All that 2016-2017 history will now be wiped on UMHB's athletics website, there will be no banners, the media guide won't glorify 2016-2017, etc.

It might be prudent for someone to grab that data and present it elsewhere outside of UMHB's domain for the players on those teams if that data gets taken down.

That for loaning out a 2006 Subaru. No academic fraud, no pay for play, no shenanigans on recruiting visits, no shaving points (which Northwestern football did not get sanctioned for by the NCAA), etc.

[DFWCrufan]

10.19 NCAA Decision here

[Pat Coleman]

10.19 NCAA Decision here

Yes, not to mention on D3football.com as part of our coverage. Since storage space for files on D3boards.com is fairly limited, going to remove it from here.

https://www.d3football.com/notables/2019/10/umhb-report.pdf

[wm4]

This is in section I, paragraph 2

"He also dismissed a staff member's concern when questioned about allowing a student-athlete to use his car. "

[Ralph Turner]

This expresses my feelings, and I am not a UMHB fan.

Matthew 23:24.  "You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

Yes, there is precedent, but I look at:

1) the infractions that Penn State got for the 14 years that a sexual predator was on the coaching staff.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/penn-state-football-punished-by-ncaa-over-sandusky-scandal/2012/07/23/gJQA

2) the Alabama "Albert Means case" in 2002. Alabama should have gotten the death penalty.

Here is a link to refresh your memory.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/when-alabama-was-in-legitimate-danger-of-receiving-the-death-penalty/

3) Google NCAA Death Penalty and you can read a few top programs who have deserved what SMU got in 1988,  e.g., North Carolina Men's Basketball academic scandal, Kansas and Kentucky Men's basketball.

Here is a wikipedia summary of just a few "big-and-powerful" programs for whom the Death Penalty was discussed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_(NCAA)

Division III members police Division III rules and Division I members police Division I rules. It's not really accurate to suggest that "the NCAA" is going after one thing and not the other because it's not the same group at all.

I accept Pat's commentary on the UMHB penalty. After all, the NCAA/Television Networks don't want to see 1-2 seasons of no participation from the Death Penalty by Penn State football, Alabama football, UNC, Kentucky or Kansas basketball. That would cut into advertising revenue!

[DFWCrufan]

Well what is done is done, I hope a very big lesson learned. On to 2019..

[02 Warhawk]

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?

This.

Most of MHB's anger is misguided. Don't get me wrong, I think vacating their championship is a little much...but this is 100% on the coach here. Reading the report it sounds like someone even warned him about this....but did it anyway. Bruh!!

[TLU02SA]

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?

This is well stated.  I keep seeing UMHB apologist acknowledging they broke the rules but admonishing the NCAA for following its rules.  That is some backwards reasoning.

[Coolrey]

Unfortunately, self-reporting and assessing your own penalties will not dismiss consequences that the NCAA and its committees assess.  Whether an institution attempts to cover up an infraction or self-reports when one is discovered, really doesn't make that much of a difference.  A wrong is a wrong.  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.  Unless the NCAA rule was determined to be obscure, poorly written or very unclear, it is the responsibility of the institution to ensure they comply.  If not, as in this case, consequences must be assessed.  Carelessness and failure to know the rules is not an excuse.  I'm not saying I necessarily agree with penalties, but they are what they are.  Great program, great coaches and great school.  Just an unfortunate lapse in judgement.

[TheChucker]

Unfortunately, self-reporting and assessing your own penalties will not dismiss consequences that the NCAA and its committees assess.  Whether an institution attempts to cover up an infraction or self-reports when one is discovered, really doesn't make that much of a difference.  A wrong is a wrong.  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.  Unless the NCAA rule was determined to be obscure, poorly written or very unclear, it is the responsibility of the institution to ensure they comply.  If not, as in this case, consequences must be assessed.  Carelessness and failure to know the rules is not an excuse.  I'm not saying I necessarily agree with penalties, but they are what they are.  Great program, great coaches and great school.  Just an unfortunate lapse in judgement.

Would you, as the parent, give the same consequences if the kid didn't admit the theft, the store caught it on camera, the cops showed up at your front door, and the kid still lied about it until the no other option was left?