FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

gordonmann · September 21, 2005, 05:26:19 PM

QuoteIt also seems there were more infractions than just the coaches at practice, a player played last year who was ineligible, and nobody knows who that player was.

So will ONU forfeit all their victories from 2004?

gordonmann · September 21, 2005, 05:27:43 PM

Answered my own question...

"The committee also made one additional football finding unrelated to Kaczkowski's actions. In 2004, a student-athlete practiced and competed despite being in his 16th quarter of full-time enrollment. All contests in which the football student-athlete competed while ineligible shall be vacated."

Li'l Giant · September 21, 2005, 06:12:37 PM

This is seriously weak. I hope they appeal. I hope it makes a difference. I feel bad for those seniors. Good luck on the appeal.

Pat Coleman · September 21, 2005, 06:14:56 PM

ONU does not have to forfeit any wins from 2004, but it must make a note with its 2004 records that they were later vacated. No opponent gains any wins. Dean Paul's record remains the same, etc.

formerd3db · September 21, 2005, 06:24:31 PM

toph:
I don't think anyone is advocating there should not be some penalty or consequences for ONU. However, the idea which is obviously in place (and has been for years) in policy that penalizes innocent people (especially those who weren't even there) is simply wrong and unfair. As I said before, no one has ever accused the NCAA of being fair, and none of us are ever promised a fair shake in life.

ace · September 21, 2005, 06:31:16 PM

1. ONU is just starting their season.
2. They have the right to appeal.
3. It IS NOT fair, but what would be fair? Was it fair to the teams that possibly lost to ONU because of the extra practice sessions?
4. I think the polars will really have a chip on their shoulder now.
I wish them the best, but does anyone feel nothing should be done. Then what about the next etc.

Pat Coleman · September 21, 2005, 07:06:42 PM

No, it's not that nothing should be done, but the process should happen in a timely manner, so that the 2003 or 2004 team, which was closer to the situation, would be the one facing the brunt of it.

reality check · September 21, 2005, 07:16:52 PM

It is indeed unfair for the seniors. But I think it is the underclassmen that weren't even in the program that are unfairly punished as well. Those seniors, for the most part, were on the team when the infractions took place. How would you feel if you were a sophomore or freshman that fell in love with this program, a new coach and staff and a whole new outlook on football at ONU? Those kids did not sign on with any expectation that they could or would be punished. They came to Ada thinking nothing but good things for the future only to have this door slammed in their face.

Do not misconstrue. I feel like this is totally unfair for all parties involved. I still have issues with the infractions from 2003 because I know what went down. I also know that if atheltics administrators looked at all our programs close enough, then similar infractions could be found. I do not want to get back into the details of the original infractions and findings here but make no mistake that similar charges could be made against a great number of programs. ONU happened to be brought to task for their mistake.

Now I know that the playoffs are a long ways off but I think the entire program is not deserving of a ban in the 2005 playoffs. Probation is not a problem. A watchful eye on this program does not bother me. Those players did what they were instructed to do back in 2003. The only coach left from Kaz's tenure is Stacey Hairston and he is responsible for keeping the ship afloat after the fallout. Hairston had nothing to do with the infractions and he was responsible for keeping the team together in the 2003 season.

I just hope that an appeal is successful; not because I am saying the Polar Bears are guaranteed a spot in the 2005 playoffs but because those kids don't deserve to pay fora previous staff's indiscretions. The timing of this announcement also stinks. If this investigation has been going on for months and months, then why couldn't they work a little faster to get this decision out there during the off-season? Why does this news have to come three weeks into the season?

Either way, I hope the Polar Bears go for it the rest of the regular season. Coach Paul will have them playing as though they are fighting for a playoff spot either way. You have to play that way in case it ges overturned.

BashDad · September 21, 2005, 07:40:26 PM

Reality Check:

I agree that it is "unfair," but only in that it took over two years for the penalties to be levied--the rules are clear. It does no good to say that "similar infractions could be found." Wrong is wrong, whether it is DI-A or D-III. You do not want to go there.

