Gamecock-NCAA conspiracy theory

When it comes to the NCAA enforcement folks, I tend to fall into the camp that views them as sometimes overwhelmed, sometimes incompetent people who inconsistently apply a set of rules that have grown as complicated as the Internal Revenue Code, and not, say, a bunch of evil bastards who ruthlessly pursue certain schools unfairly (an Alabama fan, in other words).

But I’ve got to say that if this rumor has legs, I may think about changing sides.

… This morning, someone (someone I trust) called me to share the same rumor that I then saw in a lot of different places: That those five players would serve two-game suspensions, in the USM and Furman games.

I can say first that I have NOT confirmed that. I’ve asked around, but no one credible is biting on that one. (See: My first point? Or maybe it’s just not accurate?)

Burning question: How would the players get to play in the Georgia game? That concept seems idealistic, to me. If it was negotiated by the university, to have the opener be mandatory and then get to pick the second game, give that person a raise. It’s plausible, I guess. But … it’s a stretch.

If it is true, I’d be somewhat outraged if I were a Georgia fan. That’s some flexible justice. Which is what makes me doubt it, considering it’s coming from the NCAA.

Somewhat outraged?  No, that’s how I’d feel if Spurrier were to impose internal discipline on a selected basis.  If the NCAA became involved in picking sides like that, I think I’d be feeling something more akin to a five-alarm, where’s-my-damned-shotgun outrage – especially considering how they’ve left Georgia twisting in the wind with regard to A.J. Green.

I doubt this is true, but I’ll sure be paying attention tonight to the pre-game talk.

About these ads

38 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

38 responses to “Gamecock-NCAA conspiracy theory

  1. The Realist

    That would be a first, and a very ugly precedent for the NCAA to set. They have never allowed schools to decide which games players would sit when eligibility & amateur status is the issue. South Carolina may choose to sit them for two games on their own outside of mandatory NCAA rules infractions, but there is no way the NCAA is handing down a two game suspension and allowing South Carolina to decide those two games.

    For another thing, I thought the player is ineligible until he serves his entire suspension and all remedies are made, so he would technically be ineligible for the Georgia game whether he was “suspended” or not… no?

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      Even if the NCAA approves this can’t UGA protest to the SEC? If somebody is illegal and shouldn’t be playing, they shouldn’t be playing. If that player does USC should forfeit the game. Tell’em in advance to be fair so SOS can hold out the players, though.

  2. Tommy

    Kudos to the commenter who managed to type this and not have his head exploded by the implicit cognitive dissonance:

    “I think the Gamecocks are in the right if they can pick the suspensions, although its not very ethical.”

    • The Realist

      I saw that, too. It’s right, but unethical… Clearly, he doesn’t understand the meaning of one of the two words. The only explanation:

      South Carolina fans exist on a plane far removed the constructs of reason. How else could they believe their team is going to win it all on an annual basis when they haven’t won anything ever?

    • Bryant Denny

      This comes from a Bama fan, so consider the source… :)

      One could make the argument that the 1) NCAA is full of crap; 2) the penalties would unfairly hurt the whole team; 3) therefore penalties should be contrived that would punish the player, but not the overall team – i.e. the buffet-style suspensions.

      Have a good day,

      BD

      • Puffdawg

        That’s a weak argument because Steve Spurrier (and by extension his team) should be punished just as much as the players. For him to say he knew the players were staying at Indigo but did not know the details of their lease agreements is a slap in the face to college football. He knew exactly what kind of place it was because he’s lived there before. Call it the Pete Carroll Process. Hear no evil, see no evil.

  3. Bryant Denny

    C’mon over, Senator. Plenty of room over here. :)

    • Mayor of Dawgtown

      BD, even if the Senator is not in with you on the conspiracy theory I am. The NCAA certainly has no love for UGA since the lawsuit brought by UGA and OU divested the NCAA of its monopoly on college football TV programming.

  4. Macallanlover

    Conferences should set the suspension rules, not the schools, or head coaches. Playing with the timing of suspensions is mocking the both the rules and the system. It is the wrong message to send players if you truly want them to have any respect the guidelines. We have seen Spurrier & Urbie play this game before.

    I don’t see UGA as twisting in the wind on this, although it is unacceptable for the NCAA to have not made a decision by now. AJ is the only person involved from what I have heard so either he was in Miami, or not. Doesn’t seem to require much time does it? AJ has looked CMR in the eye and said he not only wasn’t there this summer, but has never been to Miami. I hope we don’t need a group from Kansas to interpret the facts beyond that. While Richt cannot say anything publicly, there is no reason to hold AJ out of Saturday’s game unless he has information otherwise.

    • Bryant Denny

      Yeah, but if conferences set the suspension dates it would be harder to finagle things to where you have all your players against tough teams. :)

    • anon

      Apparently it isn’t about whether AJ was in South Beach, it was that there may or may not have been some other contact with that agent.

      Jus’ what I’m hearin’ . . .

  5. Derek

    My supposition is that USC may offer the two game suspension as a demonstration of contriteness and institutional control as opposed to the NCAA setting that as the penalty. Just a guess.

  6. Chip Bankhead

    This sounds like it could be a “plea-bargain” being put out by the sc admin. Conventional wisdom is that NCAA seems to go easier on schools that offer up self imposed sanctions. Since this is “sourced” to people close to the program, it’s being spun like the admin is negotiating an optimal deal. More likely they’re just crossing their fingers hoping the NCAA won’t notice the particular order. It seems decisions to foreit wins usually comes well after the season’s over. Do you think any sc fans will care about a post-season forfeit vs. a win over UGA on the field?
    It’s their super bowl no matter what happens later in the year as it is.

  7. No One Knows You're a Dawg

    What functions does the NCAA perform that could not be as well performed by the conferences themselves?

    Why does the NCAA still exist?

  8. Mr. Tu

    What are the details on Hotel-gate. Reading the FGF yesterday, they made it sound like it was just a matter of a few players being behind on their rent at the Hotel, and not a matter of receiving a substantially reduced rate. Does anyone know if it was one or the other, or both?

    • Reptillicide

      Both, according to what I’ve read. They were receiving a reduced rate that wasn’t approved by the hotel ownership (which is in Washington, DC, not Columbia) and fell behind on those payments.

      • It has been confirmed that they didn’t receive a reduced rate. The original reports were assuming that one player was staying in each room, whereas they were actually doubling. The prices made sense when this came out.

        Some players were indeed behind, though.

        • ChicagoDawg

          So, if they were “doubling,” then the discount for the players ($15/day x 2 = $30/day) only an additional 47.36% vs. the normally discounted rate of $57/day available to the general public??

          Got it! Okay, I guess you are right, they received no reduced rates.

  9. Normaltown Mike

    If you hadn’t notices, to the casual viewer the Ball Coach is the most recognized personality in the NCAA. That’s why the WWL started the year with USCe for 5 of past 6 years.

    Sez the NCAA- “We must protect this house”

    • The Realist

      The NCAA isn’t making any money on UGA-USC… (and judging by the ticket sales, neither is USC).

      So, what does the NCAA have to gain by keeping USC as competitive as possible in that game? I’m not sure I follow that reasoning.

  10. 69Dawg

    All SCU players physically able to perform will be dressed for the UGA game and will play in the game if they are. Why even wait time on this. SOS has done the split suspension thing before.

  11. The Realist

    If there was no wrong-doing as far as a preferential rate, then why did Spurrier require the players to move out of the hotel? If they were just splitting the normally available rate, then they should have been allowed to stay. It’s no different from any other apartment then.

  12. shane#1

    ” He’s just being Steve. I’ll tell you this, the guy runs a clean program.” Mark Richt’s reaction to a reporter’s question regarding one of the OBC’s smart assed remarks concerning UGA. How could “hotelgate” slip by SOS? Could a lack of depth have caused Spurrier to overlook things that he would never have stood for at UF? I believe Garcia would have been shown the door in his freshman year if Spurrier had the depth at QB that he had at Florida.