I got this from the eagsports message board and thought it to be an interesting perspective on the process.
Any credence to it?
FWIW, since the NCAA hasn't explicitly said "you are not allowed to go to the playoffs" by now, I suspect they have a plan in place to let us go to the post-season if we qualify. In the business world, we call this "passive approval." If you don't tell someone no, and clarify any appeals by repeating the same response, you may as well just say yes.
My guess is that the NCAA is waiting to see if we qualify for the playoffs or not. If we do, they begrudgingly allow us to compete (which would be morally correct and just anyway), and if we don't win at least 8, they say the ban is still in place and save their own face.
If they were going to nix any idea of us going to the playoffs, don't you think they would have passed down a ruling by now? I mean, it's October 5th as I write this and they haven't said a word on it. If that isn't "passive approval," I don't know what is.
Any idea WHEN they are supposed to make a ruling on the appeal?
Our administration met with the appeals committee on August 17th and from what I've heard the meeting went favorably and the NCAA was supposed to make a decision in 4-6 weeks. That time frame has already passed and considering that the violations were self reported, the self imposed penalties are severe, and we have been squeeky clean for at least a couple of years, delaying this decision is simply pouring salt on the wound for these the players, current coaching staff, and athletic departement all of whom were not involved with the infractions.
clenz wrote:Can someone remind me the situation here, I don't remember it fully
The violations include impermissible participation by ineligible student-athletes in practice, the use of too many countable coaches, failure to monitor by the former head coach, and a lack of institutional control and failure to monitor by the university.
During the 2003-04 through the 2006-07 academic years, 13 football student-athletes were allowed to practice even though they were nonqualifiers. They also did not have their eligibility certified by the university or the NCAA, nor did they meet transfer requirements.
Additionally, two of the student-athletes were provided housing and meals during preseason practice before the first day of classes even though they were not eligible to receive such benefits. Further, the university failed to withhold one of the student-athletes from competition after discovering the young man’s involvement in the NCAA violations.
The football program also exceeded the maximum number of 11 countable coaches during the 2003-04 through 2006-07 academic years. During this time, anywhere from 13 to 15 individuals per year were allowed to perform coaching duties in the football program.
clenz wrote:Can someone remind me the situation here, I don't remember it fully
The violations include impermissible participation by ineligible student-athletes in practice, the use of too many countable coaches, failure to monitor by the former head coach, and a lack of institutional control and failure to monitor by the university.
During the 2003-04 through the 2006-07 academic years, 13 football student-athletes were allowed to practice even though they were nonqualifiers. They also did not have their eligibility certified by the university or the NCAA, nor did they meet transfer requirements.
Additionally, two of the student-athletes were provided housing and meals during preseason practice before the first day of classes even though they were not eligible to receive such benefits. Further, the university failed to withhold one of the student-athletes from competition after discovering the young man’s involvement in the NCAA violations.
The football program also exceeded the maximum number of 11 countable coaches during the 2003-04 through 2006-07 academic years. During this time, anywhere from 13 to 15 individuals per year were allowed to perform coaching duties in the football program.
The use of too many countable coaches from what I understand is when EWU paid a person to work for a couple of months in a temporary position when they were short staff, and then that person was then considered a full time coach.
If you think about it, it is rather stupid on the NCAA's part. Like EWU has the money and resources to pay TOO many coaches.
Also to add to the problem, EWU was without an NCAA compliance officer off and on over the last couple of years due to having 5 compliance officers in a 4 year period (or the other way around).
I realize there are rules, but when you find out what really happened and the fact EWU self reported, you can see it was to no advantage to EWU.
Besides, I think the NCAA is one notch up from the mafia anyway. I would love to see someone go through all their shit with a fine tooth comb and see how many violations they have committed.
clenz wrote:
Don't see why they shouldn't be banned from post season
Exactly... as much as I like to give EWU grief about it, other schools have done much worse recently and received a "slap on the wrist" and a "now don't let me catch you doing that again... again"
Hmm, what's worse.... Feeding a kid a couple days early and having a few extra coaches on the field or finding out your entire athletic program has committed academic fraud? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3958292
Don't programs like USC use paid "consultants" (i.e. extra coaches)?
