Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

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.

dbackjon wrote:Interesting take.



Any idea WHEN they are supposed to make a ruling on the appeal?

JALMOND wrote:Sounds a little like my kid saying, "well, being that you didn't specifically say I could not go out tonight, I went out tonight".

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.

JMU DJ wrote:

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.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ ... +ncaa+news

clenz wrote: Don't see why they shouldn't be banned from post season

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.

JMU DJ wrote:

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)?

clenz wrote:

JMU DJ wrote:

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?

cats2506 wrote:

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

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

Col Hogan wrote:

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...

JMU DJ wrote:

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.

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...

BlackFalkin wrote:

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

hmm. I seem to remember some bastard named BlackFalkin saying the same thing in 3 different posts.. and that was 6 months ago! hmm...

clenz wrote:

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.

SeattleGriz wrote:

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.

SeattleGriz wrote:

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.

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

GOKATS wrote:

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.

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:

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!