Nanook Nation 2014-2015

[Wondering]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

I encourage anyone commenting here to read the full NCAA report. MMF pulled out some of the significant findings -- thank you! -- but it's worth reading the whole thing.

I thought one of the saddest points was that an academic advisor and a compliance director saw problems and pushed for changes, but higher-ups didn't respond to their requests for help. It probably came down to time and money, but boy, was that short-sighted. How much time and money has the university spent now? Thousands of work-hours and $30,000 fine, at the very least.

But I'm angry that when the university tried to do the right thing -- a new compliance director came in and identified errors; the University self-reported them to the NCAA and took corrective action -- it didn't seem to matter. NCAA imposed penalties way out of proportion to the violations; penalties worse than some college have received for blatantly deliberate wrongdoing. What if UAF had simply changed its procedures without self-reporting past problems to the NCAA? Would we be better off now? Is that what the NCAA wants to encourage?

The report states that because UAF did not agree to the postseason ban, it "has the opportunity to appeal that penalty to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee." Will it do so? UAFHockeyFan314, do you know more?

 

[Squarebanks]

I encourage anyone commenting here to read the full NCAA report. MMF pulled out some of the significant findings -- thank you! -- but it's worth reading the whole thing.

I thought one of the saddest points was that an academic advisor and a compliance director saw problems and pushed for changes, but higher-ups didn't respond to their requests for help. It probably came down to time and money, but boy, was that short-sighted. How much time and money has the university spent now? Thousands of work-hours and $30,000 fine, at the very least.

But I'm angry that when the university tried to do the right thing -- a new compliance director came in and identified errors; the University self-reported them to the NCAA and took corrective action -- it didn't seem to matter. NCAA imposed penalties way out of proportion to the violations; penalties worse than some college have received for blatantly deliberate wrongdoing. What if UAF had simply changed its procedures without self-reporting past problems to the NCAA? Would we be better off now? Is that what the NCAA wants to encourage?

The report states that because UAF did not agree to the postseason ban, it "has the opportunity to appeal that penalty to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee." Will it do so? UAFHockeyFan314, do you know more?

I too have to wonder if we had never self reported if it would have even been an issue. Not that I'm endorsing that, but being honest with the NCAA rarely works out in a school's favor.

I caught the part about being allowed to appeal, too. Although I doubt it will go anywhere, I think we owe it to the current students and coaches to at least try.

I'll agree that UAF has had poor leadership in the past, but I personally believe the current administration is by and large the best leadership group UAF has had in a long time. It's unfortunate they will be tarnished by something that largely happened under the previous AD, previous VC, and previous Chancellor (although Chancellor Rogers did transition in 2009, but I don't think this is a direct result of his doing).

 

[Jimjamesak]

I encourage anyone commenting here to read the full NCAA report. MMF pulled out some of the significant findings -- thank you! -- but it's worth reading the whole thing.

I thought one of the saddest points was that an academic advisor and a compliance director saw problems and pushed for changes, but higher-ups didn't respond to their requests for help. It probably came down to time and money, but boy, was that short-sighted. How much time and money has the university spent now? Thousands of work-hours and $30,000 fine, at the very least.

But I'm angry that when the university tried to do the right thing -- a new compliance director came in and identified errors; the University self-reported them to the NCAA and took corrective action -- it didn't seem to matter. NCAA imposed penalties way out of proportion to the violations; penalties worse than some college have received for blatantly deliberate wrongdoing. What if UAF had simply changed its procedures without self-reporting past problems to the NCAA? Would we be better off now? Is that what the NCAA wants to encourage?

The report states that because UAF did not agree to the postseason ban, it "has the opportunity to appeal that penalty to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee." Will it do so? UAFHockeyFan314, do you know more?

The reasoning for the punishment is clear in the report. UAF knew what was going on and didn't do anything for years. Just because you ignore something for years and then report it doesn't exempt you from punishment.

 

[Squarebanks]

The reasoning for the punishment is clear in the report. UAF knew what was going on and didn't do anything for years. Just because you ignore something for years and then report it doesn't exempt you from punishment.

I don't think anyone is arguing we should have been punished. We already self-imposed scholly limitations. I get that. The fine? I get that. Probation? Absolutely, we screwed up. The wins vacation? Harsh, but I get it. The postseason ban was over the top though, and serves no good purpose other than to screw current students who had nothing to do with the mess.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

I find it quite ironic that Joe Maturi was one of the committee members that reviewed this case. When he was the AD at Minnesota, he did nothing about the underage drinking scandal with the hockey program, as well as the illegal gifts the players received when they got into bars without paying the cover charges. That whole thing was a big story, and not one player sat out a game. Instead they attended orientations on the dangers of underage drinking. Really?

