FB: Presidents' Athletic Conference

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I do see the potential for abuse but as a parent of two athletes and one non athlete I see a tremendous disparity between athletes and non athletes in this regard.  My middle son is a student studying music.  He has a scholarship.  He gets paid to play all the time.  He gets paid to give lessons.  They should figure out a way.  There shouldn't be such a disparity.

Except your son actually does the lessons. We saw how many examples of athletes "working" a summer job or something else in the past for a booster company where they never showed up or never did anything if they did? It's too hard to police, but if you don't police it, then it is too easy to just run around the rules. The NCAA is stuck in an untenable position that they insist on defending. There simply is too much money in big-time college sports and the rules to try and keep it out of players hands filter down to small-time college sports.

FYI when you say "they insist on defending" remember that those who make the rules in the NCAA are the schools themselves. Each Division votes on its own set of rules and each member institution votes on rules for the entire NCAA. The NCAA itself, Indy per se, is then tasked with enforcing those rules. So those who are making the rules and defending them are the schools that make up the NCAA, not those randomly in Indy. It isn't like schools are being told by the NCAA how to do things, the schools are making those rules themselves. Furthermore, the infractions committees and all other committees and groups are made up by institutions and conferences, not those who are in Indy.

Keep that all in mind when you think of the NCAA... because those in Indy are just enforcing the rules and doing the job(s) the institutions that make up the NCAA tell them to enforce and such.

[jknezek]

I get that. I also get that the schools are all afraid someone else will find a loophole, so they vote for these rules on each other assuming they will never be the ones with violations. But as stakes continue to go up at the highest levels, and coaches get more and more desperate to win since they are hired to win, not graduate student athletes, the coaches and their boosters look harder and harder for the loopholes. Getting the Presidents to pass more and more restrictions that are difficult to enforce, all while their own underlings are trying to undermine them.

It's an asinine system, but it's what we have.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I get that. I also get that the schools are all afraid someone else will find a loophole, so they vote for these rules on each other assuming they will never be the ones with violations. But as stakes continue to go up at the highest levels, and coaches get more and more desperate to win since they are hired to win, not graduate student athletes, the coaches and their boosters look harder and harder for the loopholes. Getting the Presidents to pass more and more restrictions that are difficult to enforce, all while their own underlings are trying to undermine them.

It's an asinine system, but it's what we have.

While I certainly see more pressure to win in DIII... the pressure is also on to graduate. Otherwise, DIII has no point to exist. While I can see some of your thoughts pertaining to DI... they don't as much down here. Thankfully.

[jknezek]

I get that. I also get that the schools are all afraid someone else will find a loophole, so they vote for these rules on each other assuming they will never be the ones with violations. But as stakes continue to go up at the highest levels, and coaches get more and more desperate to win since they are hired to win, not graduate student athletes, the coaches and their boosters look harder and harder for the loopholes. Getting the Presidents to pass more and more restrictions that are difficult to enforce, all while their own underlings are trying to undermine them.

It's an asinine system, but it's what we have.

While I certainly see more pressure to win in DIII... the pressure is also on to graduate. Otherwise, DIII has no point to exist. While I can see some of your thoughts pertaining to DI... they don't as much down here. Thankfully.

Absolutely agree. But the rules tend to trickle down, don't they? I get they can all vote their own rules, but are the rules for paid work in DIII substantially different than DI? Yes, DIII is more lenient on coaches winning, but do you really think the primary cause for DIII coaches getting fired is because they don't graduate enough, or is it because they don't win enough? Or, in the case of football, don't meet recruiting numbers.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I get that. I also get that the schools are all afraid someone else will find a loophole, so they vote for these rules on each other assuming they will never be the ones with violations. But as stakes continue to go up at the highest levels, and coaches get more and more desperate to win since they are hired to win, not graduate student athletes, the coaches and their boosters look harder and harder for the loopholes. Getting the Presidents to pass more and more restrictions that are difficult to enforce, all while their own underlings are trying to undermine them.

It's an asinine system, but it's what we have.

While I certainly see more pressure to win in DIII... the pressure is also on to graduate. Otherwise, DIII has no point to exist. While I can see some of your thoughts pertaining to DI... they don't as much down here. Thankfully.

Absolutely agree. But the rules tend to trickle down, don't they? I get they can all vote their own rules, but are the rules for paid work in DIII substantially different than DI? Yes, DIII is more lenient on coaches winning, but do you really think the primary cause for DIII coaches getting fired is because they don't graduate enough, or is it because they don't win enough? Or, in the case of football, don't meet recruiting numbers.

Yes the rules are different. Most athletes in Division III work. Yes, there are rules for any kind of booster for sure, but athletes in Division III can work because they aren't getting money to be athletes. DIII has it's own set of rules; DI has it's own set being they have scholarships.

And sure, DIII coaches get fired if they don't win at a lot of schools, but the biggest reason for coaches being fired or let go is graduation rates, retention, and recruiting numbers. Much different.

[Pat Coleman]

Ouch. That's a tough way to run a program. Even temporarily.

They've done it before and were a playoff team during one of these years under Dean Paul.  Short-term, they'll be okay.  The players they have in the program and coming in will continue to be impressive.  For the other sports, there are plenty of schools within a 3 hour drive of Cincinnati, outside of MSJ, of course.  Short-term, they'll be okay. 

I know I'm a couple days late on this but I can't let this go without saying -- this was a different era in Division III. 2001 was a long time ago.

[jknezek]

I get that. I also get that the schools are all afraid someone else will find a loophole, so they vote for these rules on each other assuming they will never be the ones with violations. But as stakes continue to go up at the highest levels, and coaches get more and more desperate to win since they are hired to win, not graduate student athletes, the coaches and their boosters look harder and harder for the loopholes. Getting the Presidents to pass more and more restrictions that are difficult to enforce, all while their own underlings are trying to undermine them.

