OM accepted violations - have I got this straight?

[blacklistedbully]

So, even if we go with what they are saying, Even if we wear the Black Bear rose-colored glasses are we not looking at minimally:

• 6 Level 1 violations (not contested)
• 2 Level 2 aggravated (NCAA says L1, UNM arguing L2, so let's call it L2 aggravated)
• 5 Level 3 violations (not contested unless a higher level they are contesting to L3)

How on earth can anyone with half-a-brain argue that their self-imposed penalties come anywhere close to satisfying the above? 11 scholarships and just 1 year bowl ban in a year they probably weren't gonna make one anyway, or at best would have been a low-tier one.

Here's the NCAA penalty matrix. Note that the penalties are enforceable for ONE violation. The severity of the punishment for each violation can be, "aggravated, standard or mitigated".

Violation Level I Competition Penalties: Postseason Ban *Competition penalties may be used singularly or in combination:
Aggravated 2 to 4 years
Standard 1 to 2 years
Mitigated 0 to 1 year

Violation Level II Competition Penalties: Postseason Ban *Competition penalties may be used singularly or in combination:
Aggravated 1 to 2 years
Standard 0 to 1 year
Mitigated 0

Violation Level I Scholarship Reductions of Involved Sport(s) Program(s)*:
Aggravated 25 to 50%
Standard 12.5 to 25%
Mitigated 0 to 12.5%

Violation Level II Scholarship Reductions of Involved
Sport(s) Program(s):
Aggravated 12.5 to 25%
Standard 0 to 12.5%
Mitigated 0 to 5%

* For cases in which financial aid overages have occurred, a minimum 2-for-1 reduction in financial aid awards shall apply up to at least 20% of the team financial aid limit.

Violation Level I Show-Cause Order Restrictions:
Aggravated 5 to 10 years
Standard 2 to 5 years
Mitigated 1 to 2 years

Violation Level II Show-Cause Order Restrictions:
Aggravated 2 to 5 year
Standard 1 to 2 years
Mitigated 0 to 1 year


These are just the 3 biggest categories, and do not include recruiting restrictions, fines, etc.

They can be multiplied and/or categorized as a higher, "circumstance" (Aggravated, Standard or Mitigated) based on multiple violations (for instance, multiple standard circumstances can be punished as harshly as a single aggravated circumstance).

Please, do the math and tell me how anybody arrives at:

• 10 football scholarships over the next three seasons (two in 2016, and four each in 2017 and 2018), plus one it's counting from the 2015 season
• A $159,352 fine, and "involved staff" will undergo "additional rules education" on NCAA policy.
• 1 year bowl ban

Again, I'm pretty sure I'm looking at this from the absolute most positive outcome possible for UNM. This is if they win every contested point.

 

[missouridawg]

85-25%-25%-25%-25%-25%-25%=15 scholarships

They obviously won't get that, but I think that's the official math on 6 Level 1s with the minimum recommended reduction per infraction.

 

[blacklistedbully]

85-25%-25%-25%-25%-25%-25%=15 scholarships

They obviously won't get that, but I think that's the official math on 6 Level 1s with the minimum recommended reduction per infraction.

Did you mean to type 15 scholarships, or is that a typo?

 

[missouridawg]

Did you mean to type 15 scholarships, or is that a typo?

Not a typo. 15 scholarships available for use. Docked 70 scholarships.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Though the NCAA is not required to to add up every violation (or so I've been told), I think they can choose to add as many as they see fit to justify the punishment they feel is warranted. And I don't think the way UNM is behaving is going to sit well with the COI.

That said, each Level 1 Standard is supposed to count a minimum of 11 scholarships (12.5% of 85). They have 6 they are not even contesting.

Each Level 2 Aggravated is supposed to count a minimum of 11 (12.5% of 85). UNM is contesting 2 Level 1's as L2, so I'm figuring best case for them is L2 aggravated. THey have 2 of these.

Not even looking at LOIC, which multiple L1's, 2's & 3's can strongly suggest, particularly against multiple sports, that looks to me like the COI can go as high as 85 scholarships (85 x 12.5% x 8 ).

Now there is no way they are gonna do that. The DP would be less harsh, unless it also meant getting booted from the SEC. But it sure seems to me the COI has PLENTY of room to absolutely blast UNM, even if UNM wins every point they argue (they won't).

 

[missouridawg]

Though the NCAA is not required to to add up every violation (or so I've been told), I think they can choose to add as many as they see fit to justify the punishment they feel is warranted. And I don't think the way UNM is behaving is going to sit well with the COI.

That said, each Level 1 Standard is supposed to count a minimum of 11 scholarships (12.5% of 85). They have 6 they are not even contesting.

Each Level 2 Aggravated is supposed to count a minimum of 11 (12.5% of 85). UNM is contesting 2 Level 1's as L2, so I'm figuring best case for them is L2 aggravated. THey have 2 of these.

Not even looking at LOIC, which multiple L1's, 2's & 3's can strongly suggest, particularly against multiple sports, that looks to me like the COI can go as high as 85 scholarships (85 x 12.5% x 8 ).

Now there is no way they are gonna do that. The DP would be less harsh, unless it also meant getting booted from the SEC. But it sure seems to me the COI has PLENTY of room to absolutely blast UNM, even if UNM wins every point they argue (they won't).

I did calculate 6 Level1 aggravated infractions, which is not best case. So my math is definitely a little screwy.

Anywho, OM is certainly backing the COI into the corner with this case. Can't wait to see the punishment coming down.

 

[Dawgtini]

I'll go first - EL-OH-EL!!! #ThankYouSirMayIHaveAnother

 

[turkish]

Their only hope is that some of the infractions get penalized using the old matrix and/or that the NCAA just utterly abandons their existing matrix (and subsequently makes themselves look utterly foolish).

 

[mount lefroy]

So, black, good lawd.

JUST the level 1s put this at 42.5 over 4 on scholarships alone.

Eta: they have to think the NCAA is going to completely back down. I mean turn and run.

 

[blacklistedbully]

So, black, good lawd.

JUST the level 1s put this at 42.5 over 4 on scholarships alone.

If they are level 1 standard, not mitigated or aggravated, then technically, the 6 Level 1's they are not contesting can each carry a minimum 12.5% reduction on 85 scholarships, at least under the new structure. Even if they use the old structure for some of these, the COI can hammer them as badly as they want, because every Level 1 committed since the new matrix can also go as high as 25% for standard.

If they average out to 6 standard (combination of mitigated, aggravated and standard), the 6 Level 1's alone could technically result in 64 to 127 scholarship losses. Again, that's just not going to happen, particularly if the COI is allowed to group violations, and not sum them all up. It's also been argued the L1's associated with coaches lying, etc will not be held against the university, just the coach, so that could knock it down some...but how much realistically?

How about this. Even if we take out the L1's associated with coaches not there, and assume the punishment goes only to the coaches as suspensions and show causes...if we only go with stuff they accept are "on the school & its boosters", then you're still looking at 4 Level 1's, that can result in as many as 42-85 scholarship losses by the new matrix, again not even counting L2's & 3's.

I just don't get how even the most deluded of their fans (imagine how 17'd up that person would have to be, considering the norm), can see how the COI is going to come anywhere close to their proposed penalties. The COI would have to decide to consider all of the violations as just one...then apply the minimum penalty allowed for a standard Level 1 violation...11 scholarships (85 x 12.5%).

Do any of those folks actually think there is any way on God's Green Earth the COI is going to decide to punish them for just one Level 1 Standard violation?

 

[RutherfordBHayes]

"In the fourth allegation, it is alleged that between April 2014 and February 2015, Former Staff Member A initiated and facilitated two boosters having impermissible contact with Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution). It is further alleged that these two boosters provided Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) with impermissible cash payments during that timeframe and that Former Staff Member A knew about the cash payments. The value of the alleged inducements according to the NCAA is between $13,000 and $15,600. This is charged as a Level I violation.

The university believes there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to conclude that the impermissible contact outlined in the fourth allegation occurred."

-Ross Bjork
Vice Chancellor for Intercollegiate Athletics, University of Mississippi

 

[missouridawg]

"In the fourth allegation, it is alleged that between April 2014 and February 2015, Former Staff Member A initiated and facilitated two boosters having impermissible contact with Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution). It is further alleged that these two boosters provided Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) with impermissible cash payments during that timeframe and that Former Staff Member A knew about the cash payments. The value of the alleged inducements according to the NCAA is between $13,000 and $15,600. This is charged as a Level I violation.

