Montana St Loses Three Scholarships

[TexasTerror]

Bad news for the 'Cats, who lost three scholarships from their football program for APR-related issues. According to the article, this is "the second time in several years that the MSU football program of head coach Mike Kramer has lost scholarships because of the APR deficiency."

Kramer and MSU seems to believe they got their act together this past recruiting season and hope to be over this hump...

MSU loses three football scholarships
By Tribune Staff

BOZEMAN — Montana State's football program will lose three scholarships next season because of a failure to attain NCAA academic standards as established by the NCAA, and university administrators vow to make improvements in recruiting and providing academic support for Bobcat athletes.

The school released a report conducted last December by officials who examined MSU policies in all sports. While the report, requested by MSU President Geoff Gamble and written by officials from the NCAA, the Southeastern Conference and the Big Sky Conference, found many strengths in the university's current athletic procedures, it suggested several improvements, particularly related to the recruiting, academic, social mentoring and graduation rate of MSU football players.

The scholarship penalty, which means the football program will operate with the equivalent of 60 instead of the 63 grants allowed by Football Championship Subdivision (formerly NCAA I-AA) schools, was assessed because the Bobcats lagged behind the required standard in the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate, which monitors graduation success.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070221/SPORTS/702210336

[OB55]

Bad news for the 'Cats, who lost three scholarships from their football program for APR-related issues. According to the article, this is "the second time in several years that the MSU football program of head coach Mike Kramer has lost scholarships because of the APR deficiency."

Kramer and MSU seems to believe they got their act together this past recruiting season and hope to be over this hump...

MSU loses three football scholarships
By Tribune Staff

BOZEMAN — Montana State's football program will lose three scholarships next season because of a failure to attain NCAA academic standards as established by the NCAA, and university administrators vow to make improvements in recruiting and providing academic support for Bobcat athletes.

The school released a report conducted last December by officials who examined MSU policies in all sports. While the report, requested by MSU President Geoff Gamble and written by officials from the NCAA, the Southeastern Conference and the Big Sky Conference, found many strengths in the university's current athletic procedures, it suggested several improvements, particularly related to the recruiting, academic, social mentoring and graduation rate of MSU football players.

The scholarship penalty, which means the football program will operate with the equivalent of 60 instead of the 63 grants allowed by Football Championship Subdivision (formerly NCAA I-AA) schools, was assessed because the Bobcats lagged behind the required standard in the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate, which monitors graduation success.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070221/SPORTS/702210336
This is a tough deal, it is a lesson for all programs who are thinking short term instead of long term. In my opinion, Mike has learned this lesson and has proved it in two ways. #1, turning down an valid opportunity to coach at his alma mater so he could get the Bobcat program headed in the right direction after a tumultuous year for MSU athletes. #2, Getting back to the local buy in with his 2007 recruiting class.

Moral of the story is at the D-1FCS level, there should be no reason to not stay on the high road. Forgo the temptation of quick fix recruiting, and go with area talent with freshman recruits, and reap the benefit by better press, more seats filled in the stadium, and better graduation rates.

At the risk of being deep fried by thousands of UM fans on the board, I would like to point out something. Two National Championships, both with Montana kids at QB. Dave D. and Jonathan E., two big shot transfers since then, Ochs and Swogger, displacing next in line at the last minute, loss of team chemestry, and falling short both times in the Play offs.xcoffeex

BTW, pre-empting the what about UNC responses that are due and deserved, yes I know and I am embarrassed. Hopefully they will get their act together and follow Kramer to higher ground soon.:cool:

[NE MT GRIZZ]

Did the Cats know this before recruiting, or do they have to pull the 3 scholarships from kids?

[OB55]

Did the Cats know this before recruiting, or do they have to pull the 3 scholarships from kids?
In reading the article it was in December that MSU released a report to the public, so I would believe this process had been ongoing for a while. Also the article seemed to clearly indicate MSU went into recruiting season knowing they would have 60 instead of 63 scholarships to work with.

