FB: USA South Athletic Conference

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

85-

I posted something similar to this over on the ODAC board.

Our church has an annual dinner for CNU student-athletes with a GPA over 3.0.

Explain please.  I don't claim to be an expert on ncaa rules but are the athletes getting preferential treatment? Narch any insight? I don't have a problem with the athletes being honored, in fact they should, but what is the rule on this.

[narch]

Narch any insight?

i'm shocked that cnu85 goes to church...

just kidding, '85...

psbbg...i've got no idea, and i don't much care - even if it was a rules violation, it's secondary in nature and nothing will come of it...hell, guilford used a player that they should have known was ineligible and didn't have to forfeit any games that he played in, so i don't think the ncaa is going to care about a church feeding a group of scholar-athletes

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

Narch any insight?

i'm shocked that cnu85 goes to church...

just kidding, '85...

psbbg...i've got no idea, and i don't much care - even if it was a rules violation, it's secondary in nature and nothing will come of it...hell, guilford used a player that they should have known was ineligible and didn't have to forfeit any games that he played in, so i don't think the ncaa is going to care about a church feeding a group of scholar-athletes

Man, what does a team have to do these days to get a sanction against them 

You can use ineligible players, have a free meal (In CNU's case that meal is well deserved)  What sort of sanctions do D3 schools get, if there is in fact a rules violation. It's not like they can have scholarships revoked.  Has the NCAA gone soft. (I am not even talking d3 now.)

[AdmiralPapi]

Although that seems exactly like something the NCAA would get involved in.  Nevermind the bigger issues to worry about, let's make sure some church group is not rewarding a bunch of well-deserving college athletes.

~steps down off soapbox~

[hasanova]

Narch any insight?

i'm shocked that cnu85 goes to church...

just kidding, '85...

psbbg...i've got no idea, and i don't much care - even if it was a rules violation, it's secondary in nature and nothing will come of it...hell, guilford used a player that they should have known was ineligible and didn't have to forfeit any games that he played in, so i don't think the ncaa is going to care about a church feeding a group of scholar-athletes

OK, here we go again!  lol  Pride - A guy played a little at E&H and was not honest about having played college football in the past when he approached Guilford about playing.  As soon as Guilford was made aware of the violation, he was removed from the team, dismissed from school for an honor code violation and Guilford reported it to the ODAC and the NCAA.  I'm not sure how Guilford "should have known he was ineligible," but I think they handled it as well as they possibly could have under the circumstances.  The ODAC and the NCAA said none of the four (?) wins in which he appeared would be forfeited, so that was that.  

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

nova-

I think, like in Guilford's case, if a school comes foward and reports "any possible violation" the NCAA tends to honor that.

A few years ago, Maryland's football team was faced with a situation, an assistant coach bought a recruit an xbox.  Maryland fired the coach and reported the violation to the NCAA.  NCAA talked about sanctions, but opted against it because they came foward.  The funny part of was the player didn't committ to MD.  He went to Notre Dame.  Plus, that assistant coach was down $200.

[narch]

'nova - that was me that you quoted, not psbbg, and the bottom line is this...guilford had the ability to track his previous enrollment through the national student clearinghouse and they did not...in my opinion, they did not use due diligence prior to enrolling this particular student-athlete, so they can't just wash their hands of the incident and say "it's all his fault for lying on his application" - guilford's actions after the fact are to be commended, but it does not excuse the fact that they used an ineligible player in 4 games (he did not, by the way, play against mu)...personally, i think they should have been held to the exact same standard that shenandoah was the previous year when they used an ineligible player - ineligible is ineligible is ineligible...there is no gray area, if you ask me, and claiming ignorance only works if you have no way of getting the information that you need

[CNU85]

actually, we didn't let them eat anything...they just sat at the table with a plate of food and no utensils!

[AdmiralPapi]

85...You Virginians must be getting high class now...actually using utensils!!!

