FB: American Southwest Conference

[TheChucker]

If the NCAA D3 compliance (infractions?) committee truly wants compliance and to serve all its members, and not just the perception of being tough, then it will give some solid consideration to self reporting when doling out final penalties (and self penalizing - 25% of the coach's salary is pretty severe given the violation). If this ruling doesn't change, there will be absolutely no reason for any member to self report in the future - where the NCAA has chosen to be a straight up no-tolerance adversary. It would be in the best interest of the school to claim ignorance.

Thomas More set the previous recent precedent. They didn't self report and had previous violations. It took a confidential informant to uncover that. UMHB now has the most recent precedent. They did self report and self penalize and still got slammed just the same as Thomas More. There's no way future schools will self report with this new precedent.

[jknezek]

Because their self imposed punishment didn't address the fact that they had a player on the field who should not have been there. It's really that simple. Those games needed to be vacated or why bother having eligibility rules in the first place?  UMHB fans want to say that eligibility is not a factor in games. Well... that's wrong. The NCAA is built on eligible athletes. Why would that not apply simply because a team used ineligible athletes to win a National Title? Give me one good reason why UMHB should be allowed to win with ineligible players? Or should all teams be allowed to play ineligible players? It really is that simple.

[TheChucker]

If the NCAA D3 compliance (infractions?) committee truly wants compliance and to serve all its members, and not just the perception of being tough, then it will give some solid consideration to self reporting when doling out final penalties (and self penalizing - 25% of the coach's salary is pretty severe given the violation). If this ruling doesn't change, there will be absolutely no reason for any member to self report in the future - where the NCAA has chosen to be a straight up no-tolerance adversary. It would be in the best interest of the school to claim ignorance.

Thomas More set the previous recent precedent. They didn't self report and had previous violations. It took a confidential informant to uncover that. UMHB now has the most recent precedent. They did self report and self penalize and still got slammed just the same as Thomas More. There's no way future schools will self report with this new precedent.

I completely recant my opinion on the precendent above after seeing who's on the infractions committee. This is probably a one-time thing. It's like when a group of kids acts up in church including the pastor's kid (I was one), the pastor's kid is the first to get in trouble and with the worst punishment.

[jknezek]

Because their self imposed punishment didn't address the fact that they had a player on the field who should not have been there. It's really that simple. Those games needed to be vacated or why bother having eligibility rules in the first place?  UMHB fans want to say that eligibility is not a factor in games. Well... that's wrong. The NCAA is built on eligible athletes. Why would that not apply simply because a team used ineligible athletes to win a National Title? Give me one good reason why UMHB should be allowed to win with ineligible players? Or should all teams be allowed to play ineligible players? It really is that simple.

"Ineligible player" is a nuanced thing. There's a lot of gray area in compliance with probably a lot of unkown violations. Can you be sure that whatever teams you root for are 100% purely in compliance?

No. But if they get caught violating the rules, and this was a stupidly obvious one that shows a  coaching problem, I'd expect them to vacate those games. The rules are the rules. Why do you think they shouldn't apply here? Find one instance of an ineligible player that doesn't result in vacated games.

[TheChucker]

"Ineligible player" is a nuanced thing. There's a lot of gray area in compliance with probably a lot of unkown violations. Can you be sure that whatever teams you root for are 100% purely in compliance?

No. But if they get caught violating the rules, and this was a stupidly obvious one that shows a  coaching problem, I'd expect them to vacate those games. The rules are the rules. Why do you think they shouldn't apply here? Find one instance of an ineligible player that doesn't result in vacated games.

Just about every violation involves a player which would make that player ineligible - no matter now big or small that violation. When you say that every time there's an 'ineligible player" involved that all games must be vacated, then you're leaving no room at all for nuanced penalties. One-size-fits-all penalties are not justice. This one-size-fits-all system promotes covering up as there is no benefit to being forthright and honest.

[jknezek]

"Ineligible player" is a nuanced thing. There's a lot of gray area in compliance with probably a lot of unkown violations. Can you be sure that whatever teams you root for are 100% purely in compliance?

No. But if they get caught violating the rules, and this was a stupidly obvious one that shows a  coaching problem, I'd expect them to vacate those games. The rules are the rules. Why do you think they shouldn't apply here? Find one instance of an ineligible player that doesn't result in vacated games.

Just about every violation involves a player which would make that player ineligible - no matter now big or small that violation. When you say that every time there's an 'ineligible player" involved that all games must be vacated, then you're leaving no room at all for nuanced penalties. One-size-fits-all penalties are not justice. This one-size-fits-all system promotes covering up as there is no benefit to being forthright and honest.

