Rutgers penalties
- Thread starter trillwill
- Start date
Here's the meaningful stuff.
The violations occurred both before and after the new infractions process. Because the violations mostly occurred after the implementation of the new process, the panel used the Division I infractions penalty guidelines approved by the membership in 2013 for a Level II case
For the university:
For the coaches:
Will add some commentary later.
The violations occurred both before and after the new infractions process. Because the violations mostly occurred after the implementation of the new process, the panel used the Division I infractions penalty guidelines approved by the membership in 2013 for a Level II case
For the university:
- Public reprimand and censure for the university.
- Two years of probation from Sept. 22, 2017, through Sept. 21, 2019.
- A reduction in the number of off-campus recruiting days by a total of 10 during 2017-18, with five days in the fall evaluation period and five in the spring evaluation period (self-imposed by the university).
- A limit of 36 football official visits during 2017-18, a reduction of four from the average number of visits used during the four most recent years and 26 fewer than permitted by NCAA rules (self-imposed by the university).
- A prohibition of phone calls, social media contact and written correspondence with prospects for a one-week period during 2017-18 (self-imposed by the university).
- A $5,000 fine (self-imposed by the university).
For the coaches:
- A one-year show-cause period for the former head coach from Sept. 22, 2017, through Sept. 21, 2018. During that period, any NCAA member school employing him must show cause why he should not have restrictions on athletically related activity.
- A three-game suspension for the former head coach during the 2015 football season (self-imposed by the university).
- A one-year show-cause period for the former assistant coach from Sept. 22, 2017, through Sept. 21, 2018. During that period, any NCAA member school employing him must restrict him from all off-campus recruiting activities.
Will add some commentary later.
Immediate thoughts:
1. The NCAA considered this a Level II Mitigated case. They don't say that outright, but their actions seem to indicate it.
2. The 2 year probation is the only punishment that rises above Level II Mitigated.
3. UMites will see this as good sign and it's hard to disagree on the surface, but a deeper look says these are fairly insignificant infractions by Rutgers.
4. UM is likely getting their penalties under the new matrix.
5. This puts to rest the discussion on whether each violation is run through the matrix and the penalties are stacked. The whole case will be categorized, and penalties issued using the guidelines.
1. The NCAA considered this a Level II Mitigated case. They don't say that outright, but their actions seem to indicate it.
2. The 2 year probation is the only punishment that rises above Level II Mitigated.
3. UMites will see this as good sign and it's hard to disagree on the surface, but a deeper look says these are fairly insignificant infractions by Rutgers.
4. UM is likely getting their penalties under the new matrix.
5. This puts to rest the discussion on whether each violation is run through the matrix and the penalties are stacked. The whole case will be categorized, and penalties issued using the guidelines.
Last edited:
Not sure how many violations but here's the first paragraph from the article:
[FONT="]Rutgers failed to monitor its football program over a five-year period when it did not ensure its football student host group and its drug-testing program followed university policy and NCAA rules, according to a Division I Committee on Infractions panel. The former head football coach failed to monitor his operations staff, which had oversight of the host group, and failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he violated university policy by contacting an instructor to make a special academic arrangement for a student-athlete. Another violation in the football program occurred when a former assistant football coach acted unethically when he was not truthful about a recruiting contact during his interviews with NCAA enforcement staff.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Rutgers failed to monitor its football program over a five-year period when it did not ensure its football student host group and its drug-testing program followed university policy and NCAA rules, according to a Division I Committee on Infractions panel. The former head football coach failed to monitor his operations staff, which had oversight of the host group, and failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he violated university policy by contacting an instructor to make a special academic arrangement for a student-athlete. Another violation in the football program occurred when a former assistant football coach acted unethically when he was not truthful about a recruiting contact during his interviews with NCAA enforcement staff.[/FONT]
Looks like 1 level II and 1 level III from another article:
[FONT="]Former Rutgers football assistant coach Darrell Wilson, who was fired in December 2015 following Flood's ouster, was alleged to have had improper off-campus recruiting contact with a recruit in 2014. That allegation was designated as a Level III violation, which is considered minor and not uncommon in recruiting at schools nationwide. The NCAA charged Wilson with a Level II violation - and a possible show-cause order - for allegedly providing false or misleading information to investigators.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Former Rutgers football assistant coach Darrell Wilson, who was fired in December 2015 following Flood's ouster, was alleged to have had improper off-campus recruiting contact with a recruit in 2014. That allegation was designated as a Level III violation, which is considered minor and not uncommon in recruiting at schools nationwide. The NCAA charged Wilson with a Level II violation - and a possible show-cause order - for allegedly providing false or misleading information to investigators.[/FONT]
It was 3 Level II's against the university.