EDIT: ...looks like they do
USC football Coach Pete Carroll employed a former NFL tactician last season to help with the team's punting and kicking game, an arrangement that may have violated NCAA rules that prohibit consultants from coaching, The Times has learned.
clenz wrote:
Don't see why they shouldn't be banned from post season
Exactly... as much as I like to give EWU grief about it, other schools have done much worse recently and received a "slap on the wrist" and a "now don't let me catch you doing that again... again"
Hmm, what's worse.... Feeding a kid a couple days early and having a few extra coaches on the field or finding out your entire athletic program has committed academic fraud? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3958292
Don't programs like USC use paid "consultants" (i.e. extra coaches)?
Exactly... as much as I like to give EWU grief about it, other schools have done much worse recently and received a "slap on the wrist" and a "now don't let me catch you doing that again... again"
Hmm, what's worse.... Feeding a kid a couple days early and having a few extra coaches on the field or finding out your entire athletic program has committed academic fraud? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3958292
Don't programs like USC use paid "consultants" (i.e. extra coaches)?
What hasn't USC done and gotten away with?
Yeah but thats the upper tier of the BCS so the rules dont apply, FCS & DII & lower has to take the heat of the NCAA so that they can say they are doing somthing.
EWU got a bad deal, but I would be surprised if they appprove the appeal, too bad too because they "guilty" people are long gone from the program and all they (NCAA) are doing is hurting some real student athletes
clenz wrote:
What hasn't USC done and gotten away with?
Yeah but thats the upper tier of the BCS so the rules dont apply, FCS & DII & lower has to take the heat of the NCAA so that they can say they are doing somthing.
EWU got a bad deal, but I would be surprised if they appprove the appeal, too bad too because they "guilty" people are long gone from the program and all they (NCAA) are doing is hurting some real student athletes
I agree. The school needs some punishment, but not a ban. However, the people that left the school should have some punishment follow them whereever they go
cats2506 wrote:
Yeah but thats the upper tier of the BCS so the rules dont apply, FCS & DII & lower has to take the heat of the NCAA so that they can say they are doing somthing.
EWU got a bad deal, but I would be surprised if they appprove the appeal, too bad too because they "guilty" people are long gone from the program and all they (NCAA) are doing is hurting some real student athletes
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head here...
“Tolerance and Apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” Aristotle
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
cats2506 wrote:
Yeah but thats the upper tier of the BCS so the rules dont apply, FCS & DII & lower has to take the heat of the NCAA so that they can say they are doing somthing.
EWU got a bad deal, but I would be surprised if they appprove the appeal, too bad too because they "guilty" people are long gone from the program and all they (NCAA) are doing is hurting some real student athletes
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head here...
Yup.... and Clenz, it's a crappy situation, but that's the way it goes down. Just look at John Calipari... two disgraced programs under his tenure, but the guy keeps moving on and getting "better" jobs. The Colonel may know a little bit about the effects Calipari has.
Col Hogan wrote:
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head here...
Yup.... and Clenz, it's a crappy situation, but that's the way it goes down. Just look at John Calipari... two disgraced programs under his tenure, but the guy keeps moving on and getting "better" jobs. The Colonel may know a little bit about the effects Calipari has.
I'm fully aware, I just think the NCAA needs to go after the coaches too.
kalm wrote:I got this from the eagsports message board and thought it to be an interesting perspective on the process.
Any credence to it?
FWIW, since the NCAA hasn't explicitly said "you are not allowed to go to the playoffs" by now, I suspect they have a plan in place to let us go to the post-season if we qualify. In the business world, we call this "passive approval." If you don't tell someone no, and clarify any appeals by repeating the same response, you may as well just say yes.
My guess is that the NCAA is waiting to see if we qualify for the playoffs or not. If we do, they begrudgingly allow us to compete (which would be morally correct and just anyway), and if we don't win at least 8, they say the ban is still in place and save their own face.
If they were going to nix any idea of us going to the playoffs, don't you think they would have passed down a ruling by now? I mean, it's October 5th as I write this and they haven't said a word on it. If that isn't "passive approval," I don't know what is.
easternwashington.rivals.com
hmm. I seem to remember some bastard named BlackFalkin saying the same thing in 3 different posts.. and that was 6 months ago! hmm...
