mattd 3 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Does anyone have any information on what we were penalized of when we went on probation?...just curious how it compares to Bama's probation....we had some of our best years while on probation.....of course the Tide keeps using the excuse that probation is the only reason we've beaten them 4 straight...anyway any help is appreciated.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue72 0 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 A box of steaks to one Eric (the beggar) Ramsay. A group of Red Elephants in the B'ham area, angered that AU had won four in a row and moved the Iron Bowl out of Lesion Field, encouraged Mr. Ramsay to beg for help feeding his family and record the response. Beware, we have now won four in a row again and the Red Elephants are restless!!!! They will stop at nothing to change the current trend. They will either resort to openly buying players or trying to frame AU, or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 A box of steaks to one Eric (the beggar) Ramsay. A group of Red Elephants in the B'ham area, angered that AU had won four in a row and moved the Iron Bowl out of Lesion Field, encouraged Mr. Ramsay to beg for help feeding his family and record the response. Beware, we have now won four in a row again and the Red Elephants are restless!!!! They will stop at nothing to change the current trend. They will either resort to openly buying players or trying to frame AU, or both. 209997[/snapback] Sad to say but you are 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 96 10 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 If you live right, you can't be framed. Should have sent him to a church, or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bammanmr 0 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 not that the probation wasn't a killer (we did recover nicely in 93-97), but just think............ giving that loser scumbag a box of steaks is we ended up getting nailed on. the investigation and penalties took over 2 years. 2 STINKING YEARS!!! now granted we weren't the most talented team in 91 and 92, but looking back, the investigation hurt us worse than the actual probation (aside from hiring tot to replace a legend). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Alabama was hit with more reductions in scholarships, less so in regards to bowl and TV bans. However, while looking at the violations, Auburn's dealt with about $15,000 to an existing athlete, Alabam's dealt with about $150,000 to a recruit and his "representatives". It can be argued that Means never saw any of that money, but it is debatable. Did the punishments fit the crimes? Probably. Should anyone still be using any of it as an excuse? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 "It was all UT fault! ! !" No. Wait. That would be the uaters line. Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUdaREALsecTigers 2 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 If you live right, you can't be framed. Should have sent him to a church, or something. 210012[/snapback] I agree... but we gave a box of steaks and helped arrange a loan for an athlete supposedly in need who was already on the roster. A mediocre one at that. We did not do it to benefit AU. CPD was just trying to help his player out. A church would have been a better response but I can't fault Dye too much for this one. On a side note, did any of you older guys go to the graduation of Eric and Twilita? It was a riot! WDE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Alabama was hit with more reductions in scholarships, less so in regards to bowl and TV bans. However, while looking at the violations, Auburn's dealt with about $15,000 to an existing athlete, Alabam's dealt with about $150,000 to a recruit and his "representatives". It can be argued that Means never saw any of that money, but it is debatable. Did the punishments fit the crimes? Probably. Should anyone still be using any of it as an excuse? No. 210053[/snapback] AU Probation: 33 Scholarships 2 years 2 bowls 1 year of TV Year prior to sanctions: 5-5-1 '93-'96: 36-9-1 (.782) 2-2 v. UAT UAT Probation: 25 Scholarships 2 years 2 Bowls Year prior to sanctions: 7-5 '02-'05: 29-20 (.591) 0-4 v. Auburn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Here is the NCAA summary: Institution: Auburn University Date: 18-AUG-93 Facts Summary: Cash and unsecured loans provided to student-athletes as extra benefits; lack of institutional control; unethical conduct. Violation Summary: EXTRA BENEFITS: athletics representatives provided at least $4,000 in cash and merchandise; assistant coach provided $500; administrative assistant provided several thousand dollars in cash payments; athletics representative approved a $9,200 and several other unsecured loans based upon future earnings as professional athletes; student-athletes allowed to enroll with oustanding accounts with the university. