New AJC article on recruting...

#2
#2
1411132665_cleavage-beer-holder.jpg

Come to Tennessee!
 
#6
#6
Geez, I am so tired of hearing about this. Since when did the NCAA start telling people they could not attend HS games to watch their friends play?
 
#7
#7
If UTK was indeed forwarded information that the hostesses went to South Carolina, and they didn't self-report the violation, then yeah, you're getting into "institutional control" issues at that point. The girls' trip is probably nothing serious. The recruiting intern thing is probably nothing at all. But failing to report a secondary violation when your program is under the scrutiny that ours is under right now? That's something. It's hard to see why that would fall on the coaches rather than the compliance office, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

The NCAA is not going to walk away from this empty-handed, not after all this press. Kiffin isn't going to be allowed to gloat about being found completely clean. Going back to the health inspector analogy I used -- if you own a restaurant and you piss off somebody on the city council, a team of health inspectors is going to show up. Maybe they won't be able to find enough to shut you down, but they're going to find enough to make you squirm for awhile and have to post that nice big "82" up next to the cash register to embarrass you.
 
#9
#9
"institutional control" is a catch-all. It's crap, like "wreckless driving" for accelerating to fast so they can search your car and still give you a ticket when they find nothing. Control technique for a control freak (I'm lookin at you slive).
 
#10
#10
Vercingetorix said:
If UTK was indeed forwarded information that the hostesses went to South Carolina, and they didn't self-report the violation, then yeah, you're getting into "institutional control" issues at that point. The girls' trip is probably nothing serious. The recruiting intern thing is probably nothing at all. But failing to report a secondary violation when your program is under the scrutiny that ours is under right now? That's something. It's hard to see why that would fall on the coaches rather than the compliance office, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

The NCAA is not going to walk away from this empty-handed, not after all this press. Kiffin isn't going to be allowed to gloat about being found completely clean. Going back to the health inspector analogy I used -- if you own a restaurant and you piss off somebody on the city council, a team of health inspectors is going to show up. Maybe they're not going to find enough to shut you down, but they're going to find enough to make you squirm for awhile and have to post that nice big "82" up next to the cash register to embarrass you.
Click to expand...

That is a perfect analogy. Given the details that we know, it seems like the "institutional control" button is a far reach right now. That is a term that is generally thrown around as a scare tactic.
 
#11
#11
Vercingetorix said:
If UTK was indeed forwarded information that the hostesses went to South Carolina, and they didn't self-report the violation, then yeah, you're getting into "institutional control" issues at that point. The girls' trip is probably nothing serious. The recruiting intern thing is probably nothing at all. But failing to report a secondary violation when your program is under the scrutiny that ours is under right now? That's something. It's hard to see why that would fall on the coaches rather than the compliance office, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

The NCAA is not going to walk away from this empty-handed, not after all this press. Kiffin isn't going to be allowed to gloat about being found completely clean. Going back to the health inspector analogy I used -- if you own a restaurant and you piss off somebody on the city council, a team of health inspectors is going to show up. Maybe they won't be able to find enough to shut you down, but they're going to find enough to make you squirm for awhile and have to post that nice big "82" up next to the cash register to embarrass you.
Click to expand...

Do we know for sure that a secondary violation has occurred? If the two hostesses went to the game on their own $ and nobody in the UTAD knew about it beforehand, its that a secondary violation?

How is that different than some of our players going to watch a HS game on a Friday night and chatting up some potential recruits after the game is over?
 
#12
#12
This is just like getting a ticket for driving to fast for conditions when the officer can't tell you how fast you were going. So they will write you a generic ticket to put on your record to mess it up.
 
#14
#14
Vercingetorix said:
If UTK was indeed forwarded information that the hostesses went to South Carolina, and they didn't self-report the violation, then yeah, you're getting into "institutional control" issues at that point. The girls' trip is probably nothing serious. The recruiting intern thing is probably nothing at all. But failing to report a secondary violation when your program is under the scrutiny that ours is under right now? That's something. It's hard to see why that would fall on the coaches rather than the compliance office, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

The NCAA is not going to walk away from this empty-handed, not after all this press. Kiffin isn't going to be allowed to gloat about being found completely clean. Going back to the health inspector analogy I used -- if you own a restaurant and you piss off somebody on the city council, a team of health inspectors is going to show up. Maybe they won't be able to find enough to shut you down, but they're going to find enough to make you squirm for awhile and have to post that nice big "82" up next to the cash register to embarrass you.
Click to expand...