EWU FOOTBALL 2004|2005|2010|2012|2013|2014|2016|2018|BigSky Champions EASTERN WASHINGTON|2010 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
JMU DJ wrote:
Yup.... and Clenz, it's a crappy situation, but that's the way it goes down. Just look at John Calipari... two disgraced programs under his tenure, but the guy keeps moving on and getting "better" jobs. The Colonel may know a little bit about the effects Calipari has.
I'm fully aware, I just think the NCAA needs to go after the coaches too.
They did go after the old EWU coach. He got some slap on the wrist and wasn't able to do something the first game of last year. Can't even remember it was so mild - and we are talking about cellar dwellar Washington State.
By the way BF. I see U of Washington is cancelling a home and home with BYU so they can schedule EWU and Portland State.
clenz wrote:I'm fully aware, I just think the NCAA needs to go after the coaches too.
They did go after the old EWU coach. He got some slap on the wrist and wasn't able to do something the first game of last year. Can't even remember it was so mild - and we are talking about cellar dwellar Washington State.
By the way BF. I see U of Washington is cancelling a home and home with BYU so they can schedule EWU and Portland State.
UW is one of 3 FBS teams that have NEVER played FCS teams... the others are USC & Notre Dame..
in other words... it aint gonna happen, but it would be cool.
EWU FOOTBALL 2004|2005|2010|2012|2013|2014|2016|2018|BigSky Champions EASTERN WASHINGTON|2010 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS
clenz wrote:I'm fully aware, I just think the NCAA needs to go after the coaches too.
They did go after the old EWU coach. He got some slap on the wrist and wasn't able to do something the first game of last year. Can't even remember it was so mild - and we are talking about cellar dwellar Washington State.
By the way BF. I see U of Washington is cancelling a home and home with BYU so they can schedule EWU and Portland State.
The only punishment Wulff got was that he wasn't allowed to be present during the first 3 days of fall camp at WSU. Yeah, big punishment. Wulff's stance was basically that it wasn't a big deal, that EWU had been committing these violations for years and he was just keeping the status quo. Bastard.
kalm wrote:I got this from the eagsports message board and thought it to be an interesting perspective on the process.
Any credence to it?
FWIW, since the NCAA hasn't explicitly said "you are not allowed to go to the playoffs" by now, I suspect they have a plan in place to let us go to the post-season if we qualify. In the business world, we call this "passive approval." If you don't tell someone no, and clarify any appeals by repeating the same response, you may as well just say yes.
My guess is that the NCAA is waiting to see if we qualify for the playoffs or not. If we do, they begrudgingly allow us to compete (which would be morally correct and just anyway), and if we don't win at least 8, they say the ban is still in place and save their own face.
If they were going to nix any idea of us going to the playoffs, don't you think they would have passed down a ruling by now? I mean, it's October 5th as I write this and they haven't said a word on it. If that isn't "passive approval," I don't know what is.
easternwashington.rivals.com
I wouldn't put much faith in the "passive approval" aspect, It appears to be more in the "wishful thinking" category. The NCAA imposed the ban and nothing says they have to repeatedly cite the ban for it to be in effect. It's been said all along that nothing would happen with the appeal until at least half way thru the season and I don't in any way see the NCAA basing their decision on EWU's W/L record at the time.
kalm wrote:I got this from the eagsports message board and thought it to be an interesting perspective on the process.
Any credence to it?
easternwashington.rivals.com
I wouldn't put much faith in the "passive approval" aspect, It appears to be more in the "wishful thinking" category. The NCAA imposed the ban and nothing says they have to repeatedly cite the ban for it to be in effect. It's been said all along that nothing would happen with the appeal until at least half way thru the season and I don't in any way see the NCAA basing their decision on EWU's W/L record at the time.
Looks like we got a Negative Nancy! You're just praying the committee doesn't lift the ban because that might jew MSU out of the playoffs!
GOKATS wrote:
I wouldn't put much faith in the "passive approval" aspect, It appears to be more in the "wishful thinking" category. The NCAA imposed the ban and nothing says they have to repeatedly cite the ban for it to be in effect. It's been said all along that nothing would happen with the appeal until at least half way thru the season and I don't in any way see the NCAA basing their decision on EWU's W/L record at the time.
Looks like we got a Negative Nancy! You're just praying the committee doesn't lift the ban because that might jew MSU out of the playoffs!
No, actually I'm being a realist rather than wandering around with my fingers crossed looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow............
And being a realist the decision regarding EWU won't effect MSU because we'll have the autobid.