Six degrees of crying about UM.

(ftr I think Maturi is an asshat)

 

[Alaska Hockey]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

Never said it wasn't. And I'm glad that those who oversaw this cluster are long gone.

Just think of all the money you would have saved from all the going away parties and lavish gifts you all had to pony up for. If they were still employed at UA_, just think of all the personal satisfaction you would have had to Ashley Reed their *** out on a rail from UA_.

 

[blackswampboy]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

Oh, they go to UAA. That's what a forfeit is. The Alaska Dispatch states:

wouldn't be too sure about that.
the NCAA differentiates between forfeits and vacancies, and the nooks are vacating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories
(Yes, this explanation is for football.)

"In the case of regular season games, the penalized team's win is removed from its official NCAA record. The losing team, however, retains the loss, and individual statistics resulting from the subject game(s) are not affected other than for players declared specifically ineligible."

"In the case of tournament games, the entire match result is vacated and the win and the corresponding loss are both removed from the two teams' records. Championships and honors earned by reason of the vacated wins are stricken from the penalized team's record. Again, except for specifically ineligible players, individual statistics will remain unaffected. However, any individual tournament honors earned by players will be vacated along with the match(es)."

 

[Suze]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

wouldn't be too sure about that.
the NCAA differentiates between forfeits and vacancies, and the nooks are vacating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories
(Yes, this explanation is for football.)

"In the case of regular season games, the penalized team's win is removed from its official NCAA record. The losing team, however, retains the loss, and individual statistics resulting from the subject game(s) are not affected other than for players declared specifically ineligible."

"In the case of tournament games, the entire match result is vacated and the win and the corresponding loss are both removed from the two teams' records. Championships and honors earned by reason of the vacated wins are stricken from the penalized team's record. Again, except for specifically ineligible players, individual statistics will remain unaffected. However, any individual tournament honors earned by players will be vacated along with the match(es)."

You are mixing apples and oranges. It's already been stated that both UA_ and UAA will change their stats to reflect the changes, and that UAA will get the Gov Cup for two of those years. And in this case, ALL of the stats are gone, not just the stats from ineligible players.

 

[blackswampboy]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

You are mixing apples and oranges. It's already been stated that both UA_ and UAA will change their stats to reflect the changes, and that UAA will get the Gov Cup for two of those years. And in this case, ALL of the stats are gone, not just the stats from ineligible players.

"forfeits" and "vacancies" are apples and oranges. you called them forfeits, but the NCAA is calling them vacancies.
so you're saying there's some sort of special deal where the Gov Cup games are forfeits, but all the other games are vacancies? how does that work?

 

[mmf]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

Let’s go boys, salvage something out of this weekend.

Remind the freshman D that we realize that you’re not used to the speed of the game, but it is better to take the hit or push it back into the corner than it to make blind passes into open ice in your own zone. Turnovers are killing us. Remind the experienced D to not hold the puck on the point so long. You’re just being forced into making crummy passes. Remind everyone that the objective of a pass is not to get it caught up in your teammate’s skates. Passing was horrendous the last few games. And fight for everything. We have yet to win more face offs than the other team this season. Start turning it around tonight.

Go Nooks!

 

[Suze]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

"forfeits" and "vacancies" are apples and oranges. you called them forfeits, but the NCAA is calling them vacancies.
so you're saying there's some sort of special deal where the Gov Cup games are forfeits, but all the other games are vacancies? how does that work?

Not sure how it all works. I only know what I have read in print:

Each of those teams, plus the women's ski team, will also forfeit any victories obtained when using ineligible players.

According to the NCAA findings, the hockey team used ineligible players in every game played from the 2007-08 season to the 2010-11 season. The Nanooks were 67-66-25 over that span, and the wins and ties will all become losses.

Four of the wins and two of the ties came against rival UAA, which will get to adjust its records during those seasons to reflect the changes.

An unknown number of victories from the 2011-12 season are also at risk. UAF used ineligible players in 60 percent of its games in that 12-20-4 season, and the school is in the process of figuring out which games will be impacted.

Also unknown is how many wins the basketball teams and other programs will have to forfeit. Every sport but women's cross country used ineligible players in hundreds of competitions staged over six seasons. Gray said the department will go through the results of each of those competitions to determine which involved ineligible athletes.

