|
Post by hopelesslysmitten on May 13, 2004 20:11:18 GMT -5
I thought Costas' individual awards were taken away?
As for why it took so long, it's only because someone turned UH in. And like Wilton and McGown said a lot of teams are suspect.
What I don't get is why if they deem you ineligible you have to sit out a few matches and then everything is ok, but for UH they took away the title. In my opinion it's the NCAA picking on the little schools and teams. Like Deuser said, they are ignoring many problems in football, basketball, etc. And why is it that basketball players can go to camp/train/play with pro players and even get stuff like bags, shoes, etc. and stipends, and don't get penalized but Costas does?
Wanted to add, don't even get me started on why golf, tennis, and beach volleyball athletes can play with pros as long as they don't take money.
|
|
|
Post by roy on May 13, 2004 20:28:34 GMT -5
Costas awards were only taken away for the 2002 year. He still retains 3 first team AA awards (2000, 2001, 2003), as well as his two POY awards and FOY award. He lost his 2002 AA award, Final Four MVP, and MPSF awards.
Again, this is part of the inconsistency that I do not understand. If he is a professional player, than the punishment should have been more severe. All of his awards should have been taken away. It makes little sense to take away his awards for only his junior year in which he happened to win a championship.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on May 13, 2004 20:56:24 GMT -5
Costas awards were only taken away for the 2002 year. He still retains 3 first team AA awards (2000, 2001, 2003), as well as his two POY awards and FOY award. He lost his 2002 AA award, Final Four MVP, and MPSF awards. Again, this is part of the inconsistency that I do not understand. If he is a professional player, than the punishment should have been more severe. All of his awards should have been taken away. It makes little sense to take away his awards for only his junior year in which he happened to win a championship. Thanks Roy. I thought maybe I was the only one that did not understand. I thought maybe I was missing something in my reasoning. To take away only one year - the year UH won - is illogical. Either leave him completely alone or take away everything! It makes no sense . . .
|
|
|
Post by BarcelonaBob on May 13, 2004 21:20:31 GMT -5
Hey Roy,
Were you following UH men's volleyball way back in 1989, the year Carlos Briceno was ruled ineligible right before the WIVA tournament and had to sit out? That cost UH a chance at the title that year. They were preseason #1 in the polls, and held it for most of the year.
Briceno took money for winning a local beach volleyball tournament the previous summer, and someone from another program ratted him out.
|
|
|
Post by vballguy2001 on May 13, 2004 23:34:07 GMT -5
Remember Kent Steffes. Wasn't his situation similar.
I think Costas answered the question truthfully. What if Coach Wilton asked Costas "Have you ever been payed to play volleyball?" What if he didn't get paid. So the answer is no. But according to the rule, it also states that if he ever played on a club team with payed player he is considered professional also. Maybe that question was never asked. I think misunderstanding of this rule is what is getting everybody. You actually don't have to get paid at all. Just play with a professional, or a pro team.
I find that interesting. Is that how everyone else is reading this rule??
|
|
|
Post by roy on May 14, 2004 2:50:34 GMT -5
Hey Roy, Were you following UH men's volleyball way back in 1989, the year Carlos Briceno was ruled ineligible right before the WIVA tournament and had to sit out? That cost UH a chance at the title that year. They were preseason #1 in the polls, and held it for most of the year. Briceno took money for winning a local beach volleyball tournament the previous summer, and someone from another program ratted him out. Unfortunately, no. I am a little too young too remember that far back. I can vaugely recall some bits and pieces of it, but not a whole lot. Even on the women's side, I can vaugely only remember bits of the Teee Williams era.
|
|
|
Post by typograaf on May 14, 2004 10:03:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by VBbeast on May 14, 2004 12:24:07 GMT -5
If the NCAA deems you ineligible after the fact of a competition you can appeal to get your eligibility reinstated which leads to them handing out a penalty of typically 2 for 1 type of thing. They are getting away from forfiture penalties as I have read they don't believe it goes far enough to make things right for the teams they competed against. More and more you see them going with monetary fines. In the case of a national championship it appears that they will continue to use forfeiture as a punishment.
If a national championship wasn't involved people would probably never even know about this kind of violation. The argument the NCAA is picking on small schools is rediculous. We are talking about a national championship that the NCAA sponsors. This attitude that Deuser seems to be advocating in this latest article is that hey other people are doing it why are you penalizing us. He doesn't make any kind of legitimate argument for not being guilty of the offense. I am getting less and less impressed with this guy. I've heard 5 year olds present more compelling cases for avoiding punishment.
|
|
|
Post by My2Sense on May 14, 2004 13:00:11 GMT -5
Interesting, but very small mention in today's LB Press Telegram states that an Alabama U.S. congressman has launched a Congressional investigation into how the NCAA makes its decisions, stating, as I recall, unfair practices when handing down penalties. It didn't go into any detail.