It's an asinine system, but it's what we have.

While I certainly see more pressure to win in DIII... the pressure is also on to graduate. Otherwise, DIII has no point to exist. While I can see some of your thoughts pertaining to DI... they don't as much down here. Thankfully.

Absolutely agree. But the rules tend to trickle down, don't they? I get they can all vote their own rules, but are the rules for paid work in DIII substantially different than DI? Yes, DIII is more lenient on coaches winning, but do you really think the primary cause for DIII coaches getting fired is because they don't graduate enough, or is it because they don't win enough? Or, in the case of football, don't meet recruiting numbers.

Yes the rules are different. Most athletes in Division III work. Yes, there are rules for any kind of booster for sure, but athletes in Division III can work because they aren't getting money to be athletes. DIII has it's own set of rules; DI has it's own set being they have scholarships.

And sure, DIII coaches get fired if they don't win at a lot of schools, but the biggest reason for coaches being fired or let go is graduation rates, retention, and recruiting numbers. Much different.

Thanks. +K

[SaintsFAN]

Ouch. That's a tough way to run a program. Even temporarily.

They've done it before and were a playoff team during one of these years under Dean Paul.  Short-term, they'll be okay.  The players they have in the program and coming in will continue to be impressive.  For the other sports, there are plenty of schools within a 3 hour drive of Cincinnati, outside of MSJ, of course.  Short-term, they'll be okay. 

I know I'm a couple days late on this but I can't let this go without saying -- this was a different era in Division III. 2001 was a long time ago.

I get that, but what I'm saying is they'll be fine if this isn't a long-term run as an Independent Institution. 

[SaintsFAN]

When a national title is taken away... by default a larger audience is aware no matter who is involved. When an entire season of wins (30+) is stripped away... a larger audience is going to be aware.

I understand your point, but a lot of violations by smaller or less successful programs occur all of the time in all three divisions of the NCAA (have you seen the fallout today from the Kalamazoo violations last year?). I would garner those are not as well known because the programs are not as successful. While certainly there was a name people knew in the mix (though, I think less care about the "family" name than most), the biggest reason the story was big was because one of the best programs this decade (well before Moss arrived) lost an undefeated season and title. What exactly did E&H lose that makes people remember it? That is the biggest difference in these cases.

Heck... bet many missed the York (N.Y.) men's basketball case recently.

the NCAA were receiving multiple "anonymous tips" about this player.  If the player's name was Smith, there wouldn't have been an investigation.

No and no.

There was one anonymous tip. It is revealed when you read the report. Just one tip with follow up information from the same individual.

Secondly, I can point to a lot of other investigations from the NCAA per players named "Smith" that garnered pretty severe penalties. You don't have to look very far. Baruch and York (N.Y.) in just the last year. Emory and Henry football a few years ago. Kalamazoo in the last few years (including the MIAA's penalties against them revealed in the last week or two).

Yes, the player was more famous and wasn't exactly kept secret by the NCAA report. Yes, the report seemed to point a lot of time on her and who she was and her background, but don't confuse for a minute that because of who she was the school was suddenly in hotter water than others. Yes, they lost a national championship and no one has had that happen in basketball... but then again, no team that has gone undefeated and won a national title has had an investigation reveal major penalties that warranted vacating games from that season, either. Just because it happened to TMC doesn't mean the NCAA (Division III itself to be clear) hasn't been harsh with other schools who didn't have famous players.

An even better example of this would be TCNJ and their women's basketball program not that long ago. Those ripple effects are still being felt and it ended up pointing to even bigger problems on the entire campus/department. The name on the back of the jersey just made the story juicier, it didn't change the outcome or the verdict (or penalty).

Thanks

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

BTW - I said TCNJ in my reference... I made a mistake. I was thinking of the wrong NJ school. I should have referenced Kean.

[Bombers798891]

Wanted to weigh in on the whole "you shouldn't punish everyone" claim. The issue there is that investigations (rightfully) take time. So if you have a Pete Carroll situation, and you say "Well, Carroll's at fault, can't punish the players" and Carroll's in the NFL, then no one gets punished for whatever infractions, so what's the deterrent?

[Bombers798891]

I kind of rushed that last post, so I wanted to expand on it. Has anyone seen the movie "Blue Chips"? There's  a speech that illustrates my point:

"Our football team has a linebacker, a tailback, a defensive tackle, two safeties and a quarterback, all recruited by friends of the program. They're all graduating this year. We're clean"

Punishments have to have something in them to be deterrents to future behavior. If, in the example the great JT Walsh has laid out above, a team can be "clean" as soon as the players are no longer on the team, that's not an incentive to not do it in the future, because really, there's no downside. Unless you really care about vacated victories and whatnot.

[ADL70]

TMC #19
CWRU #22
W&J  30th most points
Westminster 36th most points

http://www.d3football.com/top25/2017/preseason

[DagarmanSpartan]

What a great starting position to be in!

This year, with Cuda as a Senior, is the year that we CWRU fans have all been waiting for.  I sure hope that my enthusiasm doesn't "jinx" us at all.

We certainly got a piece of scheduling luck, insofar as two of the other three point getting teams in this poll from the PAC aren't on the schedule.

We definitely need to avoid complacency and avoid a late season slip up against either CMU or Westminster.  We'll probably have to go 10-0 to get a share of the PAC title and a bid to the post-season, but this really could be the year!

[DagarmanSpartan]

On another note, DiSanto's new artificial turf is complete.