What does an "82" equate to in recruitng violations, another secondary violation and public reprimand, or a major violation with serious repricussions?
 
#18
#18
johnnylongball said:
Do we know for sure that a secondary violation has occurred? If the two hostesses went to the game on their own $ and nobody in the UTAD knew about it beforehand, its that a secondary violation?

How is that different than some of our players going to watch a HS game on a Friday night and chatting up some potential recruits after the game is over?
Click to expand...

I doubt anybody on this board knows whether it's "really" a secondary violation, but given how broadly the NCAA has interpreted the word "booster" in the past, it seems impossible to think that they wouldn't consider the girls to be "university representatives" even if they weren't on the clock, so to speak. Are players allowed to talk to recruits? If so, then that gives you a pretty good argument why the hostesses wouldn't be a violation too......but I think you have to assume that the NCAA is going to interpret things pretty broadly in this case. Kiffin has got to be slapped down a little.
 
#20
#20
johnnylongball said:
Do we know for sure that a secondary violation has occurred? If the two hostesses went to the game on their own $ and nobody in the UTAD knew about it beforehand, its that a secondary violation?

How is that different than some of our players going to watch a HS game on a Friday night and chatting up some potential recruits after the game is over?
Click to expand...


I don't know if the rulebook gets that specific or not, but we do know that their being there and having direct interaction with these players WAS a violation. Whether or not it is enforced in the (hopefully) absence of university/AD involvement remains to be seen. I don't know if there is an exact past precedent for this...if not, the NCAA may make a judgement call. They could declare that, even without evidence of involvement on the part of anyone other than the girls themselves, the university still bears some responsibility for presumably failing to educate Orange Pride members of the do's and dont's. Hard to say at this point. It could go either way, but one increasingly gets the feeling that, as Vercingtorex suggested, the NCAA is not going to walk away from this totally empty-handed.
 
#21
#21
jspvol76 said:
What does an "82" equate to in recruitng violations, another secondary violation and public reprimand, or a major violation with serious repricussions?
Click to expand...

I don't have any inside knowledge or sources at all, so I am just making this up, but sure seems unlikely to me that the NCAA (and Slive) would let Kiffin walk away from this without SOME sort of punishment. If you're the NCAA, you have to stomp down on "his secondary violations don't matter" attitude right now. Even if all they find is piddly little stuff, you have to think that they'll reprimand him and punish him somewhat. If they find something major, of course, or something that can be construed as major, then they'll bring the hammer down.
 
#22
#22
Vercingetorix said:
I don't have any inside knowledge or sources at all, so I am just making this up, but sure seems unlikely to me that the NCAA (and Slive) would let Kiffin walk away from this without SOME sort of punishment. If you're the NCAA, you have to stomp down on "his secondary violations don't matter" attitude right now. Even if all they find is piddly little stuff, you have to think that they'll reprimand him and punish him somewhat. If they find something major, of course, or something that can be construed as major, then they'll bring the hammer down.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. It's like the old "don't tug on Superman's cape" saying. I have no doubts that if the NCAA went into any top 50-75 type program in the country and looked hard enough, they would find a few things. And let's not be so arrogant as to think "institutional control" is a total stretch. That's the kind of thinking that got Alabama in trouble back in '93 or '94.
 
#23
#23
Vercingetorix said:
I don't have any inside knowledge or sources at all, so I am just making this up, but sure seems unlikely to me that the NCAA (and Slive) would let Kiffin walk away from this without SOME sort of punishment. If you're the NCAA, you have to stomp down on "his secondary violations don't matter" attitude right now. Even if all they find is piddly little stuff, you have to think that they'll reprimand him and punish him somewhat. If they find something major, of course, or something that can be construed as major, then they'll bring the hammer down.
Click to expand...
I kind of feel like this may be the case, assuming they find something.
 
#24
#24
Vercingetorix said:
I don't have any inside knowledge or sources at all, so I am just making this up, but sure seems unlikely to me that the NCAA (and Slive) would let Kiffin walk away from this without SOME sort of punishment. If you're the NCAA, you have to stomp down on "his secondary violations don't matter" attitude right now. Even if all they find is piddly little stuff, you have to think that they'll reprimand him and punish him somewhat. If they find something major, of course, or something that can be construed as major, then they'll bring the hammer down.
Click to expand...

I agree with what your saying here but what can the NCAA or the SEC do that would have a real effect? reprimands and public "punishments" have proven to have little if no effect at all on Kiffin or recruiting. I dont really think the NCAA can do anything short of taking scholarships or probation that would really slow Kiffin down. And I dont think they'll find enough of anything for that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top