Of interest, notice how thoroughly they acted once things came to light: new coach and AD, as well as an overhaul of the compliance staff.
http://ncaaupdate.rutgers.edu/
Of interest, notice how thoroughly they acted once things came to light: new coach and AD, as well as an overhaul of the compliance staff.
http://ncaaupdate.rutgers.edu/
Rutgers had already took action against the coaches involved in their self imposed penalties. They didn't defend 90% of the named coaches and go to the mattresses with those same coaches defending their allegations. HUGE difference
I think you are correct on 5 but I believe I read where Rutgers penalties were based on the previous penalty structure. Correct me if I am wrong...
Then they open the door to incredibly rampant cheating IMO. One level 1 should not be ~ the same case as 15 level 1s. Either try not to cheat -- or go full Ole Miss with it.
I understand that mitigated, standard, or aggravated gives them some degree of leeway. But still.
If anyone can 17 this up it will be the NCAA. I have a feeling they aren't going to get near what they deserve.
As I read the Rutgers NOA, I see 6 Level II and 1 Level III for a total of 7 allegations. FYI.
http://ncaaupdate.rutgers.edu/sites...gations - Redacted Final (00246712xB0A50).PDF
http://ncaaupdate.rutgers.edu/sites...gations - Redacted Final (00246712xB0A50).PDF
Looks like Rutgers wrapped the FTM into the hostess charge and two of the HC....
Charges into one. I was putting the HC charges aside. Looking more closely at the NCAA's notice and ignoring Rutgers' spin, you have:
1. The hostess program issue (Level II)
2. The drug monitoring issue (Level II)
3. Academic issue involving the HC (Level II)
4. Impermissible contact (Level III)
5. Assistant coach lying about #4 (Level II against the AC only)
6. HC responsibility violation (Level II against the HC only)
7. Failure to Monitor charge (Level II)
So, 4 Level II's and a Level III against the school.
Charges into one. I was putting the HC charges aside. Looking more closely at the NCAA's notice and ignoring Rutgers' spin, you have:
1. The hostess program issue (Level II)
2. The drug monitoring issue (Level II)
3. Academic issue involving the HC (Level II)
4. Impermissible contact (Level III)
5. Assistant coach lying about #4 (Level II against the AC only)
6. HC responsibility violation (Level II against the HC only)
7. Failure to Monitor charge (Level II)
So, 4 Level II's and a Level III against the school.
The most worrying is that apparently they went with Level II - Standard....
Yet only used more than minimal penalties in the category of probation.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Sept2017INF_RutgersInfractionsPublicDecision_20170922.pdf
If I was a UMite, I'd be seizing on today's news as a string of hope.
However, bringing things back to reality.
UM's offered penalties:
1-year postseason ban
$179,797 fine
13 scholarships (or 10 if you only count initial counters)
12-week ban on unofficial visits
20% reduction in official visits
10% + 12.5% cuts in evaluation days over 2 years
3 years probation
Assuming Level I Aggravated...
Minimum penalties:
2-year postseason ban
~$529,391 fine
21 scholarships
14-week ban on unofficial visits
25% cut in official paid visits
14-week ban on communications with all prospects
25% cut in evaluation days
6 years probation
Maximum penalties:
4-year postseason ban
$878,985 fine (or much more?)
42 scholarships
26-week ban on unofficial visits
50% cut in official paid visits
26-week ban on communications with all prospects
50% cut in evaluation days
10 years probation
Yet only used more than minimal penalties in the category of probation.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Sept2017INF_RutgersInfractionsPublicDecision_20170922.pdf
If I was a UMite, I'd be seizing on today's news as a string of hope.
However, bringing things back to reality.
UM's offered penalties:
1-year postseason ban
$179,797 fine
13 scholarships (or 10 if you only count initial counters)
12-week ban on unofficial visits
20% reduction in official visits
10% + 12.5% cuts in evaluation days over 2 years
3 years probation
Assuming Level I Aggravated...
Minimum penalties:
2-year postseason ban
~$529,391 fine
21 scholarships
14-week ban on unofficial visits
25% cut in official paid visits
14-week ban on communications with all prospects
25% cut in evaluation days
6 years probation
Maximum penalties:
4-year postseason ban
$878,985 fine (or much more?)
42 scholarships
26-week ban on unofficial visits
50% cut in official paid visits
26-week ban on communications with all prospects
50% cut in evaluation days
10 years probation
There is really no point in comparing this to ole miss' problems. I've read up on Rutgers and their infractions are silly and minor in comparison. The penalty they received is significant for what they did. Ole miss will get hammered. Lack of Institutional control, obstructing and lying to investigators, collusion between coaches and boosters and academic fraud. NCAA will allow players to transfer without penalty, especially since the recruits (and Humperdoo) were misled by the staff to dupe those kids into sticking with ole miss. They're about to get curb stomped.
