• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

2025 scUM Shenanigans, Arguments - NCAA: no wins taken away, no postseason ban

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
zbuck said:
There's going to be a few sad pandas in just a couple minutes. The offending parties receive theirs now ....
Click to expand...
Correct. Michigan received theirs at 9. Booger eater and Stalions get theirs at 10.

giphy-downsized.gif
 
Upvote 0
No leaks before the report is released has to be bad for scUM. 1 hour since they received it and nothing yet. You know those clowns wouldn't be able to hold themselves back if they were actually vindicated
 
Upvote 0
PD's latest:

Recent Activity​

Comment 16 minutes ago
7 replies
Now that this phase of things - administratively speaking - is wrapped up, and the final report is already in UM leadership's hands, I can add a bit of context to previous reporting.
The multi-year postseason ban that was demanded in any settlement scenario isn't the wild axe UM-informed media all pretended it was. Aggravated L1 Failure to Monitor carries a 1-3 year postseason ban as a core penalty. It was always going to be on the table, and UM reporters' (and the national teetsuckers that follow their lead) who pretended it wasn't undermined the rest of their reporting with this factually wrong take.
On the famed "rear facing, record-correcting penalties," it's a bit more nuanced but no less significant. The NCAA bylaws don't have a standardized charge for "cheating." Instead, the rules spell out all the different ways you aren't allowed to cheat (illegal inducement, disallowed benefits, illegal contact, on-campus advance scouting, using electronic equipment to steal signs, etc.). So many people believed that correcting the from the time period where the impermissible scheme was taking place wasn't possible because they incorrectly believe that vacation of record and stats can only happen when "ineligible players" are involved. That perception only exists because those are just about the only other cases that the NCAA has had to deal with.
Enforcement believes they have a clear path to vacation of records within the bylaws and thus demanded that correction as a part of settlement talks. It was applied this way in the PSU case - where no ineligible players were involved - but much of those penalties were ultimately tossed out... NOT because that penalty was misapplied, but because the underlying charges were outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction. UM's charges are.
I can't say if the COI agreed with enforcement's take on this, but in all the conversations I've had over the last 22 months their reasoning has been sound and stable. If these sanctions aren't applied here, it won't be because they lack the authority to. It would have to be either that the COI seemingly accepted UM's loophole defense, or that there was much more substantial defense in UM's response to the NOA.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyeintn said:
PD's latest:

Recent Activity​

Comment 16 minutes ago
7 replies
Now that this phase of things - administratively speaking - is wrapped up, and the final report is already in UM leadership's hands, I can add a bit of context to previous reporting.
The multi-year postseason ban that was demanded in any settlement scenario isn't the wild axe UM-informed media all pretended it was. Aggravated L1 Failure to Monitor carries a 1-3 year postseason ban as a core penalty. It was always going to be on the table, and UM reporters' (and the national teetsuckers that follow their lead) who pretended it wasn't undermined the rest of their reporting with this factually wrong take.
On the famed "rear facing, record-correcting penalties," it's a bit more nuanced but no less significant. The NCAA bylaws don't have a standardized charge for "cheating." Instead, the rules spell out all the different ways you aren't allowed to cheat (illegal inducement, disallowed benefits, illegal contact, on-campus advance scouting, using electronic equipment to steal signs, etc.). So many people believed that correcting the from the time period where the impermissible scheme was taking place wasn't possible because they incorrectly believe that vacation of record and stats can only happen when "ineligible players" are involved. That perception only exists because those are just about the only other cases that the NCAA has had to deal with.
Enforcement believes they have a clear path to vacation of records within the bylaws and thus demanded that correction as a part of settlement talks. It was applied this way in the PSU case - where no ineligible players were involved - but much of those penalties were ultimately tossed out... NOT because that penalty was misapplied, but because the underlying charges were outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction. UM's charges are.
I can't say if the COI agreed with enforcement's take on this, but in all the conversations I've had over the last 22 months their reasoning has been sound and stable. If these sanctions aren't applied here, it won't be because they lack the authority to. It would have to be either that the COI seemingly accepted UM's loophole defense, or that there was much more substantial defense in UM's response to the NOA.
Click to expand...
Like I said.....PD shouldn't ever need to apologize or delete the internet or anything in between. He's reporting facts that he's learned from the people who know them. He's never one time said "This is what's going to definitely happen, or my name isn't Premier Bartholomew Drum". He's always said his OPINION was that the evidence suggests a hammer. He's also always said it's up to the COI to interpret it the same way.....and it's possible that they don't.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
Like I said.....PD shouldn't ever need to apologize or delete the internet or anything in between. He's reporting facts that he's learned from the people who know them. He's never one time said "This is what's going to definitely happen, or my name isn't Premier Bartholomew Drum". He's always said his OPINION was that the evidence suggests a hammer. He's also always said it's up to the COI to interpret it the same way.....and it's possible that they don't.
Click to expand...
Is PD kind of hinting at word of light penalties. The post is a little cryptic.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyeintn said:
PD's latest:

Recent Activity​

Comment 16 minutes ago
7 replies
Now that this phase of things - administratively speaking - is wrapped up, and the final report is already in UM leadership's hands, I can add a bit of context to previous reporting.
The multi-year postseason ban that was demanded in any settlement scenario isn't the wild axe UM-informed media all pretended it was. Aggravated L1 Failure to Monitor carries a 1-3 year postseason ban as a core penalty. It was always going to be on the table, and UM reporters' (and the national teetsuckers that follow their lead) who pretended it wasn't undermined the rest of their reporting with this factually wrong take.
On the famed "rear facing, record-correcting penalties," it's a bit more nuanced but no less significant. The NCAA bylaws don't have a standardized charge for "cheating." Instead, the rules spell out all the different ways you aren't allowed to cheat (illegal inducement, disallowed benefits, illegal contact, on-campus advance scouting, using electronic equipment to steal signs, etc.). So many people believed that correcting the from the time period where the impermissible scheme was taking place wasn't possible because they incorrectly believe that vacation of record and stats can only happen when "ineligible players" are involved. That perception only exists because those are just about the only other cases that the NCAA has had to deal with.
Enforcement believes they have a clear path to vacation of records within the bylaws and thus demanded that correction as a part of settlement talks. It was applied this way in the PSU case - where no ineligible players were involved - but much of those penalties were ultimately tossed out... NOT because that penalty was misapplied, but because the underlying charges were outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction. UM's charges are.
I can't say if the COI agreed with enforcement's take on this, but in all the conversations I've had over the last 22 months their reasoning has been sound and stable. If these sanctions aren't applied here, it won't be because they lack the authority to. It would have to be either that the COI seemingly accepted UM's loophole defense, or that there was much more substantial defense in UM's response to the NOA.
Click to expand...
As long there is a period of post season ban and coaching show cause, I am satisfied. Otherwise the old saying, "it is what it is" applies. If it's just flat out bull$#+&, then disband the NCAA.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top