Pretty good article, check it out.:)

[Ronbo]

This is a tough deal, it is a lesson for all programs who are thinking short term instead of long term. In my opinion, Mike has learned this lesson and has proved it in two ways. #1, turning down an valid opportunity to coach at his alma mater so he could get the Bobcat program headed in the right direction after a tumultuous year for MSU athletes. #2, Getting back to the local buy in with his 2007 recruiting class.

Moral of the story is at the D-1FCS level, there should be no reason to not stay on the high road. Forgo the temptation of quick fix recruiting, and go with area talent with freshman recruits, and reap the benefit by better press, more seats filled in the stadium, and better graduation rates.

At the risk of being deep fried by thousands of UM fans on the board, I would like to point out something. Two National Championships, both with Montana kids at QB. Dave D. and Jonathan E., two big shot transfers since then, Ochs and Swogger, displacing next in line at the last minute, loss of team chemestry, and falling short both times in the Play offs.xcoffeex

BTW, pre-empting the what about UNC responses that are due and deserved, yes I know and I am embarrassed. Hopefully they will get their act together and follow Kramer to higher ground soon.:cool:

Both transfer QB's took us farther than their backups would have. Ochs took us to the finals and passed for 3800 yards and 33 TD's. His backup Jeff Disney was not near as good. Josh Swogger took us to the semi's in his first year in the system. His backup Cole Bergquist was a mediocre QB at best in 2005. He did show good improvement in 2006 though. We have no transfer QB's on the roster now and the QB brought in this class is a 6'4" 215 pound Montana kid that the Coaches are salivating over.

[griz37]

At the risk of being deep fried by thousands of UM fans on the board, I would like to point out something. Two National Championships, both with Montana kids at QB. Dave D. and Jonathan E., two big shot transfers since then, Ochs and Swogger, displacing next in line at the last minute, loss of team chemestry, and falling short both times in the Play offs.xcoffeex



The 2004 team had amazing chemistry, just no run defense. I have to agree w/Ronbo, Swogger & Ochs took the Griz where the backups QBs couldn't.

[Peems]

This is a tough deal, it is a lesson for all programs who are thinking short term instead of long term. In my opinion, Mike has learned this lesson and has proved it in two ways. #1, turning down an valid opportunity to coach at his alma mater so he could get the Bobcat program headed in the right direction after a tumultuous year for MSU athletes. #2, Getting back to the local buy in with his 2007 recruiting class.

Moral of the story is at the D-1FCS level, there should be no reason to not stay on the high road. Forgo the temptation of quick fix recruiting, and go with area talent with freshman recruits, and reap the benefit by better press, more seats filled in the stadium, and better graduation rates.

At the risk of being deep fried by thousands of UM fans on the board, I would like to point out something. Two National Championships, both with Montana kids at QB. Dave D. and Jonathan E., two big shot transfers since then, Ochs and Swogger, displacing next in line at the last minute, loss of team chemestry, and falling short both times in the Play offs.xcoffeex

BTW, pre-empting the what about UNC responses that are due and deserved, yes I know and I am embarrassed. Hopefully they will get their act together and follow Kramer to higher ground soon.:cool:

This is just a rumor and speculation but i believe that Kramer wasnt offered the job at Idaho after some of his players had run-ins with the law.

[OB55]

Just thought it was worth mentioning, and I like to plug for the home town kids. Who could take the Griz the farthest is pure speculation, so far it's 2 titles with program players. Just the facts ma'm:cool:

[OB55]

This is just a rumor and speculation but i believe that Kramer wasnt offered the job at Idaho after some of his players had run-ins with the law.
There is print to support that the offer was on the table, but Kramer did not want the stinky stuff to follow him to Moscow. Right offer at the wrong time, press says he turned it down.

[youwouldno]

The press is not exactly infallible. I wouldn't be surprised if Idaho pulled the offer.

[catbob]

I hope that you post a new thread for each other FCS team that lost schollies:

Sac State 4
Central Conn 3
Georgia Southern 9!
Hampton 3
Jacksonville State 9
Nicholls St 9
NAU 9
SFA - 9

[Col Hogan]

The press is not exactly infallible.