DarkSide-D · September 21, 2005, 07:51:23 PM

This situation is indeed unfortunate for the players and staff at ONU. I have a few questions that maybe you guys can answer for me. If this infraction were punished sooner, when would it have taken effect and when would it have ended? Also, what would the duration of the punishment have been? Did the NCAA take into consideration that this deed took place in 2003? It would stand to reason that if the punishment would have been two years, that this year would have been the second year of the punishment. At which point, it wouldn't matter if it were fair or not because it would be a part of the mandated punishment. But if the punishment would have been two years no matter what, then I agree that punishing the Bears next year is unfair because it would seem that it would be the NCAA covering its own butt for its slow action.

I think this situation is a true test for the character of the team. If the punishment is carried out, then this years first-years and sophmores will be juniors and seniors when the ban is lifted. If they truly brought in great players, they will remain great over the next two years. The question is, will they stick around or jump ship because a lil adversity rears its head. Another test will be how will the team play the rest of the year. This is a huge shadow that will be looming over the players. It seems unlikely that if the ban is lifted, it will happen before Saturday's game. Will the team come out and play like nothing has happened, or hang their heads because of this misfortune? If the do the Latter, and the ban is lifted, it will more than likely cost the Bears a playoff birth.

In short, I don't think this punishment is unfair. What would happen if this took place at a higher division school. The Head Coach would be dismissed, bringing a new staff, and that staff would be faced with the punishment handed down by the NCAA. As would the players involved in the program. Miami (Fl) faced this problem in the '90s (If I remember correctly), look at the Jim O'brian situation with OSU basketball. Yes, it sucks for the Seniors and the new staff. But it is not like this is a new phenomena. The only unfairness would fall in the timing of the decision. If the punishment would have ended this season, if implemented promptly, then I think the NCAA should fess up and limit the punishment accordingly. If the punishment would have been longer than the two years, then it is fair.

seventiesraider · September 21, 2005, 08:45:57 PM

How about we let Ohio Northern play in the post season but split the income with the other OAC schools. Works for me.
I haven't had time to work out the remedy if ONU were to win the Stagg and since I don't think that it would be that far fetched I guess I need to work that out. Of course given the NCAA has done nothing to penalize Kaz himself (ONU fired him, not the NCAA), then my idea is really no worse than than their's.

I've got it, I've got it. Make them change their mascot to some insulting Eskomo likeness then they are disqualified under a different after the fact NCAA ruling.

FCC Approved Bland Name · September 21, 2005, 09:51:50 PM

Most penalties are given as a deterant toward future infractions. This obviously sucks for the group in the middle but I don't see them getting away from the ban. The former coach definitely should have some sort of penalty that follows him around. This is a terrible scenario transpiring but I think the NCAA wants to be sure that it doesn't happen again. The best way to do that is to make a serious penalty stick.

On the flip side, the timing is all wrong and the NCAA should be bashed for not dealing with this in a timely fashion. The school may be partly to blame because there own investigation may have postponed any NCAA findings but I have no idea about any of that. It's way too late for a 2 year ban. They really should have made it 1 year in this case.

By the way, Thomas More went 10-0 twice in the 90's and didn't make the playoffs either time. I'm not comparing TMC's schedule to an OAC schedule but you play your schedule out and have pride in what you accomplished. I wouldn't be upset and then give up on my games, I'd get pissed and blow people out.

SaintsFAN · September 21, 2005, 10:11:41 PM

Well said, FCC. You have to play out the string.

Its a shame this team has to pay for the transgressions of a coach who is long gone. As an ex-player for Dean Paul, I was looking forward to seeing what ONU could do this year in the OAC AND on the National Scene. Looks like we'll never know...

The timeliness (is that a word?) of the NCAA investigation is what needs to be questioned here. Though that does not excuse the serious infractions that occured.

Is this because the NCAA does not take the level of football we all enjoy so much seriously?

reality check · September 21, 2005, 10:16:21 PM

I blame all of this on Scotty.

SaintsFAN · September 21, 2005, 10:21:49 PM

Reality Check,

LOL! I guess we'll read more BS from him regarding the sad state of D3 athletics and powerhouses....or whatever his rambling 3rd grade drivel was saying...

darkside,

ONU doesn't have to worry about kids sticking around or not...they are only missing postseason for this season (2005). The Polar Bears are on probation for two years.