GSU NCAA Inquiry......
- Thread starter G-Man75
- Start date
- Status
G-Man75
Active Member
Grambling never cheats, first of all. Secondly, these guys never played they were on the roster and practiced some.... Them being on the roster is an SID problem and you see that he got fired with that being one of the reasons. Plus he was from SU. Never should have been hired. Gorilla warfare:shame: We will be okay, even with this surfacing a week before National Signing Day.......bluedog said:
JaguarNationAJL
Aquarius Man
:read:
bluedog
"Leader of Kings"
G-Man75 said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah and the reason doug lost to pete was because of the SU alumni on the coaching staff. We know the drill. :emlaugh:
Back Article published Jan 22, 2006
Worst case: No Classic for GSU
NCAA ruling possibly could affect TV games
By Nick Deriso
[email protected]
GRAMBLING — A cursory glance at the fallout from Grambling State's major NCAA infraction in 1978 reveals just how damaging the penalty can be.
GSU was restricted from postseason or television appearances from May 1978 to May 1979 after the NCAA Committee on Infractions found "improper administration of financial aid" as well as violations of "regulations governing the payment of recruiting expenses."
Back then, however, GSU's annual contest against Southern wasn't broadcast nationally by NBC.
Over the past 15 seasons, the Bayou Classic has grown not only into GSU's signature in-state rivalry but also into a cash cow that pushes upwards of $1 million into the school's coffers.
That's just one of the things at stake as the NCAA continues an investigation into possible violations relating to ineligible players at Grambling. Any requirement to forfeit games might put the football team's 2005 conference championship in jeopardy.
Neither NCAA nor school officials are commenting on the on-going inquiry, which is expected to take months to resolve.
Using ineligible players would count as a major infraction, violations which usually lead to stiff penalties involving post-season and television appearances, forfeited games, scholarship reductions and/or limited recruiting opportunities.
Grambling doesn't participate in the Division I-AA postseason, choosing instead to play Southern on what is traditionally the first week of the playoffs.
Occasionally, the game has championship implications, as it did in 2003 when the winner advanced to the Southwestern Athletic Conference title contest.
It always has budget ramifications.
The most recent numbers available to illustrate the game's financial impact come from a Dec. 31, 2004 report for GSU, the NCAA and the state's legislative auditor compiled by the New Orleans accounting firm of Bruno and Tervalon. The numbers are from the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004.
Of the school's total operating sports revenues of $5.5 million that year, an astounding 15 percent — $808,717 — came from the 2003 Bayou Classic alone.
If Grambling were restricted from appearing, Southern would have to find another opponent — if the contest was broadcast at all. The turmoil might also endanger the game's title sponsorship by State Farm.
The Bayou Classic isn't GSU's only TV date.
Last season, Grambling appeared on ESPN2's broadcast of the SWAC championship game, as well. School officials will also likely complete a football schedule that includes a 2006 contest against Hampton, also slated to air on ESPN2, before they receive a ruling.
The NCAA's enforcement staff is required to notify the university as to the "general status of the notice of allegations" no later than six months after the date of inquiry. Investigators conducted interviews last week on campus in an effort to determine if a major infraction has occurred.
Status reports then follow every six months until the matter is resolved. A final notice of allegations is eventually issued, and the institution has up to 90 days to respond — though schools can request additional time.
Once all responses have been gathered, a hearing date before the Committee on Infractions is set.
The NCAA investigation could reveal only minor, or secondary, infractions — which would result in a lighter sentence, perhaps even probation.
For instance, a news conference comment on the possible transfer of ex-Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett by former GSU coach Doug Williams in 2003 was deemed "secondary," and GSU was simply asked to step up training on NCAA regulations involving contact with student-athletes.
But the NCAA didn't send investigators to Grambling in advance of that inquiry, something commonly done with more serious possible violations.
Mane you sure as shooting can't make this stuff up. :lmao:
Looks like your daddy is going to have to make a decision on which stepchild is going to be the new favorite. :emlaugh:
:lol:
staggalee83
War & Thunder
:shame: :shame: :shame: :shame:
Jafus (Thinker)
Well-Known Member
Ralph,
Smile!!
Smile!!
Dr. Sweet NUPE
New Member
Southern...
.
.
.
.
.
don't worry about it...
.
.
.
.
.
don't worry about it...
MikeBigg
Well-Known Member
I think the former SID, Peter Forest, was an Alcorn Grad (not SU).
Also, despite the speculation and accusations, Patton (ruled ineligible due to having signed with an agent) nor the transfers in question (Bridges, Thompson, Harbor, etc) played in any games. I would imagine that the only guy who could not have practiced with the team once the season began would have been Patton. However, I doubt if any of the transfers practiced since that would be an unnecessary injury risk.
Who knows where the allegation/accusation originated. I'm hearing that it might have come from disgruntled players who were released from scholarship (or someone associated with them), "internal" enemies, or even other schools within the state whose interest is served by Grambling being placed on probation (especially during recruiting season).
Seems like the publicity that Grambling got by winning on the field has caused some losers to try and do damage OFF the field. Appreciate the concern but in all actuality, we gonna be just fine!
Also, despite the speculation and accusations, Patton (ruled ineligible due to having signed with an agent) nor the transfers in question (Bridges, Thompson, Harbor, etc) played in any games. I would imagine that the only guy who could not have practiced with the team once the season began would have been Patton. However, I doubt if any of the transfers practiced since that would be an unnecessary injury risk.
Who knows where the allegation/accusation originated. I'm hearing that it might have come from disgruntled players who were released from scholarship (or someone associated with them), "internal" enemies, or even other schools within the state whose interest is served by Grambling being placed on probation (especially during recruiting season).
Seems like the publicity that Grambling got by winning on the field has caused some losers to try and do damage OFF the field. Appreciate the concern but in all actuality, we gonna be just fine!
staggalee83
War & Thunder
Again.....................:shame: :shame: :shame:
MikeBigg said:
Peter is a Southern graduate, however this is IN NO WAY an SID's error. He can only share information from what is given to him, not the other way around. This would fall to the head coach, compliance officers and even the AD if need be, but never an SID. His/her only job is to put information out to the media from what is given to them.
LoyalTigress
Lovejones
All these wishful thoughts and you don't see anyone from Grambling busting a sweat! :licky:
Media guides are created before the season starts and the SID uses the roster given to him/her at that time. The SID doesn't make it up. Again, is the implication such that the SID was given a non-violating roster but didn't update the official one? This makes two Grambling folks that are pointing at the SID... is he the scapegoat?GRAM4LIFE said:
FYI, Lennard was named 1st team SWAC defense in our magazine which came out in August.
GRAM4LIFE said:
...so a media guide is just that, its not an official publication. Anything submitted to the NCAA as an official roster comes from the coach, et al.
Ralph said:
Thats the way it appears, but things just don't work like that. An SID has NO ADMINISTRATIVE POWER whatsoever, except for maybe that office. LOL.
- Status