I tried to find it on line but couldn't. It is on the inside of page 2 in the catch-all collumn of the Sports section. If you have it please post it up. And/or if you know anything more.
|
|
|
Post by H2O on May 14, 2004 14:09:58 GMT -5
I think the stripping of the 2002 title is unjustified. Hawaii won they should retain the title, especially given the ruling wasn't enforced until 2002. So we have no champion for 2002. I like what Chris Marlowe said- the runner-up, in this case Pepp, should be named champion. It just seems logical to me, but then who said there is any logic to the NCAA.
Given that Greece and other countries do not have programs related to educational institutions, I find their ruling bizarre. I'm sure their thinking is that UH should have been aware of the change and UH should have done something to comply. But Theo should have been grandfathered and eligible. For me the 2002 champion will always be UH.
|
|
|
Post by My2Sense on May 14, 2004 14:17:55 GMT -5
I like what Chris Marlowe said- the runner-up, in this case Pepp, should be named champion. It just seems logical to me, but then who said there is any logic to the NCAA. Many logically feel that should be the case, but those who don't argue that the team who lost to Hawaii in the semis "could" have won in the finals had UH not prevailed over them, thus denying them the chance to play in the final. So it was unfair to that team too. Perhaps co-champions should be awarded in the case of a stripped season. Someone should get it, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by swingaway on May 14, 2004 15:04:20 GMT -5
Why not additional penalties? Recruiting violations are often met with ineligibility to compete in post season play and or loss of scholarships. It could make the schools more diligent in their research. Honest mistakes are made, but many others are effected by those mistakes, why not the team that makes the mistake. Stripping the title can't change the past. The players played, the team will always be able to say they won. The penalty should be for the future.
Hope this is the last year any of these discussions will be timely. As a new follower of college v-ball, it is disappointing to see such a negative focus.
|
|
|
Post by banthony2 on May 14, 2004 19:35:31 GMT -5
I like what Chris Marlowe said- the runner-up, in this case Pepp, should be named champion. It just seems logical to me, but then who said there is any logic to the NCAA. For 2002 it is likely that Pepperdine would have won it anyway, but then you go back and see who else would have been in the Final Four from the MPSF and could they have beaten Pepperdine? Look at last year, though. If Lewis gets their title stripped should it go to BYU? No! Without Lewis advancing from the semis it would have been a Pepperdine-BYU final. They had faced each other 3 times earlier that year. They split in conference (Pepp in 3, BYU in 5) and BYU won in 5 in the tourney final (all 3 mathces in Malibu). Had they faced again, there is a great chance Pepperdine would have won. This is why you can't just give it to the runner-up.
|
|
|
Post by VBwatcher on May 15, 2004 13:06:24 GMT -5
With Men's VB having only so few viable active teams, is the NCAA trying to give the Death penalty to Men's VB sports. Are the other Men's VB teams with International players being witch hunted. Sorry for the comments just exasperated by the NCAA at times.
|
|
|
Post by lalalaluuuke on May 17, 2004 2:10:50 GMT -5
For 2002 it is likely that Pepperdine would have won it anyway, but then you go back and see who else would have been in the Final Four from the MPSF and could they have beaten Pepperdine? Look at last year, though. If Lewis gets their title stripped should it go to BYU? No! Without Lewis advancing from the semis it would have been a Pepperdine-BYU final. They had faced each other 3 times earlier that year. They split in conference (Pepp in 3, BYU in 5) and BYU won in 5 in the tourney final (all 3 mathces in Malibu). Had they faced again, there is a great chance Pepperdine would have won. This is why you can't just give it to the runner-up. Right, UH got the at-large that year over a BYU team that swept UH 3-0 the weekend before at the SSC. Had UH not gotten it it would have put in a BYU team that had lost to Pepp 2 or 3 times already. Sure they may have won like UH did after losing to them previously, but it is all speculation. They need to leave the NCAA and form their own organization and their own rules. Shoot, all NCAA schools need to form a school-represented and sanctioned league where they define their own rules and not let a 3rd party do all of the dictating. Imagine if all the money the NCAA made off of college sports went back into the schools...interesting dream.
|
|