Sakerlina Self-imposes Scholarship Reduction over WhitneyGate
Their response to the NCAA is in the above link. They agree with the allegations including failure to monitor.
6 scholarships over 3 years. A lost of official recruiting visits, and a fine for playing impermissible players. South Carolina’s total amount of impermissible benefits from the Whitney Hotel are roughly $47,000. They'll meet with the NCAA again on Feb 17-18 to determine whether this is enough. I don't think so.
For reference, Ohio State self-penalized 5 over 3.
5 months ago
DrB
14 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Think it's enough?
sounds light to me but it follows the Ohio State precedent fairly closely. (although I’m pretty sure benefits had far greater monetary value in this case)
They’ll probably get away with just the six. I think shld b 8 over 3 since Oh St did 5 & the dollar value was probably much higher n USuCs case
by TigerFan74 on Dec 14, 2011 8:13 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I think
the dreaded “repeat offender status” is going to get them a much worse punishment
I hope so
Nothing I wish more than to see SC reduced to a laughing stock in the SEC least. I hope the NCAA slams their ass and rips away bowl trips and 10 schollies over 2 years.
by judge jeff davis on Dec 15, 2011 2:27 AM EST reply actions
Well...
The monetary value is greater for USC than Ohio St., but USC has a reasonable explanation for how all of this happened and how we’re taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again, whereas OSU had the nasty stench of intentional coverup hovering around the whole thing. That’s a mitigating circumstance in favor of USC. Of course, we have the repeat offender thing hovering over us, which is a problem. At the end of the day, I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a slightly higher scholarship reduction and / or forfeiture of victories (including the 2009 Clemson game, which I’m sure you’ll all be happy about), but bowl ban won’t happen. It should also be noted that these self-imposed penalties are typically accepted. Why? Because we paid a lot of funny to get a lawyer trained in NCAA bylaw to help us devise the self-imposed penalty. This stuff doesn’t come out of nowhere. It’s a reasonable projection of what the NCAA would do, or at least a reasonable projection of the least possible penalty that would be imposed.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
Vacating wins doesn't mean anything to me
fact is that you whipped us the last 3 years and even if they make you give up that game it doesn’t change the fact that you won. In that line of thinking then you could saw that we won the ACC in 2009 since GT had to give up the win but you’ll hear no Clemson fan accept that. When we win we win when we lose we lose. At the end of the day it’s all decided on the field and you deserved the win.
Yeah nobody gives a shit about vacated Ws
by DrB on Dec 16, 2011 9:10 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
About as pointless a penalty as "probation"
neither really affect the team nor the perception of them. I still say that Reggie Bush won that heisman and USC won the NC in 2004. Vacated wins means nothing.
It was a joke, gentlemen. Only the most scarred souls care about that stuff.
The scholarships and bowl ban are what counts. I guess I could see them slapping us with an eight-scholarship reduction over the three years, or something like that. But it seems unlikely to me. We’ll see.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Dec 16, 2011 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
This is a key distinction- With the Dez Bryant and Bruce Pearl cases, the NCAA has established a pretty strong precedent that lying to the NCAA to cover up something is usually worse than the actual violations. With Ohio State they had an airtight case that Tressel was denying knowledge of violations when he had in fact already been tipped off. There is no such paper trail in SCar’s case as far as I’m aware. They also complied with the investigation and didn’t defiantly deny wrong doing like you saw with USC’s case, so it’s hard to really compare to either school.
Then again, Boise State got docked 9 scholarships over 3 years for letting players sleep on teammates’ couches, so add in the repeat offender thing and it is hard to see 6 over 3 holding up.
GO SPURS GO!
Precisely. Agreed on all points. Our compliance with the investigation and the fact that we didn't cover anything up (or at least that there's no proof that we did) is what makes it possible that we won't get slammed.
But I agree that the NCAA may make things a bit tougher on us due to the repeat offender thing.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog by and for Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Dec 16, 2011 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
