Started By
Message
re: The Mizzou Bowl Ban HAS to be lifted right?
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:03 pm to JesusQuintana
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:03 pm to JesusQuintana
You’re making the assumption that NCAA Enforcement makes any sense whatsoever.
0
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:05 pm to Vecchio Cane
Situations aren't identical, but they're pretty similar. Also, no current Mizzou players were on campus when the rogue tutor was there, whereas Miss St has active players on the roster that were involved in their cheating
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:05 pm to Hailstate15
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:07 pm to mouse_cop
That’s the difference: there is nobody left to punish directly so everyone gets punished for LOIC because it wasn’t found out until later
MSU can at least punish those involved making it an isolated incident
MSU can at least punish those involved making it an isolated incident
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:08 pm to MU91
All student tutors are considered employees of the university or athletic department. So that assertion is incorrect
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:08 pm to BadBrad29
quote:
The NCAA views hired University employees cheating as basically LOIC.
Only for non basketball schools. UNC had an entire department have fake classes and the NCAA did nothing. Mizzou needs to be better at basketball like Kansas.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:09 pm to tylerdurden24
LOL. That would have been awesome.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:11 pm to JesusQuintana
Isn't Mizzou on a permanent bowl ban?
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:14 pm to BloodSweat&Beers
UNC’s defense was “yeah it’s shady but we stand behind it as fine for all of our students not just the athletes and SACs isn’t going to do anything but put us on probation for a little while so eat our shorts”
Mizzou’s mistake was not embracing the suck and being like “oh yeah we teach all of our tutors at Mizzou to do the work for all of our students here. Our curriculum is based on learning how to leach off of others like our carpet bagger forefathers”
UNC established the model for escaping punishment by admitting the whole thing is a sham, I don’t know why other universities don’t use it
Mizzou’s mistake was not embracing the suck and being like “oh yeah we teach all of our tutors at Mizzou to do the work for all of our students here. Our curriculum is based on learning how to leach off of others like our carpet bagger forefathers”
UNC established the model for escaping punishment by admitting the whole thing is a sham, I don’t know why other universities don’t use it
This post was edited on 8/23/19 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:17 pm to rockytop627
quote:
UNC runs an entire fake school and barely gets a slap on the wrist, while Bruce Pearl gets a show cause over a fricking barbecue.
Bruce got a show cause for LYING about the bbq, not for having a bbq.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:18 pm to JesusQuintana
Mizzou: Players involved were gone and tutor was employee so NCAA punished the school.
State: Players involved there and tutor not an employee so NCAA punished the players and hit the school with a few penalties to add on.
It's not as disparate as it looks on the surface. The NCAA did what was within their powers to do in both cases. The circumstances are what led to the penalties (you can't punish players that are no longer there but you can punish the school charged with keeping an eye on them).
Sucks for fans of both schools but it's not a ginormous outrage.
State: Players involved there and tutor not an employee so NCAA punished the players and hit the school with a few penalties to add on.
It's not as disparate as it looks on the surface. The NCAA did what was within their powers to do in both cases. The circumstances are what led to the penalties (you can't punish players that are no longer there but you can punish the school charged with keeping an eye on them).
Sucks for fans of both schools but it's not a ginormous outrage.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:20 pm to Mac
quote:
Man I’d be so mad if I was a Mizzou fan
Me too, but it would have nothing to do with the bowl ban
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:22 pm to JesusQuintana
Serious question: does Mizzou consider a bowl ban as punishment?
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:33 pm to Prof
The tutor was an employee which is why they got a showcause. Employee status doesn’t matter so much as how the school can and does react to the situation.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 12:42 pm to tylerdurden24
State posters will hold to their position that she wasn't an employee, even though the facts show otherwise
Posted on 8/23/19 at 1:10 pm to JesusQuintana
Sorry, but Arkansas and Vanderbilt still have a better chance of playing in the SECCG than Missouri.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 1:11 pm to tylerdurden24
quote:
The tutor was an employee which is why they got a showcause. Employee status doesn’t matter so much as how the school can and does react to the situation.
I don't know the details there but regardless a lot of it comes down to Mizzou's players being gone so the only one left to punish was Mizzou. With State, the NCAA could take their pound of flesh from the players that cheated and for those in football it's a substantial pound. Mizzou just didn't have that and got the brunt of the punishment as an institution instead.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 1:14 pm to JesusQuintana
My opinion is, based on situational precedent, Missouri's appeal should be successful and the ban lifted.
Posted on 8/23/19 at 1:15 pm to RatRodDawg
When's the last time ANYONE had a successful appeal? Oklahoma in 2005 with Rhett Bomar?
Posted on 8/23/19 at 1:15 pm to RatRodDawg
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News