Say it ain't so!!!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Col Hogan]

I hope that you post a new thread for each other FCS team that lost schollies:

Sac State 4
Central Conn 3
Georgia Southern 9!
Hampton 3
Jacksonville State 9
Nicholls St 9
NAU 9
SFA - 9

Good point. :bow:

I think an entire thread needs to take on all the impacts at these schools, not just focus on one. :nonono2:

For example, GSU is hoping for a bounce back year after their "situation". How will this impact their new coach.

Central Connecticut is building a program, hoping for a stronger year.

Just two that I have some knowledge on...let's open up the discussion.

[CopperCat]

This whole thing is a bunch of crap. President Gamble (of MSU) decided to undermine Coach Kramer and get a report "from a third party" to get a "more objective evaluation" of MSU's recruiting. Yup, graduation rates aren't great. But ya know what, its like that in ALOT of other places, like the SEC, WAC, Big 12 (ACHOO Colorado). And apparently, some of the recruits "didn't align with the academic objectives of the institution." WOW!! What a revelation! This might be because these kids are coming out of JC's where life is a bit easier, and also because they are from a minority group moving into Bozeman which is almost entirely WHITE! President Gamble, if you want to do something about it, then roll up your sleeves and go to work. DON'T ORDER SOME WORTHLESS NCAA REPORT TO MAKE EVERYONE THINK YOU'RE SOLVING THE PROBLEM. This guy is all about saving face. He doesn't do jack friggn' #^@$ other than praise the R&D at the university (maybe gets a few grants here and there, yay for him), and drive his fancy Buick around. Coach Kramer, I feel for ya. I think you're a great coach, and that you're doing great things. Keep on keepin' on.

[CopperCat]

And one more thing.

One of the former players involved in the murder case was a BASKETBALL PLAYER. Did anyone start criticizing Coach Durham for that? NO, because he has "historical significance" at MSU. Whatever. Kramer is controversial, and so its easy to pick on him. At least he takes chances, and leads like a good leader should.

[OB55]

And one more thing.

One of the former players involved in the murder case was a BASKETBALL PLAYER. Did anyone start criticizing Coach Durham for that? NO, because he has "historical significance" at MSU. Whatever. Kramer is controversial, and so its easy to pick on him. At least he takes chances, and leads like a good leader should.
Kramer can coach, and he cares. 'Nuff said.:twocents:

[BDKJMU]

Right now its on the front page of the ESPN.com college football section.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2773759

[Mort]

This whole thing is a bunch of crap. President Gamble (of MSU) decided to undermine Coach Kramer and get a report "from a third party" to get a "more objective evaluation" of MSU's recruiting. Yup, graduation rates aren't great. But ya know what, its like that in ALOT of other places, like the SEC, WAC, Big 12 (ACHOO Colorado). And apparently, some of the recruits "didn't align with the academic objectives of the institution." WOW!! What a revelation! This might be because these kids are coming out of JC's where life is a bit easier, and also because they are from a minority group moving into Bozeman which is almost entirely WHITE! President Gamble, if you want to do something about it, then roll up your sleeves and go to work. DON'T ORDER SOME WORTHLESS NCAA REPORT TO MAKE EVERYONE THINK YOU'RE SOLVING THE PROBLEM. This guy is all about saving face. He doesn't do jack friggn' #^@$ other than praise the R&D at the university (maybe gets a few grants here and there, yay for him), and drive his fancy Buick around. Coach Kramer, I feel for ya. I think you're a great coach, and that you're doing great things. Keep on keepin' on.

Nope. President Gamble did the right thing and by the looks of the report he did it none too soon. Did you read the entire report? Any of it? It's clear the people who wrote it (it's not an NCAA report, it's an independent report that was co-authored by officials from the NCAA, SEC and BSC. There's a big difference.) are warning the MSU administration that if the past behavior continues, there will be even bigger problems with the NCAA. The report and the administration's comments are posted on the MSU web page for anyone to see.

The report is a shot across the bow of the athletic department to get their act together BEFORE it's too late and the NCAA comes in and has to deal with things. IF that happens, there will be more consequences than a less than flattering report commissioned by the MSU president.

The majority of the report centers around the football program, which isn't surprising since they lost 3 scholarships and since this is the second time on Coach Kramer's watch this program has lost scholarships due to substandard academic performance. That's two strikes. Three strikes and you're out, Coach.

