Appeal Denied

[LoboSoldier]

Well this blows!!!! eek:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=46351

[JpPaul]

Not really a surprise, there was such a heavy burden on us.

[Mark]

Yep, I was at the press conferance today. Krebs and Locks talked like we had a very good case and went into some detail. Locks said the he will just have to be more selective and "not take as many chances" when it comes to recruiting.

[wallyhopp]

i hope this sets up other schools for big penaltities as well, ie reggie bush and USC.

[junior2430]

That's dumb.

[Loboexpat]

I hate the vague reasoning behind the ruling. "different but not excessive"

Ok. Fine. Why? What made the UNM case so different as to require harsher penalties than the other cases? What was the reasoning behind the ruling?

It's this kind of man-behind-the-curtain lack of transparency that fuels the conspiracy theories.

I'm not surprised but it's still disappointing.

[dcrowley]

Total BS. The press release basically says "yeah, it's more than the other schools in similar situations but that's ok." Total BS.

[Protege1212]

Makes it a little tougher for the new coach, but I'm thinking he will still get it done.

[LIDOakaLJT]

It's this kind of man-behind-the-curtain lack of transparency that fuels the conspiracy theories.

NCAA: "I am the great and powerful Oz!!!"

UNM: "But sir, we just want what's fair. Toto, get away from that curtain."

NCAA: "Leave, for I have made my decision. Pay no attention to that man over there."

UNM: "Why, you're no wizard. You're just a MAN."

NCAA: "I have spoken!"

UNM: "UGH!!!! "

[JpPaul]

I hate the vague reasoning behind the ruling. "different but not excessive"

Ok. Fine. Why? What made the UNM case so different as to require harsher penalties than the other cases? What was the reasoning behind the ruling?

It's this kind of man-behind-the-curtain lack of transparency that fuels the conspiracy theories.

I'm not surprised but it's still disappointing.

If I remember correctly after the Kansas? case the NCAA afterward, articulated a policy to impose harsher penalties to deter recruiting violations. And like I said before the standard was abuse of discretion, not the results for analagous situations.

Abuse of discretion requires some gross error in judgment to the point where the judge is abusing his ability to impose sanctions. It is a very high standard, one that I didn't think would be overcome, and one that in fact wasn't.

The only proof we had were the analagous situations, which wasn't enough.

Hence the reasoning, different but still within the bounds of the NCAA's discretion. Thus, alright.

[Loboexpat]

If I remember correctly after the Kansas? case the NCAA afterward, articulated a policy to impose harsher penalties to deter recruiting violations. And like I said before the standard was abuse of discretion, not the results for analagous situations.

Abuse of discretion requires some gross error in judgment to the point where the judge is abusing his ability to impose sanctions. It is a very high standard, one that I didn't think would be overcome, and one that in fact wasn't.

The only proof we had were the analagous situations, which wasn't enough.

Hence the reasoning, different but still within the bounds of the NCAA's discretion. Thus, alright.

I understand that.

I don't like the idea of applying the label "academic fraud" and assuming all cases are equal and therefore warrant equal punishment.

I'm not going to take legalese at face value and I didn't fall off the apple cart this morning. I would like there to be an explanation of the reasoning behind the ruling, with specificity as to what pieces of evidence warrant which action. Also, explain to me how this is proportionate and fair even under the new "get tough" rules. We, the fans, make the NCAA possible due to our interest in college athletics and some of us would like to understand their actual processes better.

[Bloo]

No matter how you slice it, dice it, or throw it in your crisper until it rots, this is an example of uneven, unjust, and unfair dispensing of penalties.

It's subjective, it's biased, and it is in no way 'alright' or fair. Accepting this BS just enables this crap to continue. BCS gets this, non-BCS gets that. It makes me sick.

[JpPaul]

I understand that.

I don't like the idea of applying the label "academic fraud" and assuming all cases are equal and therefore warrant equal punishment.

I'm not going to take legalese at face value and I didn't fall off the apple cart this morning. I would like there to be an explanation of the reasoning behind the ruling, with specificity as to what pieces of evidence warrant which action. Also, explain to me how this is proportionate and fair even under the new "get tough" rules. We, the fans, make the NCAA possible due to our interest in college athletics and some of us would like to understand their actual processes better.

Thats funny, when did I get assigned the NCAA spokesperson job? Ok, I'll play devils advocate.

The abuse of discretion standard is one of efficiency and an acknowledgment that the person originally hearing the case has a better understanding of the culpability of the involved parties.

The policy that forms the basis of this "better" understanding is that the "trial judge" is used to determining the veracity of witnesses testimony, the weight of evidence, etc. . Whereas appellate decision makers are always at least once removed from the process and are not used to dealing with testimony, evidence, etc.

