|
Post by jayj79 on May 21, 2019 18:41:55 GMT -5
However, Iowa has very nicely started to establish themselves as the #2 volleyball program in the state behind UNI Say what now? Iowa State had one down year this past season. Other than that, they've made the NCAA tournament 12 of the past 13 seasons, and have quite often been ranked in the top 25. Iowa hasn't made the NCAAs since 1994 (that's a 24 year drought) and has only been ranked once (coming in at #24 in one poll in September of 1995). if anything, overall I'd say ISU is the #1 volleyball program in the state, with UNI a close second (some years UNI is better, but on average in terms of the past decade or so, I'd give ISU the edge). Iowa has improved, no doubt. But they're still behind the other two.
|
|
|
Post by goingtotask on May 21, 2019 18:48:58 GMT -5
"Based on the information I’ve learned to this point, I’m confident no other staff member or student-athlete was either involved in this violation or aware.""When asked for details — specifically, if it was a recruiting or financial violation — Barta cited the ongoing investigation as a reason not to expand. Barta did say he expects the violation to be considered “Level 1” or “Level 2” by the NCAA’s violation structure. He added that no law enforcement is involved at this time."“I’m comfortable enough to say that everybody who works in college athletics is very familiar with where this line is that can’t be crossed,” Barta said.Anyone familiar with the NCAA violation structure - what possible infractions does this add up to? www.hawkcentral.com/story/sports/college/iowa/volleyball/2019/05/20/iowa-volleyball-coach-bond-shymansky-administrative-leave-significant-ncaa-violation/3744970002/ The NCAA defines a “Level 1” violation as a “severe breach of conduct” or “violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA collegiate model as set forth in the Constitution and bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.” Examples: - Lack of institutional control - Academic fraud - Individual unethical or dishonest conduct The NCAA defines a “Level 2” violation as a “significant breach of conduct” or “violations that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage; includes more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or involves conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA collegiate model as set forth in the Constitution and bylaws.” Examples: - Failure to monitor - Systemic violations that do not amount to a lack of institutional control. - Multiple recruiting, financial aid, or eligibility violations that do not amount. to a lack of institutional control. Would either of these result in a postseason ban? Oh wait it’s Iowa. Never mind.
|
|
|
Post by hawkfan on May 21, 2019 19:07:48 GMT -5
The NCAA defines a “Level 1” violation as a “severe breach of conduct” or “violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA collegiate model as set forth in the Constitution and bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.” Examples: - Lack of institutional control - Academic fraud - Individual unethical or dishonest conduct The NCAA defines a “Level 2” violation as a “significant breach of conduct” or “violations that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage; includes more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or involves conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA collegiate model as set forth in the Constitution and bylaws.” Examples: - Failure to monitor - Systemic violations that do not amount to a lack of institutional control. - Multiple recruiting, financial aid, or eligibility violations that do not amount. to a lack of institutional control. Would either of these result in a postseason ban? Oh wait it’s Iowa. Never mind. Classy
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 21, 2019 19:50:42 GMT -5
Two German recruits. International recruiting can be tricky. It's not new. It's been done for many many years. The process has been fine tuned and all wrinkles ironed out. How is it tricky? You have compliance officers right there to hold your hands. LOL Unless by "tricky," you mean blatantly disregarding your school's compliance officers and doing your own thing without regard for consequences.
|
|
|
Post by big10+4 fan on May 21, 2019 19:58:44 GMT -5
Heard it could have possibly been paying someone working camps a little extra money to pay for tuition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 20:37:36 GMT -5
Heard it could have possibly been paying someone working camps a little extra money to pay for tuition. A LOT extra. Like, didn’t have a scholarship for a high profile transfer extra.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 20:38:19 GMT -5
Two German recruits. International recruiting can be tricky. It's not new. It's been done for many many years. The process has been fine tuned and all wrinkles ironed out. How is it tricky? You have compliance officers right there to hold your hands. LOL Unless by "tricky," you mean blatantly disregarding your school's compliance officers and doing your own thing without regard for consequences. The rules are tricky. If you want to do it within the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 21, 2019 20:41:08 GMT -5
It's not new. It's been done for many many years. The process has been fine tuned and all wrinkles ironed out. How is it tricky? You have compliance officers right there to hold your hands. LOL Unless by "tricky," you mean blatantly disregarding your school's compliance officers and doing your own thing without regard for consequences. The rules are tricky. If you want to do it within the rules. You’ve got compliance officers! They’re there to un-tricky it. LOL If you’re not sure, you ask them. Run hypotheticals and such. Jeesh...
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on May 21, 2019 20:42:17 GMT -5
Oh yes. Camps. I always forget about camps.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 21, 2019 20:44:52 GMT -5
The rules are tricky. If you want to do it within the rules. You’ve got compliance officers! They’re there to un-tricky it. LOL If you’re not sure, you ask them. Run hypotheticals and such. Jeesh... You’d be surprised how many compliance staffers don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 21, 2019 20:46:26 GMT -5
You’ve got compliance officers! They’re there to un-tricky it. LOL If you’re not sure, you ask them. Run hypotheticals and such. Jeesh... You’d be surprised how many compliance staffers don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground. In some places, that’s a feature and not a bug. #SeeNoEvil
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 20:46:30 GMT -5
The rules are tricky. If you want to do it within the rules. You’ve got compliance officers! They’re there to un-tricky it. LOL If you’re not sure, you ask them. Run hypotheticals and such. Jeesh... What if you don't want to follow the rules? Not sure what you're not understanding here, Gomer.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on May 21, 2019 20:51:35 GMT -5
You’d be surprised how many compliance staffers don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground. In some places, that’s a feature and not a bug. #SeeNoEvil That too.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on May 21, 2019 20:53:09 GMT -5
You’ve got compliance officers! They’re there to un-tricky it. LOL If you’re not sure, you ask them. Run hypotheticals and such. Jeesh... What if you don't want to follow the rules? Not sure what you're not understanding here, Gomer. Well, that’s different. When you mentioned the international recruiting was “tricky,” you made it seem like Shymansky may have inadvertently gotten himself tangled up in a web of complexity that was hardly his fault. There’s no point in mentioning something was “tricky” if the culprit was purposely avoiding the rules. Trickiness has nothing to do with the violation. You have the same problem when you play 20 Q. You say something that makes us lean in one direction when that wasn’t even the right direction. It’s either intentional or just bad communication skills or both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 20:58:28 GMT -5
It can be tricky, so someone could conceivably want to cut corners. That's all.
I doubt it has anything to do with this. Sorry I brought it up. I'll go work on my communication skills while I ponder my next post.
You doof.
|
|