The Bobcat Nation

Yup. Several got together and are appealing the sanctions ... well, they are trying to appeal the sanctions.

http://billingsgazette.com/sports/colle ... ca7d.html

Oh, the hubris.

Here's a fixed link:

http://billingsgazette.com/sports/colle ... 5ca7d.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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;

BWahlberg wrote: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.

TomCat88 wrote:

BWahlberg wrote: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.

catatac wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:

BWahlberg wrote: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.

This...

SACCAT wrote:

catatac wrote:

TomCat88 wrote:

BWahlberg wrote: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.

This...

Totally agree.

Personally, I would rather just see them pick themselves up and move forward. If there is a reduction in penalties, that is cool, but I think all would be better served if they would just man up, put that in the rear view mirror and keep driving.

Is there 2 years left on the scholarship reductions ?
When does the external review of athletic compliance come out ?

grizatwork wrote:Personally, I would rather just see them pick themselves up and move forward. If there is a reduction in penalties, that is cool, but I think all would be better served if they would just man up, put that in the rear view mirror and keep driving.

Agreed. And what catatac said.

It's like the Sopranos... It's over. Move on.

So long as their efforts don't open the possibility for further penalties I say go for it. Wahlberg's leadership is also a positive influence. He's not known for being a knee-jerk fan screaming at the sky over some imagined injustice. Ask Pat Williams. If it were PR leading the charge instead I'd probably just dismiss it.

So again, there doesn't seem to be a downside to what they're doing. The NCAA couldn't be more unpopular right now either so perhaps it's time to strike while the iron's hot.

Will griz fans be picketing outside the Triangle Classic Banquet ?

TomCat88 wrote:

BWahlberg wrote: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.

Cripes! That sounds bad.

Hawks86 wrote:Will griz fans be picketing outside the Triangle Classic Banquet ?

If I go, I will be inside drinking beer with the rest of you yokels.

catatac wrote: 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.

Well when you put it that way...

Our argument would follow more along these lines, "We're now almost 1 year in to our 3 year sanctions and would like to talk to you about the final 2 years of our scholarship reductions. After our self-imposed penalties it was brought to our attention that the subsequent penalties assessed to Oregon, Miami, and SE Louisiana were much lighter for larger violations than ours. Additionally your office has made recent press releases about changing enforcement methods and scaling back long-term penalties against other schools. We would like to start a review to see if our self-imposed penalties were too harsh and could be scaled back. We're not interested in a full-scale appeal or re-opening the investigation, we're not arguing the facts in the case. We've shown our commitment to improving compliance since the investigation and would like to see if a reduction would be considered. This action was started by some of our boosters who approached the University and we've decided to proceed with this request. A possible reduction would help help the current players, staff, and administration who have shown a solid commitment to compliance."

And I'll say I know this is a long shot and yes since they're self-imposed the UM is probably stuck.

BWahlberg wrote:

catatac wrote: 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.

Well when you put it that way...

Our argument would follow more along these lines, "We're now almost 1 year in to our 3 year sanctions and would like to talk to you about the final 2 years of our scholarship reductions. After our self-imposed penalties it was brought to our attention that the subsequent penalties assessed to Oregon, Miami, and SE Louisiana were much lighter for larger violations than ours. Additionally your office has made recent press releases about changing enforcement methods and scaling back long-term penalties against other schools. We would like to start a review to see if our self-imposed penalties were too harsh and could be scaled back. We're not interested in a full-scale appeal or re-opening the investigation, we're not arguing the facts in the case. We've shown our commitment to improving compliance since the investigation and would like to see if a reduction would be considered. This action was started by some of our boosters who approached the University and we've decided to proceed with this request. A possible reduction would help help the current players, staff, and administration who have shown a solid commitment to compliance."

Putting it that way sounds a lot better. Also... if this would have come directly from the admininstration I think it would have looked a lot better. I'm not sure if they would have agreed to a private meeting with you or not, but now that this is a public effort, the NCAA will surely know that this appeal was started by the fans\boosters. Once again, I'm not ripping on you for this, hell - I admire the passion. I probably would have done something similar... but I'm way too lazy for that.

One last thought... what the hell is wrong with the UM administration? Wow.

catatac wrote:
Putting it that way sounds a lot better. Also... if this would have come directly from the admininstration I think it would have looked a lot better. I'm not sure if they would have agreed to a private meeting with you or not, but now that this is a public effort, the NCAA will surely know that this appeal was started by the fans\boosters. Once again, I'm not ripping on you for this, hell - I admire the passion. I probably would have done something similar... but I'm way too lazy for that.

One last thought... what the hell is wrong with the UM administration? Wow.

I get ya, and you're totally right, I/my group should not have had to do this. It would have looked WAY better coming from the UM internally. However this is becoming a common issue with this administration, up front review and promises... and then nothing.

As for "what is wrong" with them. Consider the intense amount of stress they're under

1. The UM has now lost over 2500 students in the last 2 years.

2. Mass department and budget cuts are happening every semester.

3. Students are unhappy with the lack of resources. Teachers/Admins are unhappy with how stretched thin they are. Programs and classes are being cancelled.

4. Athletics revenue went from almost $1,000,000 profit to $500,000 profit this year and next year they'll be unveiling the softball program which will probably run deeply in the red

5. Athletics boosters are just pissed in general, seems like we always are, lol.

6. The college of technology first gets approved but a protest has it moved from the golf course. Then the new design and location falls under new scrutiny and now it seems the whole thing is a mess.

7. The Missoula vs DOJ ongoing PR battle and the continual mentions of the UM and it's prior handlings

8. John Krakauer's inquiry on the UM Court

---------

I mean.... yeah.... that's a sh*t storm right there.

Ya, but...


LOL, Just kidding! I didn't know things were that bad. That is a crap storm right there. Royce might wanna start polishing up that resume.

catatac wrote:Ya, but...


LOL, Just kidding! I didn't know things were that bad. That is a crap storm right there. Royce might wanna start polishing up that resume.

That's going to become my reply.

"UM enrollment drops again!"

- Yeah but we got Monte!

"Krakauer Book reveals major secrets!"

- Major secrets about Monte I hope!

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;