The only reason I can see for UAA to adjust their records would be to change a loss or a tie to a win. No? Who knows.

 

[Freddie]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

blackswampboy's post is indisputable...he cited the ultimate source...Wikipedia.

 

[blackswampboy]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

blackswampboy's post is indisputable...he cited the ultimate source...Wikipedia.

which actually came courtesy of the BGSU SID.
don't like that one? here it is from the NCAA. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf

"The won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated."

 

[Squarebanks]

I only know what I have read in print:

That should be a big red flag right there.

 

[Squarebanks]

Let’s go boys, salvage something out of this weekend.

Remind the freshman D that we realize that you’re not used to the speed of the game, but it is better to take the hit or push it back into the corner than it to make blind passes into open ice in your own zone. Turnovers are killing us. Remind the experienced D to not hold the puck on the point so long. You’re just being forced into making crummy passes. Remind everyone that the objective of a pass is not to get it caught up in your teammate’s skates. Passing was horrendous the last few games. And fight for everything. We have yet to win more face offs than the other team this season. Start turning it around tonight.

Go Nooks!

Definitely a tale of two seasons so far. Winning begets winning...and I hope the collective psyche of this program gets better quickly.

 

[gfmorris]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

blackswampboy's post is indisputable...he cited the ultimate source...Wikipedia.

Indeed. You tell 'em, Steve-Dave.

GFM

 

[UAFHockeyFan314]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

blackswampboy is right. Vacated wins do not award the opposing team the win, that would be a forfeiture. ACC will not get the vacated GovCup wins, they just don't count.

UAF has the option to appeal 2 of the punishments, the postseason ban and the vacated victories. To do so, one has to prove "abuse of discretionary power" on behalf of the NCAA. The one precedence that the NCAA cited to justify, was Hobart College. In 2011, the school discovered violations extending as far as 14 years. From 1994-95 academic year through fall 2008, Hobart allowed its first-year men's lacrosse students to compete without obtaining eligibility certification from the NCAA. That's 14 years, folks. And a lot more student athletes... Though only one was officially ineligible by the NCAA because they're a private school with higher academic standards anyway. So for their 2006 lacrosse season, they vacated all six of their wins.

UAF has until 11/26/14 to file the appeal, and will have to make their case before the end of the calendar year if they are to overturn the decision.

The important note was that only the ineligible players lose statistics for the games that they played in. So Cody Kunyk for example keeps all 113 points.

I find it funny too that the team only has to vacate wins with ineligible players. Because nobody cares when you lose...

 

[Suze]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

blackswampboy is right. Vacated wins do not award the opposing team the win, that would be a forfeiture. ACC will not get the vacated GovCup wins, they just don't count.

UAF has the option to appeal 2 of the punishments, the postseason ban and the vacated victories. To do so, one has to prove "abuse of discretionary power" on behalf of the NCAA. The one precedence that the NCAA cited to justify, was Hobart College. In 2011, the school discovered violations extending as far as 14 years. From 1994-95 academic year through fall 2008, Hobart allowed its first-year men's lacrosse students to compete without obtaining eligibility certification from the NCAA. That's 14 years, folks. And a lot more student athletes... Though only one was officially ineligible by the NCAA because they're a private school with higher academic standards anyway. So for their 2006 lacrosse season, they vacated all six of their wins.

UAF has until 11/26/14 to file the appeal, and will have to make their case before the end of the calendar year if they are to overturn the decision.

The important note was that only the ineligible players lose statistics for the games that they played in. So Cody Kunyk for example keeps all 113 points.

I find it funny too that the team only has to vacate wins with ineligible players. Because nobody cares when you lose...

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like there was incorrect information from the ADN, and I believe from the Daily News Miner as well. For the players sake, I hope they get the post season ban overturned.

 

[Squarebanks]

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like there was incorrect information from the ADN, and I believe from the Daily News Miner as well. For the players sake, I hope they get the post season ban overturned.

Based on the News Miner recap of Friday night's game, it sounds like UAF is strongly considering appealing the postseason ban.

 

[Suze]

Re: Nanook Nation 2014-2015

Based on the News Miner recap of Friday night's game, it sounds like UAF is strongly considering appealing the postseason ban.

Fairbanks hockey puck wrote this on another thread:

Ban will not be lifted...Alaska cited for violations/no argument there/if you try and appeal and lose, they will carry over to next season. ...Not forfeits, just have to vacate wins....other teams will not get credit for wins from what I understand, coaches and ineligible players will lose wins and stats.

This gets more confusing by the day.