As for the efficiency policy, it is that it is too much work to review every "trial judges" decision to make sure that it aligns perfectly with analagous situations. Thus, it makes the system inefficient. Therefore, any decision that is within a certain range is permissible. i.e. breaking and entering is an offense that is punishable by a certain amount of time, life in prison is an abuse of sentencing discretion.

Such a person heard the evidence and assigned it a certain weight, and it is not for a person twice removed from the hearing to second guess the judge who heard the testimony firsthand.

Now in this framework, you want me to assess the weight of a certain piece of evidence. Sure, as I am the the NCAA spokesperson, why not? I imagine that an analagous situation is a heavily weighted factor. So why did UNM get a heavier punishment?

The reason for that is the emphasized policy goal of deterrence. 25 years ago the penalty for drunk driving was minimal, but then the problem got media attention and states began to announce firmer stances against drunk driving, i.e. increased penalties, etc. So while the offense was the same the penalty became more severe.

Couple more things: (1) I don't think you fell off the apple cart yesterday, never tried to imply that and certianly I didn't try to bury you in legalese, as a matter of fact I tried to distill it down to make it easier to grasp; (2) What does it matter whether it is your interest that pays these college athletics, are you going to stop watching now that you are so fed up with the BCS?

[Loboexpat]

Thats funny, when did I get assigned the NCAA spokesperson job? Ok, I'll play devils advocate.

The abuse of discretion standard is one of efficiency and an acknowledgment that the person originally hearing the case has a better understanding of the culpability of the involved parties.

The policy that forms the basis of this "better" understanding is that the "trial judge" is used to determining the veracity of witnesses testimony, the weight of evidence, etc. . Whereas appellate decision makers are always at least once removed from the process and are not used to dealing with testimony, evidence, etc.

As for the efficiency policy, it is that it is too much work to review every "trial judges" decision to make sure that it aligns perfectly with analagous situations. Thus, it makes the system inefficient. Therefore, any decision that is within a certain range is permissible. i.e. breaking and entering is an offense that is punishable by a certain amount of time, life in prison is an abuse of sentencing discretion.

Such a person heard the evidence and assigned it a certain weight, and it is not for a person twice removed from the hearing to second guess the judge who heard the testimony firsthand.

Now in this framework, you want me to assess the weight of a certain piece of evidence. Sure, as I am the the NCAA spokesperson, why not? I imagine that an analagous situation is a heavily weighted factor. So why did UNM get a heavier punishment?

The reason for that is the emphasized policy goal of deterrence. 25 years ago the penalty for drunk driving was minimal, but then the problem got media attention and states began to announce firmer stances against drunk driving, i.e. increased penalties, etc. So while the offense was the same the penalty became more severe.

Couple more things: (1) I don't think you fell off the apple cart yesterday, never tried to imply that and certianly I didn't try to bury you in legalese, as a matter of fact I tried to distill it down to make it easier to grasp; (2) What does it matter whether it is your interest that pays these college athletics, are you going to stop watching now that you are so fed up with the BCS?

LOL. You misunderstood every part of my post. I wasn't asking you for further explanation. I was explaining that I understand the ruling on the face of it, but in general I want more transparency from the NCAA. The legalese I was referring to was from the NCAA.

[JpPaul]

LOL. You misunderstood every part of my post. I wasn't asking you for further explanation. I was explaining that I understand the ruling on the face of it, but in general I want more transparency from the NCAA. The legalese I was referring to was from the NCAA.

Seemed like you were, now that I reread I can see that it could be read as an open letter to teh NCAA. But you gotta admit, "...Also, explain to me how this is proportionate and fair even under the new "get tough" rules...". Seems to be a question in response to my post.

Just a miscommunication.

[Loboexpat]

Seemed like you were, now that I reread I can see that it could be read as an open letter to teh NCAA. But you gotta admit, "...Also, explain to me how this is proportionate and fair even under the new "get tough" rules...". Seems to be a question in response to my post.

Just a miscommunication.

Yeah, I could have been more clear. I don't post in a formal writing style and much is lost in translation when posting on the interwebs.

By the way, the NCAA fancies itself as a "bottom-up" organization that takes it's directives from its membership (meaning the colleges and universities). As an alum, I have a direct and vested interest in such an institution and therefore I, along with all other alums, are a party of interest. The NCAA does not derive it's governing power from an external source (such as the federal or state legal system), it exists solely (according to their own statement) as an interest of the member institutions. This means ALL institutions not just a select few.

The biggest irony about the BCS and the NCAA is that the BCS acts, for the most part, as an independent entity. The BCS sets its own rules regarding its membership, championships, etc. The BCS was set up in the interest of elite college football programs. The NCAA was founded by (then) elite football programs to police that sport (to prevent serious injury and deaths that resulted from the extreme physical nature of play at the time, around the turn of the century).

[JpPaul]

Yeah the NCAA as a model needs some serious revisiting. It is a cash cow, but there are some substantial flaws.