[GOKATS]

Nope. President Gamble did the right thing and by the looks of the report he did it none too soon. Did you read the entire report? Any of it? It's clear the people who wrote it (it's not an NCAA report, it's an independent report that was co-authored by officials from the NCAA, SEC and BSC. There's a big difference.) are warning the MSU administration that if the past behavior continues, there will be even bigger problems with the NCAA. The report and the administration's comments are posted on the MSU web page for anyone to see.

The report is a shot across the bow of the athletic department to get their act together BEFORE it's too late and the NCAA comes in and has to deal with things. IF that happens, there will be more consequences than a less than flattering report commissioned by the MSU president.

The majority of the report centers around the football program, which isn't surprising since they lost 3 scholarships and since this is the second time on Coach Kramer's watch this program has lost scholarships due to substandard academic performance. That's two strikes. Three strikes and you're out, Coach.

It was clarified in todays Bozeman Chronicle that the 3 scholarship forfeiture was taken care of during the 2006 season. MSU has the full 63 scholarships for the 2007 season.

That is one strike.

[CopperCat]

Nope. President Gamble did the right thing and by the looks of the report he did it none too soon. Did you read the entire report? Any of it? It's clear the people who wrote it (it's not an NCAA report, it's an independent report that was co-authored by officials from the NCAA, SEC and BSC. There's a big difference.) are warning the MSU administration that if the past behavior continues, there will be even bigger problems with the NCAA. The report and the administration's comments are posted on the MSU web page for anyone to see.

The report is a shot across the bow of the athletic department to get their act together BEFORE it's too late and the NCAA comes in and has to deal with things. IF that happens, there will be more consequences than a less than flattering report commissioned by the MSU president.

The majority of the report centers around the football program, which isn't surprising since they lost 3 scholarships and since this is the second time on Coach Kramer's watch this program has lost scholarships due to substandard academic performance. That's two strikes. Three strikes and you're out, Coach.

Since when is a coach responsible for players slacking off and doing poorly in school? Whatever happened to be responsible for your own actions? Whatever happened to personal accountability? That really isn't Kramer's fault. It's the players fault for being an idiot and not going to class. You do need to do things to make sure the players are acclimating to the university, but you shouldn't have to hold their hand. That's ridiculous.

[CopperCat]

I hope that you post a new thread for each other FCS team that lost schollies:

Sac State 4
Central Conn 3
Georgia Southern 9!
Hampton 3
Jacksonville State 9
Nicholls St 9
NAU 9xidiotx
SFA - 9

And as if MSU was the ONLY university to lose scholarships. Is MSU the new scapegoat for FCS?

[Peems]

And as if MSU was the ONLY university to lose scholarships. Is MSU the new scapegoat for FCS?

MSU is the new Miami!:smiley_wi

[Grizalltheway]

Since when is a coach responsible for players slacking off and doing poorly in school? Whatever happened to be responsible for your own actions? Whatever happened to personal accountability? That really isn't Kramer's fault. It's the players fault for being an idiot and not going to class. You do need to do things to make sure the players are acclimating to the university, but you shouldn't have to hold their hand. That's ridiculous.

So kids only started being idiots once Kramer took over?

[youwouldno]

Of course a coach is responsible for bringing in the right kind of student-athletes and then emphasizing the importance of academics. It is incredible that anyone could suggest otherwise. Montana State, last time I checked, was a UNIVERSITY not a pro sports franchise. Kramer doesn't have to sign anyone he doesn't think can cut it academically, or for that matter anyone horribly lacking in character.

I have zero respect for coaches and institutions that try to gain an edge by lowering their standards beyond what their competition is willing to do. It's a positive thing if MSU takes steps to ensure that the football program properly represents the university.

[CrazyCat]

:giveadamn:

[catbob]

So kids only started being idiots once Kramer took over?

Actually these rules weren't in place before Kramer was here...

[Mort]

It was clarified in todays Bozeman Chronicle that the 3 scholarship forfeiture was taken care of during the 2006 season. MSU has the full 63 scholarships for the 2007 season.

That is one strike.

Some questions come to mind then:
Do you have a link to the Chronicle story? I've looked and can't find it on their web site. I'd like to read the whole story.

Do you know why the Associated Press story said this was the second time it has happened? That AP story is all over the place. I've seen it in on-line in the Billings Gazette, Great Falls Tribune, ESPN.com (it's still on the college football front page) and SI.com.

Do you know why the MSU press release from the other day relative to the recent athletic department study said this: "MSU learned last week that it will lose three football scholarships out of 60 and one men's basketball scholarship out of 13 because its APR, or graduation rates, have fallen below NCAA requirements." The words "will lose" should actually read "has lost"? The number "60" should actually be "63"? I assume this press release was issued at the direction of MSU's administration since it quoted both Gamble and Fields. Is it wrong, too?

In looking back at this issue of lost scholarships from the past, the link below from a year ago indicated MSU stood to lose 3 football scholarships then and those were tied to 2004-05 academic data? Are those the 3 Kramer is talking about now and there isn't a second loss of 3 scholarships? Or are the 3 he's talking about now taken care of as he says and now there's 3 again as reported by MSU and the AP story?
http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/penalties_per_school.pdf

If the AP stories that are all over the place are wrong, then there needs to be a MAJOR retraction by AP. Have you heard anything about that?

I would be interested to see any information you have or have seen regarding this. IF it's only one strike and it's already taken care of with no others looming, then great, end of story and I stand corrected. But with all the contrary info floating around out there, it would be nice to see MSU issue a statement clarifying this matter and if corrections need to be made, MSU should be all over the AP to do so immediately.

Any info you have on this is appreciated. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[GOKATS]

Some questions come to mind then:
Do you have a link to the Chronicle story? I've looked and can't find it on their web site. I'd like to read the whole story.

Do you know why the Associated Press story said this was the second time it has happened? That AP story is all over the place. I've seen it in on-line in the Billings Gazette, Great Falls Tribune, ESPN.com (it's still on the college football front page) and SI.com.

Do you know why the MSU press release from the other day relative to the recent athletic department study said this: "MSU learned last week that it will lose three football scholarships out of 60 and one men's basketball scholarship out of 13 because its APR, or graduation rates, have fallen below NCAA requirements." The words "will lose" should actually read "has lost"? The number "60" should actually be "63"? I assume this press release was issued at the direction of MSU's administration since it quoted both Gamble and Fields. Is it wrong, too?

In looking back at this issue of lost scholarships from the past, the link below from a year ago indicated MSU stood to lose 3 football scholarships then and those were tied to 2004-05 academic data? Are those the 3 Kramer is talking about now and there isn't a second loss of 3 scholarships? Or are the 3 he's talking about now taken care of as he says and now there's 3 again as reported by MSU and the AP story?
http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/penalties_per_school.pdf

If the AP stories that are all over the place are wrong, then there needs to be a MAJOR retraction by AP. Have you heard anything about that?

I would be interested to see any information you have or have seen regarding this. IF it's only one strike and it's already taken care of with no others looming, then great, end of story and I stand corrected. But with all the contrary info floating around out there, it would be nice to see MSU issue a statement clarifying this matter and if corrections need to be made, MSU should be all over the AP to do so immediately.

Any info you have on this is appreciated. :confused: :confused: :confused:

The Chronicle doesn't allow any links to local sports coverage unless you subscribe to their E-version (can you spell rip off?).

This is the relevant portion of the article as posted on Bobcat Nation.com by one of the moderators,

Here's the relevant section from the article:

Quote:
CLEARING THINGS UP:
Kramer said that the three scholarships due to academic standards MSU forfeited were taken care of during the 2006 season and that the program will have the full 63 available for the coming season.
It was reported recently that the three scholarships would be lost for the 2007 season.
“There were three players who did not meet Mike Kramer standards who could have been retained, but were dismissed from the team in 2006,” he said. “We voluntarily dismissed them before the NCAA would have taken their scholarships away.”

The reporting was obviously off base because not only did MSU not lose any FB scholarships for this year, MSU did not lose a BB scholarship as was reported.



_________________
BobcatNation.com
World Wide Home for Bobcat Fans.

[Mort]

The Chronicle doesn't allow any links to local sports coverage unless you subscribe to their E-version (can you spell rip off?).