[hasanova]

'nova - that was me that you quoted, not psbbg, and the bottom line is this...guilford had the ability to track his previous enrollment through the national student clearinghouse and they did not...in my opinion, they did not use due diligence prior to enrolling this particular student-athlete, so they can't just wash their hands of the incident and say "it's all his fault for lying on his application" - guilford's actions after the fact are to be commended, but it does not excuse the fact that they used an ineligible player in 4 games (he did not, by the way, play against mu)...personally, i think they should have been held to the exact same standard that shenandoah was the previous year when they used an ineligible player - ineligible is ineligible is ineligible...there is no gray area, if you ask me, and claiming ignorance only works if you have no way of getting the information that you need

Hey narch, good to hear from you.  Yes, I knew it was your quote.  I apologize if that wasn't clear to all who read my post.  I remember we all had a rather lengthy discussion last fall about this issue and, while I will always respect your opinion, I do somewhat disagree.  I do think there are gray areas and, to me, this was one of them.  To your point, perhaps Guilford should have used a clearinghouse, but how many DIII schools do this with every athlete?  I also think it is a completely different situation from the one cited by PSBBF.  In the Maryland case mentioned by PSBBF, if a coach buys an xbox for a recruit, he knew what he was doing.  That's a no-brainer.  I think the major differences here are Guilford would never have allowed this player to participate if they had known his history, he lied and Guilford dealt with it immediately once the situation was discovered.  You may say it's cut and dried, but I say no.

See you on September 8, I hope!

 

[MU_ftbl51]

I wouldnt call that a violation though. Every school has a dinner for outstanding athletes who excel through school with a high GPA. However, i do see what you are saying about being treated "special", but it is a subject that if they get into with CNU, then they will have a big pod of things on every school. Ever school does something in that case. It is basically beating a dead horse, and i think they are more worried about the bigger issues as Papi said than this.
        Narch, my senior year, shenandoah also had a kid that was ineligible didnt they at the start and had to forfeit the game at the beginning didnt they? I was not sure what happened, i couldnt remember with that situation.
   Guilford was lazy for taking this guy's word on never playing, the only reason they caught it late was because someone called and told them he had played before and warned them of his attitude. I remember that situation, i had a friend there during that time. They had an insight from someone. If they had not have found out like that, they might not have and then they would have been in bigger trouble.
          Anyways, and news coming into camp for any of the conference. I am ready to watch some football!!!!

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

It doesn't bother me, I wish more was done for scholar athletes.  Every school has something I am sure, but it was a church that held it. Outside of that issue what is the rule on "special treatment"? 

There was that controversy that surrounded UCLA basketball back in thier golden years about that guy that did everything for the players.  If I rememer correctly nothing happenend.

I still think the NCAA has gotten a little soft on issues.  At D1 level, I personally thought that MD should have gotten a sanction at least some sort of fine.  It just seems to be about the money with them up there.

Again I agree with narch if a player is ineligble the player is ineligble. 4 games is too many games to realize thier is an ineligble player on the roster. However they did come forward so I guess being honest after the fact is good in the eyes of the NCAA.

If the NCAA wants to discourage the actions, then every little rule violation should be addressed in some matter, shape, or form.

[SU97]

'nova - that was me that you quoted, not psbbg, and the bottom line is this...guilford had the ability to track his previous enrollment through the national student clearinghouse and they did not...in my opinion, they did not use due diligence prior to enrolling this particular student-athlete, so they can't just wash their hands of the incident and say "it's all his fault for lying on his application" - guilford's actions after the fact are to be commended, but it does not excuse the fact that they used an ineligible player in 4 games (he did not, by the way, play against mu)...personally, i think they should have been held to the exact same standard that shenandoah was the previous year when they used an ineligible player - ineligible is ineligible is ineligible...there is no gray area, if you ask me, and claiming ignorance only works if you have no way of getting the information that you need

If I remember correctly, SU's decision to forfeit the Catholic game was made in-house, not an NCAA decision.   

[SU97]

Although that seems exactly like something the NCAA would get involved in.  Nevermind the bigger issues to worry about, let's make sure some church group is not rewarding a bunch of well-deserving college athletes.

~steps down off soapbox~

BINGO. 

Everyone on here know's I'm not a fan of the captains...  but this shouldn't even be an issue.  I agree with the admiral -  the last thing the NCAA needs to sanction is a bunch of guys getting a meal at church.  Last time I checked, some good old churchin' was a positive thing...   maybe you prefer these kids go the Pacman Jones route?  Or maybe a reception at BALCO?

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

Has anyone seen this.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bkc-jim-litke-062107,1,2492822.story?ctrack=2&cset=true


I went looking for MD commitments (I am orginally from MD) and I found this article.  From what I know of recruiting there is nothing wrong with it.  A player can start contact with a coach at anytime and clearly 8th grade was the time.