I think most of todays 6- and 7- lineman formations that seem to be popular were borne of the famous 8-TE formation Iowa ran in the mid-teens
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter ScriptOhio
- Start date
This was too good to be posted in the soon-to-be-archived 2023-24 basketball season thread:
Upvote
0
Came here to post that! Lol.
ScriptOhio
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
NCAA has not taken sports gambling cases lightly
If the investigations into online sports wagering at Iowa result in any NCAA violations, recent history point toward the possibility of some stiff penalties.www.thegazette.com
Many details still unknown in Iowa gambling probe, but NCAA has not taken similar violations lightly
Almost a week after the University of Iowa confirmed an investigation into online sports wagering that includes 26 current athletes, many unknowns linger.
.
.
.
Even though the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation is involved in the probe, no criminal charges have been filed. If conference rules violations did occur, the NCAA historically has not taken sports wagering infractions lightly.
When Virginia Tech football player Alan Tisdale self-reported that he’d made legal bets on the NBA Finals, he received a nine-game suspension. That would have sidelined Tisdale for three-fourths of his senior season. After an appeal, the penalty dropped from nine games to six. But he still missed half of the season.
The NCAA’s athlete reinstatement guidelines offer direction on where to start the “withholding analysis” in athletes’ punishments. The document breaks sports wagering violations into three categories:
The most severe category is when an athlete’s betting activity is “designed to influence the outcome of an intercollegiate contest.” These cases carry recommended sentences of permanent loss of eligibility. The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission has indicated there is no evidence of this type of activity in this investigation.
The middle tier includes “any sports wagering activity through the internet, a bookmaker or a parlay card.” The NCAA guidelines recommend beginning the analysis with a “sit-a-season/charge-a-season” penalty — that means an athlete found in violation would miss a full season and lose that year of eligibility.
The guidelines also call for staff to “review cases on an individual basis to determine whether an alternative withholding condition is appropriate” for the second-tier violations.
“All other violations” fall into the third tier, where the recommended suspension depends on how much an athlete bets.
If the athlete spends less than $25, there is no suspension recommended. But more than $500 would line up with a “sit-a-season/charge-a-season” condition. In between are ranges for missing 10 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent of the season.
These penalties are solely where the Indianapolis-based college sports governing body recommends to “begin its withholding analysis” — so actual decisions may vary.
NCAA investigations are not always a speedy process, as Iowa’s most recent major NCAA infraction in 2019 showed.
Just sayin': Apparently the severity of the NCAA penalty (if any) could depend on just how much the student athletes bet.
Iowa athletes suing over betting investigation
More than two dozen athletes who were based in Iowa have filed a federal lawsuit alleging state criminal investigators violated their constitutional rights during a widespread sports wagering investigation.
Iowa-based athletes in betting inquiry sue, say rights violated
More than two dozen athletes who were based in Iowa filed a federal lawsuit Friday alleging that state criminal investigators violated their constitutional rights by using geolocation software to track activity on their cellphones as part of a widespread sports wagering inquiry that resulted in criminal charges and the loss of NCAA eligibility.At issue in the 47-page lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa is whether the state's criminal investigators needed a search warrant before using a program from third-party company GeoComply to find athletes -- including many who were under 21, the legal betting age in Iowa -- and conduct searches to examine their online wagering activity.
The plaintiffs are 26 current and former athletes: 16 from the University of Iowa, nine from Iowa State and one from a community college in central Iowa. Thirteen played football, six wrestled and the other seven played baseball or basketball.
"The lives of these young men have been disrupted and altered in way still yet to be fully seen," Matt Boles, Adam Witosky and Van Plumb, the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "It is our hope that through the civil action we can help these young men put their lives back on track and gain a measure of justice for the violation of their rights."
The lawsuit alleges the state; its Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Investigation and its agents violated the athletes' civil rights by using the GeoComply software without a warrant to identify phones using mobile sports betting apps within Iowa and Iowa State athletic facilities.
.
.
.
GeoComply provides geolocation software to major sportsbooks to monitor users. The lawsuit notes that when users register with online betting companies, they "consent to share their location data with GeoComply, who in turn provides this data back to the companies." Written policies from DraftKings and FanDuel, the two online sportsbooks the athletes used, tell users the companies may disclose personally identifying information to law enforcement.
DCI agents were given access to the GeoComply platform, and it was licensed through the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, which regulates gambling in the state.
While state investigators subsequently had warrants to obtain and search the athletes' phones, the lawsuit alleges those warrants were "invalid and unconstitutional" because the information used to justify them was acquired without a warrant. The plaintiffs also say DCI supervisors failed to properly train their staff and intervene when they learned of the alleged actions.
.
.
.
continued
Upvote
0
Haven’t read all the details because I find this kind of thing boring (says the guy who can rearrange spreadsheets for hours), but from a quick glance it looks like this is a “sure I broke the rules, but ignore that because of the way I got caught” situation
Do I have that right or did my quick glance miss something?
Do I have that right or did my quick glance miss something?
Upvote
0
Zurp
I have misplaced my pants.
I'm also a numbers and math guy - not a lawyer. So I did the same quick glance and got the same result.
"Sure, I was smuggling drugs, but you had not legal right to search my trunk."
(I was about to use a more heinous crime in my analogy, but illegal gambling shouldn't be compared with any of the crimes I as originally going to use.)
Upvote
0