Ron Higgins say...
- Thread starter thunderclap
- Start date
Cheating goes on everywhere. We all know that. It's just the amount of cheating and how rampant it is that makes the difference.
Slive's goal was to keep SEC teams off probation. I don't think he knew that would mean basically having to sweep everything under the rug, but that's what he's had to do to make it happen.
On one hand, I think it's better for everyone in the SEC to not get into the mud-slinging battles. The rivalries, in particular, get fans turning each other in, and in the long run it's bad for everyone. One school gets in trouble due to a rival school, and their fans/boosters turn their attention to that rival. Since we're all cheating to some extent, it's only a matter of time before those people find something on the rival to bring them down too. Then it goes back to the other side and vice versa. That's the thing the SEC needs to avoid, and for that reason I can somewhat see where Slive's policy is a positive.
That said, the out-of-hand orchestrated cheating involving large sums of cash is something I think doesn't need to happen.
Slive's goal was to keep SEC teams off probation. I don't think he knew that would mean basically having to sweep everything under the rug, but that's what he's had to do to make it happen.
On one hand, I think it's better for everyone in the SEC to not get into the mud-slinging battles. The rivalries, in particular, get fans turning each other in, and in the long run it's bad for everyone. One school gets in trouble due to a rival school, and their fans/boosters turn their attention to that rival. Since we're all cheating to some extent, it's only a matter of time before those people find something on the rival to bring them down too. Then it goes back to the other side and vice versa. That's the thing the SEC needs to avoid, and for that reason I can somewhat see where Slive's policy is a positive.
That said, the out-of-hand orchestrated cheating involving large sums of cash is something I think doesn't need to happen.
this is not just little ol' Sippi State crying to the SEC about some typical underhanded recruiting ********. This is a guy shopping his kid for $200,000. There's a big damn difference.
thunderclap said:
Exactly my point. I think what went on at Auburn this past year went well beyond the typical buying a guy a tuxedo for prom, slipping a guy a few hundred dollars, etc.
I think it was orchestrated at a very high level, and that's the kind of stuff that I think needs to be and can be controlled. The little stuff that goes on everywhere is a lot harder to police, and frankly I don't know that you can do anything about the little stuff.
They may not be holding meetings to discuss what needs to be done, and they may not be making payments themselves, so that they cover their own tracks, but you better believe that all successful recruiters have at least one coach on staff that makes sure the prime targets are known by the boosters and are taken care of discretely, even if they don't "know" about it.
I honestly think Croom was clean in his early years of recruiting. He really thought he could come in and sell MSU and win by getting players that wanted to be at MSU for the education and the chance to play SEC football. That was evident by some of his early classes. His recruiting picked up when he conceded and decided to play the game. I still think Croom washed his hands of it and didn't directly deal with it himself, but he made sure he had people in place to deal with that side of the game, and your recruiting picked up.
I agree that the NCAA could do more to curb it from happening, especially for the blatant cheaters.
Doing something like suspending a coach for a certain period of time for being directly involved would help some, but I think ultimately handing down some death penalties would do a whole lot more.
The ultimate issue you have with college athletics is that the players can only receive a scholarship and occasional stipends for playing a game that makes loads of money for the university. Often, many of the best players come from families that don't have a whole lot. Some of them have next to nothing. On the other side of things, you have wealthy boosters with loads and loads of cash. The opportunity and the discrepency between the haves (boosters) and the have nots (athletes in many cases) creates an environment where things are going to happen at least on a small scale. That environment isn't going to change ever.
If you allowed all players to receive a salary, even if it was equal across all D-1 universities, along with their scholarship, and you cracked down really hard on the universities caught cheating, you might have a chance to curb cheating somewhat.
I honestly think Croom was clean in his early years of recruiting. He really thought he could come in and sell MSU and win by getting players that wanted to be at MSU for the education and the chance to play SEC football. That was evident by some of his early classes. His recruiting picked up when he conceded and decided to play the game. I still think Croom washed his hands of it and didn't directly deal with it himself, but he made sure he had people in place to deal with that side of the game, and your recruiting picked up.
I agree that the NCAA could do more to curb it from happening, especially for the blatant cheaters.