QUERY: how does the NCAA determine penalties?
(1) assign a punishment based on the matrix for EACH SINGLE violation;
(2) assign a punishment based solely on the highest level of violation by the institution, e.g. one level 1 and 15 level 2 violations = an overall SINGLE level 1 punishment (I think this is what the bears lawyers are thinking and this may be why they're after SA#39 so hard); or
(3) arbitrarily assign whatever punishment they believe fits the situation (which can result in terrible outcomes like the cam newton fiasco!)
i thought going into all this that the NCAA's matrix made sense and was designed to punish institutionalized corruption as in the case of bear-world....now i'm not so sure. Too much wiggle room but i know that if the NCAA lets the bears off lightly with the level of corruption they have exhibited over the years, then the NCAA will be laughing-stock and MCAA football will become dodge-city where nearly ANYTHING goes!!! after all, if you are caught with one level 1, why not commit 50 if they are not going to treat them separately? this seems to have been the bears' M.O.
i hope somebody has some light that they can share with me on this. send me a message if you don't want to respond here....
(1) assign a punishment based on the matrix for EACH SINGLE violation;
(2) assign a punishment based solely on the highest level of violation by the institution, e.g. one level 1 and 15 level 2 violations = an overall SINGLE level 1 punishment (I think this is what the bears lawyers are thinking and this may be why they're after SA#39 so hard); or
(3) arbitrarily assign whatever punishment they believe fits the situation (which can result in terrible outcomes like the cam newton fiasco!)
i thought going into all this that the NCAA's matrix made sense and was designed to punish institutionalized corruption as in the case of bear-world....now i'm not so sure. Too much wiggle room but i know that if the NCAA lets the bears off lightly with the level of corruption they have exhibited over the years, then the NCAA will be laughing-stock and MCAA football will become dodge-city where nearly ANYTHING goes!!! after all, if you are caught with one level 1, why not commit 50 if they are not going to treat them separately? this seems to have been the bears' M.O.
i hope somebody has some light that they can share with me on this. send me a message if you don't want to respond here....
Last edited:
On this list anything less than the maximum will be a disappointment to me. Fixing the ACT scores alone should lose them 15 scholarships and give 2 years probation.
Heck we basically have a 10 scholarship self imposed lack of recruiting penalty in effect this year.
Would you rather us be full this year -- and only able to sign about 10 guys in this class?
This situation actually happened years ago. So I don't really understand why it's still coming up. It's a dead horse. With our "under investigation" 2013 class, which turned out to be a disaster of underperformance and attrition. And not signing a ton of JUCOs in the 2016 class when that class was rising juniors. I talked about it at length at the time. Even though in hindsight that was a down year for elite JUCO talent in MS. Yes, I do think Mullen was ready to roll out after 2015 and he didn't do a great job of managing the roster in recruiting because of it. He got his reality check on the open job market with the amount he was being paid and Strick not extending him as a result. He looks fully reinvested ever since then.
Either way -- us being short this year is going to allow us to sign big classes in the next two and finally have a ~ balanced roster in two classes where we are a much sexier recruit destination for a bunch of reasons. It's going to let us fully take advantage of the final year of back-counting(this class). We've got quality depth across the board. The one position of argument being a third tackle, which is simply a matter of experience IMO(looks like Eiland is going to be pretty good in time).
I think the biggest problem UMiss is facing is the comment from the Investigators (in their response to UMiss' response) that UMiss CONTINUED TO COMMIT VIOLATIONS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION.
There was no remorse, no cleaning house, no attempt to correct things. In fact, they kept doing what they were doing while the NCAA was on campus.
There was no remorse, no cleaning house, no attempt to correct things. In fact, they kept doing what they were doing while the NCAA was on campus.
Well, the NCAA says...
ULL was Level I - Mitigated officially, but they also used the old penalty structure.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Lousiana-Lafayette Public Decision.pdf
I don't see anyway UM is anything other than Level I - Aggravated.
ULL was Level I - Mitigated officially, but they also used the old penalty structure.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Lousiana-Lafayette Public Decision.pdf
I don't see anyway UM is anything other than Level I - Aggravated.
We could do what BAMA does and use Grey Shirts, Injury Schollys and process out 3-5 players every year...
i just don't see the wisdom in assigning one designation for the whole case. a team like the bears could do exactly what the bears said they were going to do and once they got the level 1, just open it wide and get all you can....if that is what happens here, the bears will have successfully gamed the system and the system will be shown to be a joke!!!
Last edited: