Griz fans appeal UM sanctions

[tampa_griz]

Good grief. Whether or not you agree with agree with the merits of BW's argument, we all should take a lesson in what it means to bitch about something as opposed to actually doing something about it.

http://m.nbcmontana.com/news/griz-boost ... n/25313224" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[John K]

Good grief. Whether or not you agree with agree with the merits of BW's argument, we all should take a lesson in what it means to bitch about something as opposed to actually doing something about it.

http://m.nbcmontana.com/news/griz-boost ... n/25313224" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll agree with you on that point, but I believe it will prove to be an exercise in futility, to appeal a self-imposed penalty. I'm sure the NCAA's stance will be, and rightfully so in my opinion, if you believe the sanctions are so unfair, why did you propose them in the first place? It's somewhat analogous to someone who sells a car, but after the fact comes to believe that he/she sold it for less than fair value, and then goes back and asks the buyer for more money. As I've stated before, I do believe the penalties were about right, and I don't for a minute buy into BW's argument that "the loss of scholarships will impact the football program for years to come". He also commented that "it’s impacting players who weren’t around for the penalties.", but unfortunately that's the way it always works whenever the NCAA penalizes a school, so I don't think that argument will carry much weight either.

[grizatwork]

It may very well be an exercise in futility. The worst that could happen is they say no. Even then, Main hall gets a message from the people who write the checks. Again, I am more of a take my medicine and move on type a person, but kudos to Wahlberg, Coyle, et al for doing more than just lip service.

[BWahlberg]

Good grief. Whether or not you agree with agree with the merits of BW's argument, we all should take a lesson in what it means to bitch about something as opposed to actually doing something about it.

http://m.nbcmontana.com/news/griz-boost ... n/25313224" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think of myself as a man of action.

http://www.standupforthegriz.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

#ShamelessPlug

[tampa_griz]

Good grief. Whether or not you agree with agree with the merits of BW's argument, we all should take a lesson in what it means to bitch about something as opposed to actually doing something about it.

http://m.nbcmontana.com/news/griz-boost ... n/25313224" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'll agree with you on that point, but I believe it will prove to be an exercise in futility, to appeal a self-imposed penalty. I'm sure the NCAA's stance will be, and rightfully so in my opinion, if you believe the sanctions are so unfair, why did you propose them in the first place? It's somewhat analogous to someone who sells a car, but after the fact comes to believe that he/she sold it for less than fair value, and then goes back and asks the buyer for more money. As I've stated before, I do believe the penalties were about right, and I don't for a minute buy into BW's argument that "the loss of scholarships will impact the football program for years to come". He also commented that "it’s impacting players who weren’t around for the penalties.", but unfortunately that's the way it always works whenever the NCAA penalizes a school, so I don't think that argument will carry much weight either.

Yeah I probably wouldn't bet on the NCAA reducing the penalties but you never know. The only issue UM's boosters have a decent argument for would be the fairness compared to other schools. If anything, Engstrom and Haslam are learning that there are a few intelligent and articulate boosters willing to go through the proper channels to help the program.

[Hawks86]

Did anybody actually look at what Boise got their penalties for ? It was very minor crap just like some of UM's.

“impermissible housing, transportation or meals, where an incoming student-athlete was provided a place to sleep (often on a couch or floor), a car ride or was provided free food by an existing student-athlete.”

[BWahlberg]

Did anybody actually look at what Boise got their penalties for ? It was very minor crap just like some of UM's.

“impermissible housing, transportation or meals, where an incoming student-athlete was provided a place to sleep (often on a couch or floor), a car ride or was provided free food by an existing student-athlete.”

Theirs though invovled 63 student athletes.

[TomCat88]

The worst part, the first year of recruiting, of the penalties is already over. The time for the school to appeal is right after the penalties were handed down, but they were self-administered in this case, so that wasn't going to happen. Now that UM has gone through the first year of recruiting there isn't much to salvage unless there's a few top notch recruits still sitting out there, which isn't likely. Even if successful in getting a reduction, it will only effect the last two years.

During the first year recruits are told that the school has this year and two others to endure the penalties. Assuming one of the key factors in swaying a recruit is winning, this year's recruits figured out that they'll probably be a junior or possibly a senior when this runs its course. That's a big chunk of your career to risk, especially if other top end schools, like EWU, MSU, Poly or others with recent playoff appearances are also offering. Next year's batch will be told there's this year and next and they'll either be sophs or juniors when it's over. The last year they will be either frosh or soph when it's over. So that risk lessens.

UM did recruit some good players this year, but it was pretty obvious that it was a down year relative to the past 15-20. You have to chalk that up the penalties/probation. I would expect the recruiting classes to get increasingly better over the next two years, especially since this year's class probably isn't going to play and UM won't see a big dropoff in wins, which would scare some recruits off. The brunt of this probably won't be seen until the second or third year, but even that could be marginal since UM will still have a lot of players in its system that are pre-penalty.

I'm not trying to sound like I think it's a bad idea, because it can't hurt and if anything comes from it, it's a success. It's also a good idea in that the UM administrators couldn't do this on their own without looking foolish. Since it's coming from outside the school it eliminates some of the head-scratching an appeal committee would be doing. Of course the appeal committee would have to be made to understand that the UM administrators would first need to be convinced by the outsiders that it's the proper and worthwhile thing to do. That could cause the NCAA to wonder why the administrators couldn't figure this out on their own.

If these penalties were given to a marginal school they'd have a bigger, long term effect, but UM has so many things going for it, such as a long history of winning, great stadium and fan support, that this isn't going to send it into a big tailspin.

[catatac]

Anyone know what's happening with the grass roots effort to get the NCAA to open back up the UM case?

[[cat_bracket]]

Anyone know what's happening with the grass roots effort to get the NCAA to open back up the UM case?