Doing something like suspending a coach for a certain period of time for being directly involved would help some, but I think ultimately handing down some death penalties would do a whole lot more.
The ultimate issue you have with college athletics is that the players can only receive a scholarship and occasional stipends for playing a game that makes loads of money for the university. Often, many of the best players come from families that don't have a whole lot. Some of them have next to nothing. On the other side of things, you have wealthy boosters with loads and loads of cash. The opportunity and the discrepency between the haves (boosters) and the have nots (athletes in many cases) creates an environment where things are going to happen at least on a small scale. That environment isn't going to change ever.
If you allowed all players to receive a salary, even if it was equal across all D-1 universities, along with their scholarship, and you cracked down really hard on the universities caught cheating, you might have a chance to curb cheating somewhat.
If you allowed all players to receive a salary, even if it was equal across all D-1 universities, along with their scholarship, and you cracked down really hard on the universities caught cheating, you might have a chance to curb cheating somewhat.
I disagree somewhat. Thesalaries paid to coaches and therefore the pressure to win will not go away. Not that the coaches themselves are directly involved, but I don't think your solution will solve the problem. Neither your school nor mine wants to always be on the bottom...our fansboth get tired of losing to the Ala,Fla,Lsu,etc. This is what causes cheating and paying players won't solve it. The rich will just get richer. All that being said, I don't have a solution.
I disagree somewhat. Thesalaries paid to coaches and therefore the pressure to win will not go away. Not that the coaches themselves are directly involved, but I don't think your solution will solve the problem. Neither your school nor mine wants to always be on the bottom...our fansboth get tired of losing to the Ala,Fla,Lsu,etc. This is what causes cheating and paying players won't solve it. The rich will just get richer. All that being said, I don't have a solution.
I might believe the whole "woe is me" and "I'm just trying to keep everyone off probation ********" if there wasn't blatant homerism across the SEC officiating, the Houston Nutt rule, and the, yet to be seen, cowbell ban/fine structure.<div>
</div><div>Slive likes everyone where they are, and he intends to keep them there because that's what makes him and the SEC the most money.</div>
</div><div>Slive likes everyone where they are, and he intends to keep them there because that's what makes him and the SEC the most money.</div>
...where would the money come from? If you use football revenue then other sports that depend on football revenue for their existence would have to be cut. You could repeal Title IX (which wouldn't be bad in my opinion) but would be really hard to do.<div>
</div><div>Instead of paying players, how about we use some of the money to increase the investigative power and speed of the NCAA? It takes them for-17ing-ever to make rulings.</div><div>
</div><div>In the light of Cam-gate, how ridiculous does the Renardo Sidney situation look now? /stillbitterthatheandvarnadodidn'tgettoplaytogether</div>
</div><div>Instead of paying players, how about we use some of the money to increase the investigative power and speed of the NCAA? It takes them for-17ing-ever to make rulings.</div><div>
</div><div>In the light of Cam-gate, how ridiculous does the Renardo Sidney situation look now? /stillbitterthatheandvarnadodidn'tgettoplaytogether</div>
Schools shouldn't be oversigning by 8 9 or 10 scholarships. Someone is going to lose in those situations.
You played a big role in turning Brewer in, and it was deserved. Naturally, we returned the favor. Ever since then, your fans have been trying to return the favor to us, and if Slive hadn't been around, maybe you would've had some success, which in turn would've led some of our fans to return the favor to you. I'm sure we would've had success too.
That's my point, and it's why Auburn and Alabama have had so much NCAA trouble historically. One turns the other in, and then the other returns the favor. They just hate each other more than everyone else and have hated each other for longer than most. That leads to more cheating and more self-policing by the rival program.
In the end, it's not healthy for a program to get in a probation war.
Sadly though, it'll happen again at some point I'm sure, because there are so many fans out there that still believe their program is clean and their rival cheats constantly. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't turn someone else in.
All that said, there was a huge red flag in last year's Auburn class watching who they piled up, and the way they did it. Their only hope was Slive being able to cover for them. You can't be that blatant about it and win that many bidding wars.
That's my point, and it's why Auburn and Alabama have had so much NCAA trouble historically. One turns the other in, and then the other returns the favor. They just hate each other more than everyone else and have hated each other for longer than most. That leads to more cheating and more self-policing by the rival program.
