Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: AUChizad on June 17, 2009, 05:52:09 PM
-
The slap on the wrists of vacating games that are already fucking over despite "staring down the barrel of a gun", during their third offense in the repeat offender window in a row was just too damn harsh. No one can touch the Tahd. uat is slapping the NCAA in the face after being showed mercy.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2009-06-17-alabama-ncaa-appeal_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2009-06-17-alabama-ncaa-appeal_N.htm)
Alabama plans to appeal recent NCAA sanctions
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) — The University of Alabama plans to appeal a ruling by the NCAA Committee on Infractions that forced the football program to vacate 21 wins.
University President Robert Witt, who announced the decision on Wednesday, said the penalties were excessive.
Alabama's football program and 15 other sports were placed on three years probation after 201 athletes were found to have used their scholarships to get free textbooks for other students.
"We appreciate that the committee recognized the isolated nature of this violation as well as UA's immediate and aggressive actions to correct the situation as soon as we discovered the problem," Witt said in a statement. "However, we are disappointed with the excessiveness of the sanctions in view of the facts of this case and the penalties in other textbook infractions cases.
"There is no evidence or allegations of other NCAA violations; no coaches or administrators were involved; no players obtained books and sold them for cash, and all the books were returned or charged to the student's account as required by the UA textbook policy in effect at that time."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: University of Virginia | National Collegiate Athletic Association | Alabama Crimson Tide football
The football program sustained the biggest blow from the sanctions. The team had to vacate 21 wins from 2005, 2006 and 2007 involving any of seven players who were involved in the violations, including the 2006 Cotton Bowl victory over Texas Tech.
The university has until June 26 to file the appeal to the Infractions Appeals Committee. The NCAA cited Alabama for failure to monitor in imposing the penalties.
"The University of Alabama remains committed to doing things the right way, and we will continue to work with the NCAA and the SEC as we focus on strict compliance with all NCAA regulations," Witt said.
-
Dude, this is standard operating procedure for pretty much any major football school. Its not being arrogant. Go look in the NCAA major infractions database. A shitload of football schools almost always appeal no matter what. Do you think the NCAA isn't used to this sort of thing by now? Since you started your little "quest" about 6 months ago, your reasoning skills sure have gone to shit.
-
Has the NCAA ever handed down more penalties to a program that appealed their ruling?
-
Has the NCAA ever handed down more penalties to a program that appealed their ruling?
They can't.
-
Dude, this is standard operating procedure for pretty much any major football school. Its not being arrogant. Go look in the NCAA major infractions database. A shitload of football schools almost always appeal no matter what. Do you think the NCAA isn't used to this sort of thing by now? Since you started your little "quest" about 6 months ago, your reasoning skills sure have gone to shit.
Then why the fuck is Alabama doing it?
-
Dude, this is standard operating procedure for pretty much any major football school. Its not being arrogant. Go look in the NCAA major infractions database. A shitload of football schools almost always appeal no matter what. Do you think the NCAA isn't used to this sort of thing by now? Since you started your little "quest" about 6 months ago, your reasoning skills sure have gone to shit.
I'm not so sure where you're getting your info, RWS. I just ran a few searches here: https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch
Out of the 49 total SEC cases the NCAA has had since 1953, only 8 have filed an appeal.
Out of the 32 SEC football cases, 5 have been appealed.
The five football cases that were appealed - Miss St 2004 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 2002 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Kentucky 2002(postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 1995 (loss of scholarships), Ole Miss 1994 (loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions).
Notice those five cases involved major penalties for their football programs.
And now, Alabama 2009 - wins vacated.
I understand that there's no penalty for appealing a case, but it does come across as a little arrogant that Alabama would appeal a case that involved minor penalties. Not to mention, Alabama was charged with failure to monitor during a window that stemmed from the second harshest case in NCAA history (2002).
-
I'm not so sure where you're getting your info, RWS. I just ran a few searches here: https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch
Out of the 49 total SEC cases the NCAA has had since 1953, only 8 have filed an appeal.
Out of the 32 SEC football cases, 5 have been appealed.
The five football cases that were appealed - Miss St 2004 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 2002 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Kentucky 2002(postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 1995 (loss of scholarships), Ole Miss 1994 (loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions).
Notice those five cases involved major penalties for their football programs.