The university believes there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to conclude that the impermissible contact outlined in the fourth allegation occurred."

-Ross Bjork
Vice Chancellor for Intercollegiate Athletics, University of Mississippi

My favorite president, Ruetherford B Hayes.

 

[ShrubDog]

This is one hell of a damn mess, incredible facts.

 

[patdog]

I don't think it works like that. I think the scholarship reductions are against the yearly 25-man limit. Otherwise, theoretically, 2 violations could turn you into a Div III program. Even so, the 6 level 1 & 2 level 2 they've admitted to should be about 25 scholarships at a minimum. Add in what they've contested but will almost surely be found guilty of, and you'll be over 40 scholarships.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Anybody hear head to head at five today?

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

So, black, good lawd.

JUST the level 1s put this at 42.5 over 4 on scholarships alone.

Eta: they have to think the NCAA is going to completely back down. I mean turn and run.

Hence my prediction earlier of 35-45 Scholarships over 5 years, 6 - 8 years probation and show clause for all coaches named.

ETA: I will PM you all the details including my mole cricket/dales secret marinade.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Not a typo. 15 scholarships available for use. Docked 70 scholarships.

View attachment 6872

 

[blacklistedbully]

I don't think it works like that. I think the scholarship reductions are against the yearly 25-man limit. Otherwise, theoretically, 2 violations could turn you into a Div III program. Even so, the 6 level 1 & 2 level 2 they've admitted to should be about 25 scholarships at a minimum. Add in what they've contested but will almost surely be found guilty of, and you'll be over 40 scholarships.

No way, Pat. Think about it. Under your take, they could get hit with 4 Level 1 violations, standard, not mitigated, and only lose 12 scholarships total...such as 3-per-year for 4 years.

Or they could get busted for 7 L1's and lose just 21 total. Divide that by 4 years and you're looking at just 5 per year.

EVERYBODY would cheat big if that were the way it worked.

 

[Allday.sixpack]

who needs scholarships when players are getting paid?

 

[Hail State]

I applaud your autism.

 

[jack daniels dog]

Anybody hear head to head at five today?

Got cliff notes for us?

 

[patdog]

If you're hit with 4 Level 1 violations, all standard, you'd be at 12-25 scholarships lost, probably around 20. And they've rarely gone with much more than the 30 scholarships lost that devastated the Southern Cal program for a decade. So I think I'm probably right, but I don't think anyone really knows. From what I've seen, the rules don't even mention if they're talking about a percent of the 85 total limit or the 25 annual limit. I really don't think the NCAA thought this new rule through when they implemented it.

 

[blacklistedbully]

If you're hit with 4 Level 1 violations, all standard, you'd be at 12-25 scholarships lost, probably around 20. And they've rarely gone with much more than the 30 scholarships lost that devastated the Southern Cal program for a decade. So I think I'm probably right, but I don't think anyone really knows. From what I've seen, the rules don't even mention if they're talking about a percent of the 85 total limit or the 25 annual limit. I really don't think the NCAA thought this new rule through when they implemented it.

USCw did not have 21 violations with 15 Level 1's, multiple coaches and boosters involved, etc. Also the old system was replaced by the new because the NCAA wanted to make the punishments both more consistent and more stringent. They really wanted to make it far less attractive to cheat.

Also, if they were going by "annual scholarships limits", then applying the matrix woudl require applying "annual reductions" annually for multiple years, thus if they came up with 12-24, that would be, "per year", so then they'd need to decide how many years.

 

[TTRams]

Literary genius

Love this from blacklistedbully.

I just don't get how even the most deluded of their fans (imagine how 17'd up that person would have to be, considering the norm),

 

[patdog]

I think your scholarship prediction is a little low. I'll be shocked if they lose less than 40.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

I think your scholarship prediction is a little low. I'll be shocked if they lose less than 40.

Looking at the numbers and matrix, they should. I'm not sure if they pissed the NCAA off enough to get what the numbers and matrix say.

Then again, the NCAA knows if they do not hammer hard enough, recruiting will become the wild, wild west.