No it doesn't. The NCAA rule book is pretty thick. There are tons of violations that don't make a player ineligible but yes, those involving extra benefits do. So as a coach, don't provide them. And no, there is no wiggle room for an ineligible player. If one played in a game it should be vacated because what else should you do? That player should not have been on the field. In a lot of leagues it would be a forfeit. The NCAA is actually fairly lenient just vacating the games.

And it should promote coaches not breaking obvious rules. This is embarrassing for a coach who should be a hall of fame candidate. What he has done for UMHB from inception is amazing. This screw up is inexcusable.  It broke one of the most obvious rules in the book and given he seems to have passed off a warning, he deserves the blame for this debacle. Not the NCAA.

[Etchglow]

looks like Jase Hammack is hurt again. Helped off the field with 49 left in the first half.

[DFWCrufan]

"Ineligible player" is a nuanced thing. There's a lot of gray area in compliance with probably a lot of unkown violations. Can you be sure that whatever teams you root for are 100% purely in compliance?

No. But if they get caught violating the rules, and this was a stupidly obvious one that shows a  coaching problem, I'd expect them to vacate those games. The rules are the rules. Why do you think they shouldn't apply here? Find one instance of an ineligible player that doesn't result in vacated games.

Just about every violation involves a player which would make that player ineligible - no matter now big or small that violation. When you say that every time there's an 'ineligible player" involved that all games must be vacated, then you're leaving no room at all for nuanced penalties. One-size-fits-all penalties are not justice. This one-size-fits-all system promotes covering up as there is no benefit to being forthright and honest.

No it doesn't. The NCAA rule book is pretty thick. There are tons of violations that don't make a player ineligible but yes, those involving extra benefits do. So as a coach, don't provide them. And no, there is no wiggle room for an ineligible player. If one played in a game it should be vacated because what else should you do? That player should not have been on the field. In a lot of leagues it would be a forfeit. The NCAA is actually fairly lenient just vacating the games.

And it should promote coaches not breaking obvious rules. This is embarrassing for a coach who should be a hall of fame candidate. What he has done for UMHB from inception is amazing. This screw up is inexcusable.  It broke one of the most obvious rules in the book and given he seems to have passed off a warning, he deserves the blame for this debacle. Not the NCAA.

So I have a question, if a player is broke, and the coach arranges some work which provides them pay, is that a breaking of the rules? Because there are programs out there that provide that while others may not. Is that a violation? Because there is a certain writer who pointed that out and during my time as a young and stupid younger man in a D2 program, we did the same.

[UMHB03]

"Ineligible player" is a nuanced thing. There's a lot of gray area in compliance with probably a lot of unkown violations. Can you be sure that whatever teams you root for are 100% purely in compliance?

No. But if they get caught violating the rules, and this was a stupidly obvious one that shows a  coaching problem, I'd expect them to vacate those games. The rules are the rules. Why do you think they shouldn't apply here? Find one instance of an ineligible player that doesn't result in vacated games.

Just about every violation involves a player which would make that player ineligible - no matter now big or small that violation. When you say that every time there's an 'ineligible player" involved that all games must be vacated, then you're leaving no room at all for nuanced penalties. One-size-fits-all penalties are not justice. This one-size-fits-all system promotes covering up as there is no benefit to being forthright and honest.

Nailed it.

[jknezek]

So I have a question, if a player is broke, and the coach arranges some work which provides them pay, is that a breaking of the rules? Because there are programs out there that provide that while others may not. Is that a violation? Because there is a certain writer who pointed that out and during my time as a young and stupid younger man in a D2 program, we did the same.

The NCAA has very strict rules about work. If it doesn't violate those rules, than no. If it does, then it is a violation. Though I have no idea what this has to do with loaning a car for 18 months and brushing off a compliance inquiry about it. You can't dodge that what he did was stupid and clearly against the rules. The penalty for an ineligible player is well established and despite the whining on this board it is consistently applied.

Again, the anger on this board, though understandable, is absolutely misdirected. Coach choked. Horribly. Coaches preach execution. He failed. It's all on him and the report, which UMHB agrees to, is bulletproof in that regard. HOF coach, bonehead screw up that cost his players big time.

[UMHB03]

Moral of the story: If you make a mistake and violate an NCAA rule, cover it up, because you'll get the same penalty as you would if you reported it. After all, "rules are rules"  . No room for nuance. No consideration for context. One application for all situations, and one punishment for all violations.

[jknezek]

Moral of the story: If you make a mistake and violate an NCAA rule, cover it up, because you'll get the same penalty as you would if you reported it. After all, "rules are rules"  . No room for nuance. No consideration for context. One application for all situations, and one punishment for all violations.