This is the relevant portion of the article as posted on Bobcat Nation.com by one of the moderators,

Here's the relevant section from the article:

Quote:
CLEARING THINGS UP:
Kramer said that the three scholarships due to academic standards MSU forfeited were taken care of during the 2006 season and that the program will have the full 63 available for the coming season.
It was reported recently that the three scholarships would be lost for the 2007 season.
“There were three players who did not meet Mike Kramer standards who could have been retained, but were dismissed from the team in 2006,” he said. “We voluntarily dismissed them before the NCAA would have taken their scholarships away.”

The reporting was obviously off base because not only did MSU not lose any FB scholarships for this year, MSU did not lose a BB scholarship as was reported.



_________________
BobcatNation.com
World Wide Home for Bobcat Fans.

Thanks for the response. I'm still confused, however. What does Kramer mean when he says they didn't meet "Mike Kramer standards" but could have been retained but were dismissed in 2006 before the NCAA would have taken their scholarships away."

I'm not trying to be difficult here but that doesn't make any sense to me. And if this already happened this year because of these players' not meeting the necessary standards, what does that have to do with those 3 scholarships that were supposedly going to be lost because of the previous years' problems as outlined in the NCAA report I linked above. And why would the MSU administration issue a press release a few days ago saying they just learned MSU will lose 3 scholarships. That story and Kramer's are contradicting each other.

To me, we need a clarifying statement from AD Fields or President Gamble on this whole situation, both for football and basketball, given their previous press release. If necessary to clarify this, maybe even hold a press conference with the AP present so they can print a retraction/clarification story. I don't think Kramer's statement has clarified things. Maybe reading the whole Chronicle story would help. Hopefully somebody will post that somewhere. :bang:

[CopperCat]

So kids only started being idiots once Kramer took over?

If anyone is the idiot here, it is you. Go back and read what you commented on. LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE PROBLEM, NOT KRAMER. Quit giving griz fans a bad name by being such a moron.

[CatFan22]

If anyone is the idiot here, it is you. Go back and read what you commented on. LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE PROBLEM, NOT KRAMER. Quit giving griz fans a bad name by being such a moron.

:nod:

[GOKATS]

I really didn't want to drag this out of the mud, but it's time to clean the plate.

BOZEMAN, Mont. -- Montana State's football program will not lose three scholarships next season after failing to attain NCAA academic standards, contrary to previous reports.

Instead, Montana State athletic director Peter Fields said the school lost the scholarships based on academic deficiencies from the 2005-06 academic year, but satisfied the penalty during the 2006 football season, and would have the full 63 scholarships available for the 2007 season.

On Feb. 21, university administrators vowed to make improvements in academic support for athletes and in recruiting efforts, two areas cited for improvement in a report requested by President Geoff Gamble.

In a Feb. 21 story about the Montana State University football program, The Associated Press, based on incorrect information from MSU, reported erroneously that the school would lose three football scholarships for the upcoming season. MSU athletic director Peter Fields now says the school lost the scholarships based on academic deficiencies from the 2005-06 academic year, but satisfied the penalty during the 2006 football season, and would have the full 63 scholarships available for the 2007 season.


Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

[*****]

I ran the story on my Log 2/27/07:
Montana State not down three scholarships
http://anygivensaturday.com/ralphblog/article.php?story=2007022803535747
Contrary to a recent report Montana State University has not lost three football scholarships for the 2007 season. The Bobcats will have their full compliment of scholarships for this season and in future seasons barring other infractions, according to MSU head football coach Mike Kramer. MSU did lose three scholarships based on deficiencies from the 2005-06 academic year, but satisfied that penalty with the NCAA in 2006-07 rather than wait until the sanction was handed down in 2007-08. ...

[Mort]

This is still a good news, bad news thing as far as I'm concerned. The good news is that the loss of scholarships penalty has already been paid. The bad news is that this is the second time it's happened under Kramer, according to the link below.