And now, Alabama 2009 - wins vacated.
I understand that there's no penalty for appealing a case, but it does come across as a little arrogant that Alabama would appeal a case that involved minor penalties. Not to mention, Alabama was charged with failure to monitor during a window that stemmed from the second harshest case in NCAA history (2002).
Snap.
-
I'm not so sure where you're getting your info, RWS. I just ran a few searches here: https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch
Out of the 49 total SEC cases the NCAA has had since 1953, only 8 have filed an appeal.
Out of the 32 SEC football cases, 5 have been appealed.
The five football cases that were appealed - Miss St 2004 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 2002 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Kentucky 2002(postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 1995 (loss of scholarships), Ole Miss 1994 (loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions).
Notice those five cases involved major penalties for their football programs.
And now, Alabama 2009 - wins vacated.
I understand that there's no penalty for appealing a case, but it does come across as a little arrogant that Alabama would appeal a case that involved minor penalties. Not to mention, Alabama was charged with failure to monitor during a window that stemmed from the second harshest case in NCAA history (2002).
RWS = :pwnd:
-
I'm not so sure where you're getting your info, RWS. I just ran a few searches here: https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch
Out of the 49 total SEC cases the NCAA has had since 1953, only 8 have filed an appeal.
Out of the 32 SEC football cases, 5 have been appealed.
The five football cases that were appealed - Miss St 2004 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 2002 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Kentucky 2002(postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 1995 (loss of scholarships), Ole Miss 1994 (loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions).
Notice those five cases involved major penalties for their football programs.
And now, Alabama 2009 - wins vacated.
I understand that there's no penalty for appealing a case, but it does come across as a little arrogant that Alabama would appeal a case that involved minor penalties. Not to mention, Alabama was charged with failure to monitor during a window that stemmed from the second harshest case in NCAA history (2002).
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Half of the appeals from an SEC team are by uat. The other THREE of "every major program" belong to Mississippi State and Kentucky.
And 2/3 of every case ever appealed EVER in the entire NCAA are from the turds.
Didn't you know? Alabama = Every major program. Duh. Nah, that's not arrogant...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Why can't the schools that played bammer apply to have the games forfeited instead of vacated? The whole premise is that the turds won BECAUSE they were cheating. Since when is getting caught cheating equal to a tie?
This should add a win to every one of their opponents books for that season.
-
Why can't the schools that played bammer apply to have the games forfeited instead of vacated? The whole premise is that the turds won BECAUSE they were cheating. Since when is getting caught cheating equal to a tie?
This should add a win to every one of their opponents books for that season.
Wouldn't affect us, but I agree.
-
Wouldn't affect us, but I agree.
:rofl:
-
I'm not so sure where you're getting your info, RWS. I just ran a few searches here: https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch
Out of the 49 total SEC cases the NCAA has had since 1953, only 8 have filed an appeal.
Out of the 32 SEC football cases, 5 have been appealed.
The five football cases that were appealed - Miss St 2004 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 2002 (postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Kentucky 2002(postseason ban, loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions), Alabama 1995 (loss of scholarships), Ole Miss 1994 (loss of scholarships, recruiting restrictions).
Notice those five cases involved major penalties for their football programs.
And now, Alabama 2009 - wins vacated.
I understand that there's no penalty for appealing a case, but it does come across as a little arrogant that Alabama would appeal a case that involved minor penalties. Not to mention, Alabama was charged with failure to monitor during a window that stemmed from the second harshest case in NCAA history (2002).
I may be off on my stats, but I still stand by I don't see what it hurts to appeal. Oklahoma was charged with failure to monitor and its players were being paid for "work" at a car dealership that was never performed. Hell, they appealed and got some wins back. They had 3 violations vacated and one penalty vacated. Granted, the situations are a little different in respect to the repeat offender window, I still think we have a pretty good chance.
-
Why can't the schools that played bammer apply to have the games forfeited instead of vacated? The whole premise is that the turds won BECAUSE they were cheating. Since when is getting caught cheating equal to a tie?
This should add a win to every one of their opponents books for that season.
Do you really....REALLY think that the ONLY ONLY ONLY reason we won those games were because of players' friends receiving textbooks? That doesn't make much sense. You would have to spin it pretty good to make the case that Alabama gained some sort of competitive advantage from this. Some AUN style spin.