This wasn't a mistake. This was clearly done on purpose. Moral of the story... follow the rules. Don't give extra benefits and don't blow off your compliance folks when they question you. I admire your attempt to put lipstick on a pig, but Coach didn't make a mistake. He ignored or blatantly broke the most basic rule the NCAA enforces... no extra benefits, even crappy ones, to student athletes and prospects.

[UMHB03]

Moral of the story: If you make a mistake and violate an NCAA rule, cover it up, because you'll get the same penalty as you would if you reported it. After all, "rules are rules"  . No room for nuance. No consideration for context. One application for all situations, and one punishment for all violations.

This wasn't a mistake. This was clearly done on purpose. Moral of the story... follow the rules. Don't give extra benefits and don't blow off your compliance folks when they question you. I admire your attempt to put lipstick on a pig, but Coach didn't make a mistake. He ignored or blatantly broke the most basic rule the NCAA enforces... no extra benefits, even crappy ones, to student athletes and prospects.

Assuming that it wasn't a mistake, the point still stands. The NCAA is going to punish the team, not just the guilty party (who had already been assessed a hefty penalty appropriate for the violation), no matter what, so if you do something wrong, just don't report it. The consequence will be the same either way. No room for discretion or nuance. The rules are the rules.

[umhb2001]

"Ineligible player" is a nuanced thing. There's a lot of gray area in compliance with probably a lot of unkown violations. Can you be sure that whatever teams you root for are 100% purely in compliance?

No. But if they get caught violating the rules, and this was a stupidly obvious one that shows a  coaching problem, I'd expect them to vacate those games. The rules are the rules. Why do you think they shouldn't apply here? Find one instance of an ineligible player that doesn't result in vacated games.

Just about every violation involves a player which would make that player ineligible - no matter now big or small that violation. When you say that every time there's an 'ineligible player" involved that all games must be vacated, then you're leaving no room at all for nuanced penalties. One-size-fits-all penalties are not justice. This one-size-fits-all system promotes covering up as there is no benefit to being forthright and honest.

No it doesn't. The NCAA rule book is pretty thick. There are tons of violations that don't make a player ineligible but yes, those involving extra benefits do. So as a coach, don't provide them. And no, there is no wiggle room for an ineligible player. If one played in a game it should be vacated because what else should you do? That player should not have been on the field. In a lot of leagues it would be a forfeit. The NCAA is actually fairly lenient just vacating the games.

And it should promote coaches not breaking obvious rules. This is embarrassing for a coach who should be a hall of fame candidate. What he has done for UMHB from inception is amazing. This screw up is inexcusable.  It broke one of the most obvious rules in the book and given he seems to have passed off a warning, he deserves the blame for this debacle. Not the NCAA.

Then most likely, the ruling should have been against those who broke the rules, the coach or coaches, and not the kids who are under their guidance. UMHB invoked those penalties against coach Fred. The subsequent penalties should have been against him and not the kids who play the game.

[jknezek]

"Ineligible player" is a nuanced thing. There's a lot of gray area in compliance with probably a lot of unkown violations. Can you be sure that whatever teams you root for are 100% purely in compliance?

No. But if they get caught violating the rules, and this was a stupidly obvious one that shows a  coaching problem, I'd expect them to vacate those games. The rules are the rules. Why do you think they shouldn't apply here? Find one instance of an ineligible player that doesn't result in vacated games.

Just about every violation involves a player which would make that player ineligible - no matter now big or small that violation. When you say that every time there's an 'ineligible player" involved that all games must be vacated, then you're leaving no room at all for nuanced penalties. One-size-fits-all penalties are not justice. This one-size-fits-all system promotes covering up as there is no benefit to being forthright and honest.

No it doesn't. The NCAA rule book is pretty thick. There are tons of violations that don't make a player ineligible but yes, those involving extra benefits do. So as a coach, don't provide them. And no, there is no wiggle room for an ineligible player. If one played in a game it should be vacated because what else should you do? That player should not have been on the field. In a lot of leagues it would be a forfeit. The NCAA is actually fairly lenient just vacating the games.

And it should promote coaches not breaking obvious rules. This is embarrassing for a coach who should be a hall of fame candidate. What he has done for UMHB from inception is amazing. This screw up is inexcusable.  It broke one of the most obvious rules in the book and given he seems to have passed off a warning, he deserves the blame for this debacle. Not the NCAA.

Then most likely, the ruling should have been against those who broke the rules, the coach or coaches, and not the kids who are under their guidance. UMHB invoked those penalties against coach Fred. The subsequent penalties should have been against him and not the kids who play the game.

I'm sorry. I though football was a team sport? Is this how a holding penalty works? No. Coaches preach team. Win or lose. You rely on everyone else. Sometimes you get burned. And yes, that is what happens in almost every team sport, even outside the NCAA. Ineligible player is an advantage to the team. So the team is punished.