Should we be worried?

[NEO]

Somebody needs to take MH hunting.

 

[hmanvolfan]

I thought USC had an NCAA imposed limit of 15 scholarships due to sanctions. How did they sign 30 players? Is Kiffie gonna tell 15 guys after the fact they will have pay their own way?

 

[NEO]

I have been wondering this myself.

 

[Wezcoast]

A bowl ban would hurt recruiting far worse than the loss of a few scholarships. Rebuilding = recruiting.

Thing is , I've never been sold that a lower tier bowl game does much for our recruiting either way...good or bad. UT in a bcs game next year? Highly unlikely. I do know that missing on 3 or 4 of anyone that we signed this year because we didn't have a scholly to give them, would hurt.

 

[VegasVol]

I thought USC had an NCAA imposed limit of 15 scholarships due to sanctions. How did they sign 30 players? Is Kiffie gonna tell 15 guys after the fact they will have pay their own way?

Sanctions stayed pending appeal. Kiffin has the excuse of sanctions as a bugaboo for failed performance when in fact sanctions has had zero impact on his program. Sanctions will go into effect next year if upheld on appeal. Kiffin can't afford another 7-5 season at SC.

 

[brdcstr]

Reported by who?

Clay?

Nope, The attorney from one of the two powerhouse law firms that handles NCAA cases that Clay quoted in his article.

A prominent NCAA attorney, Mark Jones, chair of the law firm Ice Miller's collegiate sports practice, said that "failure to monitor allegations are almost always classified as a major violation," but that punishments for failure to monitor can vary significantly based upon the NCAA's opinion of the severity of those violations.

If they combine your football and basketball investigations into one, like they did with USC, it's a certainty that a major violation(s) will come from it.

If charges result in a LOIC being issued, you can expect the hammer to drop. If a failure to monitor charge is given, as the quoted attorney above stated, it all comes down to the NCAA's opinion of the severity of the violations.

It appears a lot of you are minimizing the potential seriousness of the charges you're facing.

 

[brdcstr]

Sanctions stayed pending appeal. Kiffin has the excuse of sanctions as a bugaboo for failed performance when in fact sanctions has had zero impact on his program. Sanctions will go into effect next year if upheld on appeal. Kiffin can't afford another 7-5 season at SC.

Major fail. USC had nine players transfer out due to the sanctions, leaving 71 scholarship players. Couple that with injuries, USC had to go to an NFL-like no contact practice week just to ensure enough healthy bodies during the games.

We could've used Malik Jackson during garbage time in order to save our starters legs for the next game.

 

[brdcstr]

Went light on Bruce?No university has EVER punished a coach so harshly.

The NCAA made Dez Bryant sit out the entire year after it was determined that he lied to investigators. So yeah, sitting out half of a conference season is light.

As of mid-January, Pearl hadn't even signed the new contract UT drew up for him last October after this incident blew up.

If they were to fire him after sanctions are handed down, and he continues to play intentional stall ball on signing the new contract, he could be entitled to a larger payout because the terms of his former contract would be in play.

Here's a good overview on his contractual situation:

SPORTSbyBROOKS UT Coach: Another Disingenuous Pearl Unearthed

On another note, for those of you claiming not to care about a bowl ban, you seem to be forgetting that players are entitled to transfer out with impunity, depending upon how many years you get, and how much eligibility they have remaining.

If you get one year, seniors get the transfer out. If you get two years, juniors and seniors get the transfer out, which obviously further depletes your roster.

If a bowl ban is given, almost assuredly scholarships will also be taken. You'll then experience the compounding effect of players transferring out, as well as reduced scholarships being available.

 

[rockytop9808]

The NCAA made Dez Bryant sit out the entire year after it was determined that he lied to investigators. So yeah, sitting out half of a conference season is light.

As of mid-January, Pearl hadn't even signed the new contract UT drew up for him last October after this incident blew up.

If they were to fire him after sanctions are handed down, and he continues to play intentional stall ball on signing the new contract, he could be entitled to a larger payout because the terms of his former contract would be in play.

Here's a good overview on his contractual situation:

SPORTSbyBROOKS UT Coach: Another Disingenuous Pearl Unearthed

On another note, for those of you claiming not to care about a bowl ban, you seem to be forgetting that players are entitled to transfer out with impunity, depending upon how many years you get, and how much eligibility they have remaining.

If you get one year, seniors get the transfer out. If you get two years, juniors and seniors get the transfer out, which obviously further depletes your roster.

If a bowl ban is given, almost assuredly scholarships will also be taken. You'll then experience the compounding effect of players transferring out, as well as reduced scholarships being available.

Comparing Pearl and Dez is apples and oranges. The NCAA has not not passed a punishment on Pearl, everything has been done by the school and SEC thus far.

As for the severity of the school's punishments, which you seem to think will be oh so severe, keep in mind they are also going after the former coaches, which is indicative of the NCAA's actual willingness to punish the people that were involved.

Go stir the pot elsewhere.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[tvolsfan]

A bowl ban would hurt recruiting far worse than the loss of a few scholarships. Rebuilding = recruiting.

Agreed, as long as it's only a few scholarships.

Loss of a few scholarships=everyone forgets
Bowl ban=a cheating label that would hang over the program much longer.