In the end, it's not healthy for a program to get in a probation war.
Sadly though, it'll happen again at some point I'm sure, because there are so many fans out there that still believe their program is clean and their rival cheats constantly. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't turn someone else in.
All that said, there was a huge red flag in last year's Auburn class watching who they piled up, and the way they did it. Their only hope was Slive being able to cover for them. You can't be that blatant about it and win that many bidding wars.
Players and their "supporters" (who aren't opposed to gettingunder the table $$$) will still try to get more.
Yeah, the playerswillreceive a monthly, walking-around stipend, but they'd get the ame amountat ANY college. It's the extra, big $$$ that everybody (see parents, uncles, advisors, friends, coaches)wants.
Yeah, the playerswillreceive a monthly, walking-around stipend, but they'd get the ame amountat ANY college. It's the extra, big $$$ that everybody (see parents, uncles, advisors, friends, coaches)wants.
It probably is a good idea, but Nutt saw the CC system in MS as an opportunity to create a farm system. We cant funnel money or offer players things that Bama, FL, and the rest of the SEC could, but we could keep them in a CC system and hope that they pan out. It's using the resources you have within the rules. If Bama had done it, nobody would say anything. As a matter of fact, Bama did do it, and nobody said anything.<div>
</div><div>Nutt and OM found a loophole, so Slive closed it.</div><div>
</div><div>There's a lot of ******** rules that should be changed, but it won't happen until OM or MSU start using them to their advantage.</div>
</div><div>Nutt and OM found a loophole, so Slive closed it.</div><div>
</div><div>There's a lot of ******** rules that should be changed, but it won't happen until OM or MSU start using them to their advantage.</div>
What he does every summer to players is much worse than signing 30+ players in a signing class.
He offers a handful of players medical hardship scholarships every summer, usually late in the summer, because he's over the 85 limit and needs to make cuts. The medical hardship scholarship allows you to give the guys their full ride, but they don't count against your 25, and they can't play college football again.
He effectively ends players careers because they aren't quite good enough to fill out his bottom roster spots. The rule needs to be modified to limit a school to signing only a certain amount of players above what they will have available within the 85 limit. Saban does the same thing Nutt did, except that he chooses to make cuts out of his players that are currently on his roster rather than sending guys to a Juco or trying to grayshirt them.
Just a soapbox of mine, and I think it's way worse, mainly because of the timing. Saban knows in February that he's bringing in more than he has room to sign under the 85 rule, and he waits until late in the summer so that players have no time to explore the option of transferring.
Take Jeramie Griffin for example. He practiced this past spring with Alabama, but Saban still told him he would have to take a medical hardship if he wanted to stay in school at Alabama. He took it because he didn't have a chance to explore a transfer. If Saban tells him back in January or February that he won't have room for him the next fall, Griffin may have been able to transfer to Ole Miss or MSU or somewhere else to continue playing. Instead, he had no option but to end his career or try to find a Juco for a year.
He offers a handful of players medical hardship scholarships every summer, usually late in the summer, because he's over the 85 limit and needs to make cuts. The medical hardship scholarship allows you to give the guys their full ride, but they don't count against your 25, and they can't play college football again.
He effectively ends players careers because they aren't quite good enough to fill out his bottom roster spots. The rule needs to be modified to limit a school to signing only a certain amount of players above what they will have available within the 85 limit. Saban does the same thing Nutt did, except that he chooses to make cuts out of his players that are currently on his roster rather than sending guys to a Juco or trying to grayshirt them.
Just a soapbox of mine, and I think it's way worse, mainly because of the timing. Saban knows in February that he's bringing in more than he has room to sign under the 85 rule, and he waits until late in the summer so that players have no time to explore the option of transferring.
Take Jeramie Griffin for example. He practiced this past spring with Alabama, but Saban still told him he would have to take a medical hardship if he wanted to stay in school at Alabama. He took it because he didn't have a chance to explore a transfer. If Saban tells him back in January or February that he won't have room for him the next fall, Griffin may have been able to transfer to Ole Miss or MSU or somewhere else to continue playing. Instead, he had no option but to end his career or try to find a Juco for a year.