Scott Mansch of the Great Falls Tribune continues to maintain that this is the second time, that the same thing also happened last year. On the Tribune blog he wrote on 2/28/07 "...There's gonna be a story in the upcoming months that the NCAA has penalized the Cats three scholarships. Apparently (and this wasn't clear to me when first the story broke), the Cats anticipated it and had room to take the hits last fall, which is OK by the NCAA. Doesn't change the fact that the program will, in essence, be penalized. The same thing, pretty much, also happened last year. That's two times. ..." He follows this comment with a story the Tribune published on March 2, 2006 that backs up his statement - link below.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/BLOGS03/70228008

As I said earlier, as far as I'm concerned, that's two strikes and it's three strikes and you're out. This stuff has to stop immediately and permanently. Period. If the people in charge can't or won't stop it, then it's time for changes in however many positions it takes at MSU to accomplish that. It appears the tactic is to take the penalty as soon as possible and try to minimize it later by saying it's old news, the matter has already been dealt with, so it's really not an issue any more. Once is a mistake, twice is a trend, three times is a problem.

[catbob]

So you are hanging your hat on the opinion of one writer, when the rest of come out and said "this is NOT the second time this has happened?". Easier to believe bad news, I guess.

[*****]

once is bad enough yes, twice is bad too, and action is required to ensure it doesn't ever happen but I don't believe the blame should go on the coaching staff alone. Or on the sports dept. alone. The pres will have them rectify it.

[Mort]

So you are hanging your hat on the opinion of one writer, when the rest of come out and said "this is NOT the second time this has happened?". Easier to believe bad news, I guess.

Did you READ the link? If you had, you'd see that the quote from MSU AD Fields in that article dated 3/2/2006, that's 2006, not 2007, said "...we had room entering this year (2005-2006), so we took our penalty last fall and this spring..." That would have been the fall of 2005. Then there's this most recent announcement. That's twice.

The story is not the "opinion" of one writer. That writer quotes a story in the paper he works for that contains quoted information from the MSU AD. It appears at this point that he is the only one who has sorted this thing out. In addition, that writer has been covering MSU athletics for many years so it's not like he's someone with no knowledge of MSU athletics.

If you have DOCUMENTATION that he's wrong, forward it to him. Or have the MSU AD forward it to him. Since he's quoting the AD, I have a tendency to believe that quote. And "the rest" as you call them have NOT come out and said this is NOT the second time. What they've said is that the penalties (lost scholarships) HAVE BEEN taken, last season, correcting what was first reported, and that was three scholarships WOULD BE lost. Easier to ignore bad news, I guess.

[QUOTE=ralph]once is bad enough yes, twice is bad too, and action is required to ensure it doesn't ever happen but I don't believe the blame should go on the coaching staff alone. Or on the sports dept. alone. The pres will have them rectify it.

The blame has to go to the football coach. He's in charge of the program. And to the AD, who is in charge of the athletic department. Until people start being held accountable for this, it's not going to stop.

[CopperCat]

So let me ask you this naysayers: What does it all mean?

[GOKATS]

So let me ask you this naysayers: What does it all mean?

I'm certainly not a naysayer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it just means that mort is a griz.xcoffeex

[Mort]

I'm certainly not a naysayer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it just means that mort is a griz.xcoffeex

Nope. I just want this trend stopped now, before it becomes a problem. The NCAA has a habit of showing up and imposing penalties more severe than 3 lost scholarships for one season once something becomes a problem. If things progress to that point, then things like coaches and AD's departing have a tendency to take place. Then all that's left is for the university and its athletic program to pay the price for years to come under "new management". And suddenly fans, boosters, alums, etc. who thought it was easier to just turn their head the other way when they knew what was going on at the time complain that "somebody should have been doing something about that problem back then" and by then it's way too late. I'd rather see MSU be proactive now to deal with this than reactive later when it's too late. If being proactive now means some people have to be replaced, so be it.

All I want and hope to see is this trend stopped by the people currently being paid to see to it that it stops. If they can't or won't do that, then changes need to be made and people brought in who will do what needs to be done. Very simple. :twocents:

[CrazyCat]

"The blame has to go to the football coach. He's in charge of the program. And to the AD, who is in charge of the athletic department. Until people start being held accountable for this, it's not going to stop."


I'm not going to argue that changes need to be made. But your blaming a coach who kicked those kids off the team knowing he'd lose 3 scholarships for doing it.