I have no idea, but the Missoulian is running a big article tomorrow on UM having a record-breaking year in fund raising. So that probably eases the threat of losing donors if they don't satisfy those behind the grass roots effort by going to the NCAA with it. One guy just made the largest single donation in UM history with $11 million a few weeks ago. You can take that a lot of ways, but
I'm sure Engstrom has to feel somewhat vindicated as the support for academia seems to be coming through for UM, while the athletics fans are still hell bent on bashing him. I'm sure the BOR is pleased.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/um-hea ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[catatac]

And UM enrollment is way down where as MSU is up, correct?

[catatac]

Don't really like the word appeal, suppose it applies though.

What we're asking for is a review and a possible reduction in scholarship penalties. Not wanting to argue right or wrong but just does the punishment fit the violation? Evidence would suggest no.

http://egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=66045" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only problem I have with this is that you're doing it right in the middle of spring ball and March Madness. If you would've just waited a couple more weeks, the conversation on this would've helped pass the time into June or so.

Seriously, I think it's a good cause. If nothing else it shows the team you support them immensely. I don't know what all went into your administration's decision to set the penalties as they did. It would've been nice if they were more transparent with the meetings they had with their consultants that brought them to their conclusion that 4 scholarships over 3 years was appropriate. Did they do a comparison with other schools and the infractions and penalties they were given? I would think so.

I think Engstrom would be politically wise to carry this forward to the NCAA and considering the backlash he's been getting, I'd be surprised if he didn't.

As for on the field, I'd like to see the penalty overturned. No one wants to have to think they beat a team when they were down, regardless of whether it's due to sanctions, injuries, suspended players, illness, etc. I think something like 6 of the last 7 Cat-Griz games have had one of those factors in play. 2007-2009 MSU was dealing with a scholarship reduction, 2010 was good, 2011 UM had to forfeit, 2012 UM was without Johnson, 2013 MSU was crippled by injuries, now 2014-2016 UM will be down with scholarship reductions. So in 10 years only one game will be played at full strength. That sucks for everyone.

Hmmm. So the UM officials are going to approach the NCAA and say, "So... I know we not only agreed to, but actually proposed these penalties... but uh, this group of fans got together, and they were pretty mad, and they told us the penalties were too harsh and that they might actually cause us to lose some games which would seriously hurt the quality of this historically great football team, and so we're wondering if you could, you know... maybe reduce them a bit?" Oh, and by the way... one of the drivers for this investigation was the idea that perhaps some of the UM fans\boosters might be a bit too close to the program.

I applaud Brint for the dedication and enthusiasm on this one, but I don't see the NCAA opening this back up and changing anything. I could be wrong.

Denied. UM officials decided not to back to the NCAA. Pretty much what I thought they'd do.

[BWahlberg]

Yep, President Engstrom met with the QB Club on Tuesday (I was there, I'm a member) and discussed his decision not to proceed with it. He sought out a 2nd legal opinion from an experienced lawfirm in StL who has a history of working with schools in NCAA related issues. They agreed the penalties were fair and pointed out that there's no actual means to appeal or request a reduction by the method of how the UM self-imposed.

He took our whitepaper, sought an opinion on what to do (in fact he told us he was thinking of requesting a reduction before the whitepaper even), and came back to us with a second opinion that said it wouldn't work and the penalties are fair.

I'm still in disagreement on the fairness level, but I'm a biased Griz fan, so maybe I just can't see through those maroon colored glasses.

Ready to move on though, I'm glad we did what we could and that the president took it seriously.

[BLACKnBLUEnGOLD]

Did anybody actually look at what Boise got their penalties for ? It was very minor crap just like some of UM's.

“impermissible housing, transportation or meals, where an incoming student-athlete was provided a place to sleep (often on a couch or floor), a car ride or was provided free food by an existing student-athlete.”

Sorry for quoting an old post, but...hold up here. It's perfectly legal for the NCAA and the colleges to make a gazillion dollars off their contract with EA sports, but it's illegal for recruits to hang out with their future teammates?

I hate the NCAA.

[PapaG]

Yep, President Engstrom met with the QB Club on Tuesday (I was there, I'm a member) and discussed his decision not to proceed with it. He sought out a 2nd legal opinion from an experienced lawfirm in StL who has a history of working with schools in NCAA related issues. They agreed the penalties were fair and pointed out that there's no actual means to appeal or request a reduction by the method of how the UM self-imposed.

He took our whitepaper, sought an opinion on what to do (in fact he told us he was thinking of requesting a reduction before the whitepaper even), and came back to us with a second opinion that said it wouldn't work and the penalties are fair.

I'm still in disagreement on the fairness level, but I'm a biased Griz fan, so maybe I just can't see through those maroon colored glasses.

Ready to move on though, I'm glad we did what we could and that the president took it seriously.

Don Quixote thought he was being taken seriously, too.

[TomCat88]

Whenever I hear people talk about this they seem to dwell on the minor infractions that were uncovered and not the major ones. In UM's case that's the hot dogs after games, the Griz Mom lady fixing them meals and the student assistant in charge of splicing film or whatever it was putting in too many hours. There were some fairly significant things going on that people at UM should've of known was wrong, perhaps they weren't huge deals, but things that are just so obviously wrong that mere logic would lead you to do the right thing.

For instance, you can't not know that you, as staff in UM's athletic department, can't house and provide meals and other services to an athlete and you can't not know that you need to report a rape claim to your supervisor if it's been taken to the police or that boosters can't provide legal service. Nothing real criminal, but things that are so obviously against the rules that you can't just pull a George Costanza and say "was that wrong? Should I not have done that?"

[youtube][/youtube]

I'm no expert on how sanctions are dealt out, but if these were too harsh it wasn't by much.