Tweet
Seriously....hear me out...
If a team isn't on probation and commits a violation, then the NCAA looks as far back as they want to try to prove a pattern and hammer the team as hard as they want.
Didn't they do this to BU by linking the violations in the summer of 2005 with the penalties BU got back in the mid-1980's?
Then even if a team is ON probation, the NCAA sometimes totally overlooks certain such facts and goes easy anyway!!
Remember how Kelvin Sampson was already nailed while he was at Oklahoma and yet DURING the cautionary and probationary period, he committed the exact same violations at Indiana, lied about them, and Indiana made little to NO effort to watch the guy and check on compliance!!
Yet, IU gets virtually NOTHING as a penalty, and is given a couple years of this useless "probation".
I suppose nobody recalls this......
Kansas placed itself on probation in 2005 and then when the NCAA investigated, they found even MORE serious violations, like the $5000 cash given to Darnell Jackson and JR Giddens.
Yet--- Jackson was allowed to stay and play at Kansas and finish his career and even win a national title, and the NCAA added NOTHING to their penalties, either except even more (one more year) of useless probation.
BUT-- as I have shown recently, the NCAA has lowered the hammer on numerous smaller programs like SEMO, Alabama State, University of DC, etc... none of whom had any track record of prior violations, had never been on probation before, were not currently on probation, and yet NONE of their violations were of a nature such as intentionally breaking rules to CHEAT, and PAY players!!
the only conclusion I can draw, is that the issuing of "probation" by the NCAA is an act that is supposed to fool the press and others into thinking they are actually penalizing the school, when they obviously have no real intent to at all.
If they want to hammer someone big time, they'll do it whether a school is on probation or not, and even if past violations were 20 years ago, they'll drag it up to ADD to the penalties if they so choose.
But if a school has more issues while on probation, then expect the NCAA to go soft on them anyway if they are IU, Kansas, etc......it never fails...
Where has the NCAA every used probation to inflict serious penalties on any major school?
Here's one more example...Oklahoma State had been on probation THREE times in the past decade or so when the NCAA found them to have MORE major violaitons and a "corrupt recruiting climate"...
They were nailed by the NCAA for "40 violations, many of them major"...
So, with 40 more violations, many of which were MAJOR, and the NCAA terming Oklahoma State "corrupt",
and coming right on the heels of the same school just coming off THREE separate probations,
guess what penalty the NCAA gave them????
.yup...you guessed it....Oklahoma State was given four years of....probation!!
.... that's all...seriously, read for yourself!!
Had this been Alabama State or Bradley, they'd have certainly gotten the death penalty!
If a team isn't on probation and commits a violation, then the NCAA looks as far back as they want to try to prove a pattern and hammer the team as hard as they want.
Didn't they do this to BU by linking the violations in the summer of 2005 with the penalties BU got back in the mid-1980's?
Then even if a team is ON probation, the NCAA sometimes totally overlooks certain such facts and goes easy anyway!!
Remember how Kelvin Sampson was already nailed while he was at Oklahoma and yet DURING the cautionary and probationary period, he committed the exact same violations at Indiana, lied about them, and Indiana made little to NO effort to watch the guy and check on compliance!!
Yet, IU gets virtually NOTHING as a penalty, and is given a couple years of this useless "probation".
I suppose nobody recalls this......
Kansas placed itself on probation in 2005 and then when the NCAA investigated, they found even MORE serious violations, like the $5000 cash given to Darnell Jackson and JR Giddens.
Yet--- Jackson was allowed to stay and play at Kansas and finish his career and even win a national title, and the NCAA added NOTHING to their penalties, either except even more (one more year) of useless probation.
BUT-- as I have shown recently, the NCAA has lowered the hammer on numerous smaller programs like SEMO, Alabama State, University of DC, etc... none of whom had any track record of prior violations, had never been on probation before, were not currently on probation, and yet NONE of their violations were of a nature such as intentionally breaking rules to CHEAT, and PAY players!!
the only conclusion I can draw, is that the issuing of "probation" by the NCAA is an act that is supposed to fool the press and others into thinking they are actually penalizing the school, when they obviously have no real intent to at all.
If they want to hammer someone big time, they'll do it whether a school is on probation or not, and even if past violations were 20 years ago, they'll drag it up to ADD to the penalties if they so choose.
But if a school has more issues while on probation, then expect the NCAA to go soft on them anyway if they are IU, Kansas, etc......it never fails...
Where has the NCAA every used probation to inflict serious penalties on any major school?
Here's one more example...Oklahoma State had been on probation THREE times in the past decade or so when the NCAA found them to have MORE major violaitons and a "corrupt recruiting climate"...
They were nailed by the NCAA for "40 violations, many of them major"...
So, with 40 more violations, many of which were MAJOR, and the NCAA terming Oklahoma State "corrupt",
and coming right on the heels of the same school just coming off THREE separate probations,
guess what penalty the NCAA gave them????
.yup...you guessed it....Oklahoma State was given four years of....probation!!
.... that's all...seriously, read for yourself!!
Had this been Alabama State or Bradley, they'd have certainly gotten the death penalty!
Comment