FB: American Southwest Conference

[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.

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.

In this same vein, the coach for Vontez Berfect would also be fined and ejected for not teaching his player to tackle correctly. He alone was fined, removed, and suspended. Same could be done to Coach Fred. Remove him for the season without many connection to the team and the university. That would penalize the person who made the error.

My last post about this. Let's talk football on the field.

UMHB, after an emotional week, played sluggishly. All signs point to Hammack being done for the season. It will come down to Luke Poorman, and in my opinion, Tommy Bowden. The latter will probably be the starter next year.

[jknezek]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back this season.

[UMHB03]

There's a reason that our legal system allows plea deals for offenders who cooperate, rather than having monolithic, one size fits all penalties for every offense. It actually encourages people to COOPERATE. The NCAA should learn from that example.

[umhb2001]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

[jknezek]

There's a reason that our legal system allows plea deals for offenders who cooperate, rather than having monolithic, one size fits all penalties for every offense. It actually encourages people to COOPERATE. The NCAA should learn from that example.

Yes. But the plea is worked out together. The guilty side doesn't just say "here's what we did... you accept it as good enough."

The two sides argue and compromise, and when they can't it goes to trial. Lots of schools self punish and the NCAA adds to it. In fact, I'd say that's the norm. I can't remember the NCAA saying you did enough, we wont add to it. Can anyone?

But again, UMHB'S punishment addressed Coach's screwup. And it doesn't seem like Coach was punished anymore. But it didn't address the ineligible player. That is what the NCAA addressed the same way they always have.

[umhb2001]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

[jknezek]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

Is that how a holding penalty works? Or any penalty in a team sport? Ineligible player benefits the team, ineligible player caught hurts the team. As a coach in a team sport I always preach win together, lose together. That's how team sports work.

[UMHB03]

There's a reason that our legal system allows plea deals for offenders who cooperate, rather than having monolithic, one size fits all penalties for every offense. It actually encourages people to COOPERATE. The NCAA should learn from that example.

Yes. But the plea is worked out together. The guilty side doesn't just say "here's what we did... you accept it as good enough."

The two sides argue and compromise, and when they can't it goes to trial. Lots of schools self punish and the NCAA adds to it. In fact, I'd say that's the norm. I can't remember the NCAA saying you did enough, we wont add to it. Can anyone?

But again, UMHB'S punishment addressed Coach's screwup. And it doesn't seem like Coach was punished anymore. But it didn't address the ineligible player. That is what the NCAA addressed the same way they always have.

You're arguing technicalities. If the self-imposed penalties weren't enough, then the NCAA could add more. The point is that the legal system takes into account the cooperation of an offender rather than just dropping the hammer on them either way. The NCAA apparently makes no such distinction, which will be to their detriment once schools decide to start covering up violations because they know they're going to get raked over the coals just as harshly even if they fess up.

[umhb2001]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

Is that how a holding penalty works? Or any penalty in a team sport? Ineligible player benefits the team, ineligible player caught hurts the team. As a coach in a team sport I always preach win together, lose together. That's how team sports work.

Removing coach Fred from the team for a season or two with zero contact does affect the team.

[jknezek]

There's a reason that our legal system allows plea deals for offenders who cooperate, rather than having monolithic, one size fits all penalties for every offense. It actually encourages people to COOPERATE. The NCAA should learn from that example.

Yes. But the plea is worked out together. The guilty side doesn't just say "here's what we did... you accept it as good enough."

The two sides argue and compromise, and when they can't it goes to trial. Lots of schools self punish and the NCAA adds to it. In fact, I'd say that's the norm. I can't remember the NCAA saying you did enough, we wont add to it. Can anyone?

But again, UMHB'S punishment addressed Coach's screwup. And it doesn't seem like Coach was punished anymore. But it didn't address the ineligible player. That is what the NCAA addressed the same way they always have.

You're arguing technicalities. If the self-imposed penalties weren't enough, then the NCAA could add more. The point is that the legal system takes into account the cooperation of an offender rather than just dropping the hammer on them either way. The NCAA apparently makes no such distinction, which will be to their detriment once schools decide to start covering up violations because they know they're going to get raked over the coals just as harshly even if they fess up.

