Tunsil back next week.....

[fishwater99]

Look it up.. We self-imposed...

We were scared of the NCAA... We should have low balled..

 

[johnson86-1]

Yeah....we could have played a player who was being actively investigated by the NCAA, but I'm not sure that would have been wise. By that logic, UMiss could have gone ahead and played Tunsil this whole year, and just risked forfeiting their games.

The NCAA first contacted MSU about Redmond in February, 2012, just after signing day. By August, MSU had gathered enough information to fire Mirando and disassociate two boosters, and in September Mirando admitted he had lied previously and agreed to a second interview with the NCAA.

Yeah, we should have just played Redmond**

You're not responding to the argument. We didn't have much choice in sitting Redmond the first year. Unless the press releases are misleading (which I would not be shocked at all if they are), we are the ones that suggested a penalty of a year and five games, when sitting a year would have already been sufficient penalty compared to penalties handed down to other players.

I always assumed the "self-imposed" penalties were basically informally negotiated before being "proposed" to the NCAA; if not explicitly then at least that the school and investigators felt each other out and the investigators made it reasonably clear what they would accept without putting up too much of a fight. Don't know why I thought this other than it just seemed to make sense.

 

[Original48]

Finally!

Perhaps you think our attorneys could have negotiated a lower penalty, but they failed. That is a far cry from claiming our compliance department did Redmond a disservice.

NOW we're gettin somewhere. However, I don't understand the separation between our attorneys and the compliance department. If our compliance departments only job is to sit around and retweet other university compliance alerts then my apologies to Bracky and the gang (ex. @BoilerBylaws: Personalized recruiting aids may not be used/created for prospects (no banner/sign w/ name) #ncaaedu http://t.co/2CArzRLmsA
Otherwise our compliance dept (that apparently employs attorneys which is of some comfort) COMPLETELY bungled the Redmond situation.

 

[Dawgzilla]

You have no basis for saying the Redmond situation was "COMPLETELY bungled". (And of COURSE we had a law firm representing the University before the Infractions committee). I still maintain we are lucky to have him play for MSU at all. He HAD to be held out for 2012...the NCAA investigation was still ongoing, but we already knew he had received benefits from a booster with a coach's knowledge. The NCAA Notice of Allegations didn't show up until November 27, 2012, so there was no way he was going to play prior to that.

If Redmond had played in 2012, MSU would have forfeited every game. We HAD to hold him out. He was an inelgible player, and we knew it. Our attorneys did argue that the 1 year suspension should be sufficient, but the NCAA didn't accept that. They tacked on additional games. You cannot compare the dollar amounts of Redmond's infraction to Tunsil, or any of these other guys who received money from agents while they were playing. The Redmond violation was a recruiting inducement that was offered by a booster with the knowledge of a coach. That is far different from an agent or memorabilia dealer offering benefits

You are dissatisfied with the NCAA's ruling on Redmond, so you lash out at the compliance department and the attorneys without any knowledge of what they argued, or what they should have/could have done differently. Meanwhile, the rest of the conference is wondering how MSU could admit to having a booster pay a recruit with a coach's knowledge and not be slapped with major penalties. The compliance department's cooperation is what kept the penalties down to just 2 scholarships and a bunch of visits.

 

[Dawgzilla]

I believe the NCAA tacked on the extra 5 games. You can read the infractions report for yourself. All of the recruiting sanctions (scholarships, visits, etc.) were self-imposed, and MSU suggested a 1 year probation which was extended to 2 years by the NCAA. The infractions report does not discuss Redmond's eligibility directly, but does say that MSU held him out of competition for all of 2012 as a corrective measure. Seems obvious to me the NCAA was not satisfied with 1 year, but I can't find anything firm on that.

 

[Dawgzilla]

I didn't say that amateurism was not a factor, just that people are missing the key elements to the Redmond situation. It was a recruiting violation which has much more serious implications. He wasn't just profiting from his image or future earnings potential; he was essentially being bribed. You can't look at the monetary value offered to Redmond and try to compare it to Tunsil, Gurley, Green or any of those guys.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

I didn't say that amateurism was not a factor, just that people are missing the key elements to the Redmond situation. It was a recruiting violation which has much more serious implications. He wasn't just profiting from his image or future earnings potential; he was essentially being bribed. You can't look at the monetary value offered to Redmond and try to compare it to Tunsil, Gurley, Green or any of those guys.

Maybe it's my phone but I can't tell if you are responding to me. This is the bylaw:

13.2.1 General Regulation. An institution’s staff member or any representative of its athletics interests shall not be involved, directly or indirectly, in making arrangements for or giving or offering to give any financial aid or other benefits to the prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s relatives or friends, other than expressly permitted by NCAA regulations. Receipt of a benefit by prospective student-athletes or their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s prospective students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability. For violations of this bylaw in which the value of the offer or inducement is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual (i.e., prospective or enrolled student-athlete) shall not be affected conditioned on the individual repay- ing the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her choice. The individual, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the receipt of the impermissible benefit until the individual repays the benefit. [R] (Revised: 1/13/98, 1/9/06, 2/24/11, 6/22/11)

There is a value component to a recruiting inducement violation that effects eligibility.

 

[Original48]

Well hopefully y'all won't have to deal with anything like this again.

 

[MedDawg]

.

.