Question about Renardo Sidney punishment.
- Thread starter GloryDawg
- Start date
Sidney's father solicited AND RECEIVED (allegedly) benefits from an agent/shoe rep/whoever.
Newton's father solicited BUT DID NOT RECEIVE (allegedly) benefits from anyone.
The receipt of benefits is why Sidney got hammered. However, the NCAA's treatment of each case is not consistent.
Newton's father solicited BUT DID NOT RECEIVE (allegedly) benefits from anyone.
The receipt of benefits is why Sidney got hammered. However, the NCAA's treatment of each case is not consistent.
that what Sidney ended up being 'proven' to be guilty of is lying about how many people picked him up at the airport when he was a freshman.
I don't think they ever showed that any money changed hands.
I don't think they ever showed that any money changed hands.
pay $$$ back to regain his eligibility. After he repaid the money the NCAA put a 30% suspension against him. That's the same suspension AJ Green had to pay, and a couple of UNC players after they took benefits.
Let's say in the future a recruit is down to two schools - Bama and Auburn. The recruit really likes what's going on at Bama, but his father is a die hard Auburn fan. His father goes behind the recruit's back and solicits money from Bama, and tells his son of the solicitation. This means the recruit has to go to Auburn and keep his mouth shut of any knowledge of the solicitation, in order tobe eligible for college football. Because if he chooses Bama and the solicitation comes out, then he and Bama get hammered. But with the precendence just set by the NCAA the recruit can go to Auburn scott free, as long as no one can prove he knew of the solicitation.
They just opened the door for a whole new way for a family member, or even rep of the school (Auburn), to control the recruits college decision.
</p>
They just opened the door for a whole new way for a family member, or even rep of the school (Auburn), to control the recruits college decision.
</p>
I believe that is the case. They finally punished Sidney for "misremembering" some improper transportation he received when he was 14 or 15 years old. I do not believe they ever proved that his father received extra benefits. Sidney was ruled ineligible by the NCAA. They then requested information from the Sidney family(that they would not or could not turn over) and would not reconsider him for reinstatement until they received it.
Well, technically Sidney was suspended for "the remainder" of the 2009-2010 season, plus 30% of the next season. That was effectively a full year suspension because he had not played any games, and the NCAA specifically says he only has 3 years of eligibility remaining:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/p...0305+Sidney+Decision+Rls
As stated above, one big difference is that Sidney's family actually received benefits (according to the NCAA's findings). Also, if you read the press release, they claim Sidney lied during the investigation, and that Don Jackson was uncooperative in providing information to the NCAA, which further justifies wiping out his Freshman year.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/p...0305+Sidney+Decision+Rls
As stated above, one big difference is that Sidney's family actually received benefits (according to the NCAA's findings). Also, if you read the press release, they claim Sidney lied during the investigation, and that Don Jackson was uncooperative in providing information to the NCAA, which further justifies wiping out his Freshman year.
this question: Did Sidney lose 1 year of eligibility for last season? Was he considered redshirted? Is he a sophomore or freshman this season? If he is a freshman (redshirt or true), then his actual punishment only is the 9 games, just delayed for a year for the investigation.
It hasn't really come up because everyone assumes he will not be here through his eligibility. But that's not the NCAA's problem.
In an odd way, State might be better off with the delay. It's possible that because of the delay we are more likely to have him for two seasons (or 1.66 seasons). If he gets in as a hot freshman without penalty, he might already be gone from MSU. This way, we get him for two seasons, he is1-2 years older, andhe has been through an extra year of practice.
It hasn't really come up because everyone assumes he will not be here through his eligibility. But that's not the NCAA's problem.
In an odd way, State might be better off with the delay. It's possible that because of the delay we are more likely to have him for two seasons (or 1.66 seasons). If he gets in as a hot freshman without penalty, he might already be gone from MSU. This way, we get him for two seasons, he is1-2 years older, andhe has been through an extra year of practice.
which shows a 9 game suspension for extra benefits his family received and a lost year of eligibility for unethical conduct due to him supposedly lying to the NCAA:
STARKVILLE — Mississippi State’s appeal to the NCAA to reduce Renardo Sidney’s punishment fell short Tuesday as the ruling handed down at the beginning of March was upheld.
The original penalty, which stated the Mississippi State men’s basketball signee will lose a year of eligibility and be forced to miss the first nine games of the 2010-11 season, will remain as the The Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee turned down Mississippi State’s appeal of the nine-game suspension.
Sidney, a Jackson native, sat all of the 2009-10 season while the NCAA investigated whether the McDonald’s and Parade All-American received improper benefits while playing high school basketball.
On March 5, the academic and membership affairs staff ruled Sidney must pay back $11,800 for “impermissible” benefits received and lose a year of eligibility after it was deemed he lied to investigators about a January 2006 trip to California. As a result, the NCAA tagged on an unethical conduct charge, which resulted in the lost year of eligibility.
MSU didn’t appeal the monetary repayment, which can be made over the duration of Sidney’s eligibility.
The university did appeal the totality of the withholding, part of which is based on the 10-1 violation (unethical conduct charge) and the extra benefits received.
Tuesday’s ruling closes the door on what was an 11-month process and extensive investigation to see if Sidney would ever step foot on the court at Mississippi State.
STARKVILLE — Mississippi State’s appeal to the NCAA to reduce Renardo Sidney’s punishment fell short Tuesday as the ruling handed down at the beginning of March was upheld.
The original penalty, which stated the Mississippi State men’s basketball signee will lose a year of eligibility and be forced to miss the first nine games of the 2010-11 season, will remain as the The Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee turned down Mississippi State’s appeal of the nine-game suspension.
Sidney, a Jackson native, sat all of the 2009-10 season while the NCAA investigated whether the McDonald’s and Parade All-American received improper benefits while playing high school basketball.
On March 5, the academic and membership affairs staff ruled Sidney must pay back $11,800 for “impermissible” benefits received and lose a year of eligibility after it was deemed he lied to investigators about a January 2006 trip to California. As a result, the NCAA tagged on an unethical conduct charge, which resulted in the lost year of eligibility.
MSU didn’t appeal the monetary repayment, which can be made over the duration of Sidney’s eligibility.
The university did appeal the totality of the withholding, part of which is based on the 10-1 violation (unethical conduct charge) and the extra benefits received.
Tuesday’s ruling closes the door on what was an 11-month process and extensive investigation to see if Sidney would ever step foot on the court at Mississippi State.