How do you know? The NCAA might have done more had UMHB not self-reported and already levied some punishment. You have no idea and neither do I.

[jknezek]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

Is that how a holding penalty works? Or any penalty in a team sport? Ineligible player benefits the team, ineligible player caught hurts the team. As a coach in a team sport I always preach win together, lose together. That's how team sports work.

Removing coach Fred from the team for a season or two with zero contact does affect the team.

So you'd rather punish kids going forward that didn't benefit from this situation as opposed to actually leveling the punishment on those who did benefit. That seems horribly backward and solely designed to justify keeping your Championship. The holding penalty is assessed on the team that benefitted. Not the team next season.

[UMHB03]

There's a reason that our legal system allows plea deals for offenders who cooperate, rather than having monolithic, one size fits all penalties for every offense. It actually encourages people to COOPERATE. The NCAA should learn from that example.

Yes. But the plea is worked out together. The guilty side doesn't just say "here's what we did... you accept it as good enough."

The two sides argue and compromise, and when they can't it goes to trial. Lots of schools self punish and the NCAA adds to it. In fact, I'd say that's the norm. I can't remember the NCAA saying you did enough, we wont add to it. Can anyone?

But again, UMHB'S punishment addressed Coach's screwup. And it doesn't seem like Coach was punished anymore. But it didn't address the ineligible player. That is what the NCAA addressed the same way they always have.

You're arguing technicalities. If the self-imposed penalties weren't enough, then the NCAA could add more. The point is that the legal system takes into account the cooperation of an offender rather than just dropping the hammer on them either way. The NCAA apparently makes no such distinction, which will be to their detriment once schools decide to start covering up violations because they know they're going to get raked over the coals just as harshly even if they fess up.

How do you know? The NCAA might have done more had UMHB not self-reported and already levied some punishment. You have no idea and neither do I.

How much more could they have done?

Add a post season ban? Shut down the program? All over the coach allowing a kid to BORROW a 10 year old piece of junk car? If the NCAA had done that, then what little credibility they had left would be gone. It's credibility is pretty shaky even with the current penalty.

This would be the equivalent of a guy turning himself in for shoplifting, getting sentenced to 50 years in prison, and then being told, "you could have received the death penalty if you hadn't turned yourself in". Nothing short of gross overkill and abuse of power either way.

[bleedpurple]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

Is that how a holding penalty works? Or any penalty in a team sport? Ineligible player benefits the team, ineligible player caught hurts the team. As a coach in a team sport I always preach win together, lose together. That's how team sports work.

I think the argument defending this decision is becoming circular. You rightly keep pointing to the player as being "ineligible". Because that is what is stated in the broken rules. There is no evidence that the player was "otherwise" ineligible. He is just ineligible because he got to use a stupid car. That's the part that's broke in this whole thing. There has to be a situation in which the NCAA can look at the situation and say "that is not a benefit that is worth vacating games because it didn't provide an advantage to the offending team on the field."

And since you brought up the holding penalty, I think there is a parallel here. Let's make the penalty for a holding penalty an immediate forfeit by the offending team. If you get caught holding, you forfeit the game.  Too harsh? Just follow the rules. Don't be stupid and hold during a game. The fact that you held, means you are ineligible. And the fact that you played while ineligible means your team forfeits.

[Pat Coleman]

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.

Other things that could be done to a program which doesn't self-report:

• A team could be banned from the postseason
• A show-cause order could be levied against the coach

[umhb2001]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

Is that how a holding penalty works? Or any penalty in a team sport? Ineligible player benefits the team, ineligible player caught hurts the team. As a coach in a team sport I always preach win together, lose together. That's how team sports work.

Removing coach Fred from the team for a season or two with zero contact does affect the team.

So you'd rather punish kids going forward that didn't benefit from this situation as opposed to actually leveling the punishment on those who did benefit. That seems horribly backward and solely designed to justify keeping your Championship. The holding penalty is assessed on the team that benefitted. Not the team next season.

Of course I'm arguing for the championship. Why wouldn't I!? I'd rather punish the person who was solely responsible and not those who are following the direction of those in charge. I'm not convinced that comparing off field activities to on field activities is apples to apples. But, whatever.