Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Re: 12/10 USCHO Poll
One more time, because you keep missing this point. Whether you agree with the NCAA's determination of what is intended or not was not my point. My point is once the NCAA decides something is intended, whether that was the proper decision or not, then the NCAA comes down on you hard. That's why Plattsburgh got hit as hard as they did. Whether they should or shouldn't was not the point I was making.
And I don't think the NCAA cares, to a point (see SMU), how much you give a student athlete (I didn't even know about the USC tennis player situation, and I forgot about OJ Mayo which was something that should have gotten USC hit even harder). Once you improperly give something to an athlete, especially freebies, and if the NCAA determines it was intentional, at that point the NCAA will come down on you hard. And, Plattsburgh was giving their players a heck of a lot more than you ever make it appear, like free rent, which you keep conveniently leave out.
USC may have only gotten two years, but they lost a ton of money not being able to get any Bowl payouts in those two years.
USC: Airline tickets, loans, hotel rooms, 96 Chevy Impala ($19,000), free rent in Spring Valley 2hours+ south of USC, and over $30,000 added mostly into banks accounts.....that was just football
Basketball: OJ Mayo violations
Tennis: $7,000 school credit card given to a player to make long distance phone calls.
Far cry from a few meals....it was also the BCS who took their Championship away, not the NCAA. If you go back the AP Poll still recognizes USC as National Champions.
As I said before, if "intended" when 98% of your "grants" are going to athletes isn't obvious I dont know what is. Majority of the time the schools were all warned and told to pay attention and they still did it.
One more time, because you keep missing this point. Whether you agree with the NCAA's determination of what is intended or not was not my point. My point is once the NCAA decides something is intended, whether that was the proper decision or not, then the NCAA comes down on you hard. That's why Plattsburgh got hit as hard as they did. Whether they should or shouldn't was not the point I was making.
And I don't think the NCAA cares, to a point (see SMU), how much you give a student athlete (I didn't even know about the USC tennis player situation, and I forgot about OJ Mayo which was something that should have gotten USC hit even harder). Once you improperly give something to an athlete, especially freebies, and if the NCAA determines it was intentional, at that point the NCAA will come down on you hard. And, Plattsburgh was giving their players a heck of a lot more than you ever make it appear, like free rent, which you keep conveniently leave out.
USC may have only gotten two years, but they lost a ton of money not being able to get any Bowl payouts in those two years.