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. ERRONEOUS CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE. Penalty Summary: Public reprimand; annual reports; reduction from 25 to 14 initial grants for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96; reduction from 88 to 86 total grants for 1993-94 and from 85 to 83 for 1994-95 and 1995-96; permanent disassociation of former assistant coach, former administrative assistant and two athletics representatives; separation of duties of head football coach and athletics director; recertification. Involved Sports: Football Involved Penalties: TV: 1 yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: Yes Postseason: 2 yrs Recruiting: No Probation: 2 yrs Show Cause Action: Yes Link Click on major infractions and put Auburn in the search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Penalty Summary: Public reprimand; annual reports; reduction from 25 to 14 initial grants for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96; reduction from 88 to 86 total grants for 1993-94 and from 85 to 83 for 1994-95 and 1995-96; permanent disassociation of former assistant coach, former administrative assistant and two athletics representatives; separation of duties of head football coach and athletics director; recertification. 210170[/snapback] Here is where I got confused. If you then click on the public report button, it brings up a long description of the case and has this in the penalties: F. The Committee on Infractions adopts the penalties imposed by the institution upon itself and its coaches, staff and representatives of its athletics interests as follows: 1. Reduction of the initial grants-in-aid in the sport of football from 25 to 24 during the 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years, and the annual limit on such grants from 88 to 86 for the 1993-94 academic year, and from 85 to 83 for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years. I think the 14 is correct, but the 24 in the long description was the first thing I saw, resulting in my erroneous thinking that we did not get slammed on schollys, when in fact, we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattd 3 Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 Thanks that's exactly what I was looking for....i get tired of my brother in law whinning about schollys and saying that is the only reason we have beaten them...i kept telling him that we went throught the same thing and didn't miss much of a beat but...well you know the rest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Alabama was hit with more reductions in scholarships, less so in regards to bowl and TV bans. However, while looking at the violations, Auburn's dealt with about $15,000 to an existing athlete, Alabam's dealt with about $150,000 to a recruit and his "representatives". It can be argued that Means never saw any of that money, but it is debatable. Did the punishments fit the crimes? Probably. Should anyone still be using any of it as an excuse? No. 210053[/snapback] AU Probation: 33 Scholarships 2 years 2 bowls 1 year of TV Year prior to sanctions: 5-5-1 '93-'96: 36-9-1 (.782) 2-2 v. UAT UAT Probation: 25 Scholarships 2 years 2 Bowls Year prior to sanctions: 7-5 '02-'05: 29-20 (.591) 0-4 v. Auburn 210146[/snapback] But wait. Aren't teams that are "ravaged" by probation supposed to suffer with losing records, especially against their in state rival, for many-many years after? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattd 3 Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 I just cause a big debate here at the office...I've got a guy that played in the Bama band and a former Bama basketball player here and they are spinning like never before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shug2003 1 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 You are sooooooooooo right Trueblue72! It's no secret that Bryant was behind some of Auburn's probations and its also no secret that they would love to knock us down again..... The statement by somone that "if we are not doing anything wrong" we have nothing to fear is not quite accurate.... EVERY team breaks some rules inadvertenly and this includes both major and minor rules. All it takes this day and time is for someone to be very vigilant and look hard for those rules violations and report them. The "gentleman rule" where you report any knowledge of violations to a fellow coach is over and done with.... because there are very few real gentlemen left in this cut-throat profession. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox but we have more to fear than fear itself as long as that other bunch across the state competes with us..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draven 0 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 They will either resort to openly buying players or trying to frame AU, or both. Does anyone honestly think they have ever stopped doing either of these things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Thanks that's exactly what I was looking for....i get tired of my brother in law whinning about schollys and saying that is the only reason we have beaten them...i kept telling him that we went throught the same thing and didn't miss much of a beat but...well you know the rest... 210229[/snapback] We didn't miss a beat in 93 & 94 but the distraction of the investigation destroyed the '92 season. Dye had left a loaded cupboard and CTB was a good offensive coordinator. The loss of scholarships really showed up in '95 & '96. We had a good year in '97. After that year, the lack of quality recruiting took its toll. Alabama is facing, on top of the loss of scholarships, the turmoil in the coaching changes. So they compounded their problems and has affected their ability to recruit suffcient quality players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I was incorrect on the UAT info just a bit. They actually were hit with 5 years probation rather than 2 according to the NCAA website. The scholly reductions were spread over 3 years ('03-'05). Maybe that is what they are all whining about. It's the 5 years that no one has ever had to come back from and not the scholarships! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Thanks that's exactly what I was looking for....i get tired of my brother in law whinning about schollys and saying that is the only reason we have beaten them...i kept telling him that we went throught the same thing and didn't miss much of a beat but...well you know the rest... 210229[/snapback] We didn't miss a beat in 93 & 94 but the distraction of the investigation destroyed the '92 season. Dye had left a loaded cupboard and CTB was a good offensive coordinator. The loss of scholarships really showed up in '95 & '96. We had a good year in '97. After that year, the lack of quality recruiting took its toll. Alabama is facing, on top of the loss of scholarships, the turmoil in the coaching changes. So they compounded their problems and has affected their ability to recruit suffcient quality players. 210322[/snapback] AF, you are correct but you will NEVER get a uater to admit it. They "think" they are "over" the probation now, or at least after this season, and will be back on equal footing with everyone else. It just doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrnfanatc 6 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 They only "think" they are over the probation when they are winning (see SI cover and the whole "back" thing). They are "back" until their first loss and then they are just a poor downtrodden probation ridden school that was set up by...well, you know the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Bo 0 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 That site has conflicting information. The summary on the first page says one thing but if you click on the button for the public notice it says something different. A. The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured, and placed on probation for a period of two years. The two-year period shall begin on November 23, 1993, the date the probationary period imposed in the previous case ends. In the event of an appeal by the university to the Infractions Appeals Committee, if the decision of the Committee on Infractions is sustained, the Infractions Appeals Committee shall set the date for the commencement of the probationary period. B. Auburn University shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3 concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case. The effective date for the purpose of this action shall be the date the 15-day appeal period expires or the date the institution notifies the executive director that it will not appeal, whichever is earlier, or, in the event of an appeal, the date established by the Infractions Appeals Committee. C. During the period of probation, the institution shall expand its educational program (e.g., seminars and testing) to instruct coaches and athletics department personnel on NCAA legislation. It also shall develop an improved system of distributing educational materials concerning NCAA rules to all known representatives of its athletics interests. A preliminary report shall be submitted in writing to the NCAA enforcement staff by October 1, 1993, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program, and annual written progress reports shall be filed with the NCAA enforcement staff by July 1 of each year thereafter during the probationary period. D. The institution's football team shall end its 1993 and 1994 seasons with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest [Page 15] during each of those years and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition or take advantage of any of the exemptions provided in Bylaw 17.7.5.2. E. The institution's football team shall not be eligible to appear in any telecast during the 1993 season, except for the closed-circuit telecast exception provided for in Bylaw 19.5.2.5.1. This ineligibility to appear on television shall include live broadcasts, delayed broadcasts, cable broadcasts and game footage that exceeds a total of five minutes on coaches' shows at the institution. The institution may not enter into any contracts or agreements to permit any broadcasts of its football games. If the institution has previously entered into such contracts for the 1993 football season, then this penalty shall be imposed during the 1994 football season. F. The Committee on Infractions adopts the penalties imposed by the institution upon itself and its coaches, staff and representatives of its athletics interests as follows: 1. Reduction of the initial grants-in-aid in the sport of football from 25 to 24 during the 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years, and the annual limit on such grants from 88 to 86 for the 1993-94 academic year, and from 85 to 83 for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years. So, which was it? Did they lose 11 per year for 3 years which is what the summary of penalties state, or 1 per year for 3 years which is what the public notice states? Link to Public Notice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saniflush 0 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 It's the NCAA.....The can't tell you which one is correct either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.