 |
|
And the alternative was . . .
Posted on: January 18, 2020 at 16:08:18 CT
ScottsdaleTiger MU
Posts:
12576
Member For:
25.23 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
The tutor's story was reported in the media.
Assume Mizzou did not report the matter to the NCAA and the NCAA picked up the story from the media, what would the NCAA have done.
Perhaps talk to the tutor, take her statement. That statement alone would have been sufficient to establish the NCAA violations even if Mizzou and everyone associated with Mizzou had denied the story.
And perhaps talk to the individuals student athletes identified by the tutor. Would you have them refuse to talk to the NCAA? Would you have asked them to lie to the NCAA and deny the tutor's story?
If you had done either and it had come out that Mizzou was actively seeking to cover up the incidents, what would the NCAA have done?
Most of the folks who argue that Mizzou should have taken a hard line point to the success of North Carolina in avoiding NCAA sanctions over its "no work required course". There was one major and significant difference. Both athletes and non-athletes took advantage of the "non work required course" while at Mizzou only student athletes had their course work done and tests taken (in some instances) by the tutor.
Yes, taking a hard line might have avoided being placed on probation, etc. or it might have resulted in a multiple year bowl ban plus greater scholarship and recruiting limitations.
There is no guarantee that not self-reporting would have resulted in no sanctions. Bluntly, if it had back fired, a distinct possibility, it might have resulted in substantially harsher sanctions.
The one true lesson from this incident is it illustrates the ignorance of many as to how the NCAA process actually works.
Assume Mizzou did not report the matter to the NCAA and the NCAA picked up the story from the media, what would the NCAA have done.
Perhaps talk to the tutor, take her statement. That statement alone would have been sufficient to establish the NCAA violations even if Mizzou and everyone associated with Mizzou had denied the story.
And perhaps talk to the individuals student athletes identified by the tutor. Would you have them refuse to talk to the NCAA? Would you have asked them to lie to the NCAA and deny the tutor's story?
If you had done either and it had come out that Mizzou was actively seeking to cover up the incidents, what would the NCAA have done?
Most of the folks who argue that Mizzou should have taken a hard line point to the success of North Carolina in avoiding NCAA sanctions over its "no work required course". There was one major and significant difference. Both athletes and non-athletes took advantage of the "non work required course" while at Mizzou only student athletes had their course work done and tests taken (in some instances) by the tutor.
Yes, taking a hard line might have avoided being placed on probation, etc. or it might have resulted in a multiple year bowl ban plus greater scholarship and recruiting limitations.
There is no guarantee that not self-reporting would have resulted in no sanctions. Bluntly, if it had back fired, a distinct possibility, it might have resulted in substantially harsher sanctions.
The one true lesson from this incident is it illustrates the ignorance of many as to how the NCAA process actually works.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
And the alternative was . . . - ScottsdaleTiger MU - 1/18 16:08:18
-