- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 26,503
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Bookie:
- $ 786.00
That's the technical term by the NCAA for non-major violations.
More Michigan Cheating
- Thread starter osubuckeye89
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 1,308
- Reaction score
- 92
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Oh yes we are family, like uncomfomfortable kissing cousins but in this case little brother. You may think you are too good for this Incestuous family but there you are at all the reunions hitting on your cousins.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 1,935
- Reaction score
- 3,556
- Bookie:
- $ 2,409.00
Release the NOA so we can see that the NCAA called this 'minor'.
Here's a hint - they don't give multi-year show-cause penalties to coaches for 'minor' infractions.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 26,503
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Bookie:
- $ 786.00
But those major infractions happened well after anything we're discussing. They give them show-causes for not cooperating with the NCAA. That really has nothing to do with the "cheating" scandal.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 7,316
- Reaction score
- 21,767
- Bookie:
- $ 83,044.00
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 26,503
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Bookie:
- $ 786.00
lol buckeye scoop.
I hear if you say everything you can imagine over a 2 year span, some might end up being true.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,734
- Reaction score
- 43,440
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
LOL
maze&blew has near 50 posts in this thread calling these "minor" violations when Michigan themselves has admitted that it "Failed to Monitor" the football program.
"Failure to Monitor" not a "minor violation" it's a Level II violation. One could expect Michigan to admit to "Failure to Monitor" because "Lack of Institutional Control" (which they're facing) is a Level 1 violation.
Michigan admitting they "Failed to Monitor" and hoping to limit their punishment to Level II is basically like any defense attorney trying to plea bargain their client from 1st degree murder down to 2nd degree murder.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2020
- Posts
- 8,289
- Reaction score
- 4,709
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
This one was by Toledo in Rossford. Our other tourney must have been somewhat close to Columbus, as 5 teams were from Columbus in the tourney. That was in Tiffin. Looked like an Industrial/Farming type of town.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2020
- Posts
- 8,289
- Reaction score
- 4,709
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
I was determined to find someone who had the video. My dad goes to all his games and he missed this one to watch our dog, as we didn't know if we'd be gone 8 hours or 16 hours.
The fact he missed the homerun killed me, so I made sure to get video and go to his house as soon as I was home. Selfishly, I wanted it too for myself. I went and got the ball too so my son has that keepsake.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 1,935
- Reaction score
- 3,556
- Bookie:
- $ 2,409.00
Sorry, it's true that this is only for the recruiting cheating going on. I wonder if the NCAA will extend his show-cause in the cheating scandal decision.
Be honest though - it wasn't just because he didn't cooperate. They called his conduct unethical and said he disregarded NCAA rules.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 26,503
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Bookie:
- $ 786.00
Stallions intentionally tried to find a grey area to operate in.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 26,503
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Bookie:
- $ 786.00
Failure to monitor is a reactionary violation, it is not the underlying charge. Makes sense that someone like you wouldn’t understand the difference.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,734
- Reaction score
- 43,440
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
LMFAO. You just made that up.
The word "reactionary" is not even used in the entire Compliance Manual.
There's nothing "reactionary" about Failure To Monitor anyway.
Failure to Monitor is neglect. It's the underlying violation that allowed the cheating to happen. It can be intentional or unintentional.
Either way it is a significant breach of conduct and a Level II violation. Not a "minor" violation.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,734
- Reaction score
- 43,440
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
In the medical field "Failure to monitor" is also known as 'Medical Malpractice'.
"Failure to monitor encompasses any action that can be interpreted as a healthcare provider neglecting to watch over a patient."
It is absolutely an underlying violation.
"The patient who was struggling to breath died because the healthcare provider failed to provide the patient with oxygen".......
"bUt ThAt'S just a MiNoR ViOLaTiOn." - maze&blew
"Failure to monitor encompasses any action that can be interpreted as a healthcare provider neglecting to watch over a patient."
It is absolutely an underlying violation.
"The patient who was struggling to breath died because the healthcare provider failed to provide the patient with oxygen".......
"bUt ThAt'S just a MiNoR ViOLaTiOn." - maze&blew
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 26,503
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Bookie:
- $ 786.00
Because it wasn’t an official term you absolute genius. The people claiming Michigan cheated are suggesting the primary offense was severe. It wasn’t. It was a minor violation and the only reason there are major violations involved is because of how the staff reacted to the investigation over those minor violations or because of it being tied to previous behavior over a previous incident (also minor violations turned major over the staff response). The people suggesting that Michigan “cheated” are suggesting this based off the false claim that the level 1 violations had anything to do with the in person scouting rule violations.
Michigan committed multiple minor rule violations and their response, especially stallions response, resulted in escalated penalties related to that; which has nothing actually to do with sign stealing.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,734
- Reaction score
- 43,440
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
I know "reactionary" is not an "official term", dumbass. I just proved that with a simple search of the Compliance Manual.
You made it up using mental gymnastics to make it sound like you know what you're talking about.
"Failure To Monitor" (of which Michigan admitted to in it's response) is the underlying violation. It's the very foundation that allowed Michigan/Stalions to pull off the elaborate cheating scheme.
It's a Level II violation, which is a major violation.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 26,503
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Bookie:
- $ 786.00
Failure to monitor is literally a response to the initial violation. You can’t have a failure to monitor if there’s no primary offense. Jesus man.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,734
- Reaction score
- 43,440
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
LOL. No it's not.
"Failure To Monitor" is the initial violation.
Q: How did Michigan/Stalions get away with the elaborate scheme of Illegal In-Person Scouting Future Opponents?
A: The Michigan Compliance Department "Failed To Monitor" the football program.
Failure to Monitor is neither "reactionary" or a "response". It's Neglect.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 26,503
- Reaction score
- 9,093
- Bookie:
- $ 786.00
Jesus Christ. Failure to monitor what, they sky? The initial violations were in person scouting.
LOL. No it's not.
"Failure To Monitor" is the initial violation.
Q: How did Michigan/Stalions get away with the elaborate scheme of Illegal In-Person Scouting Future Opponents?
A: The Michigan Compliance Department "Failed To Monitor" the football program.
Failure to Monitor is neither "reactionary" or a "response". It's Neglect.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,734
- Reaction score
- 43,440
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
LOL
No. Failure to Monitor the damn football program. You're completely backwards, but that doesn't surprise me because you don't have independent thought. You're biased.
Your material is straight off of MGOBlue type sites defending Michigan. You're a gullible sucker.
You'd have half a case (at best) if the Michigan Compliance Department had 'self reported' the illegal scouting scheme. However, they didn't.
1) The NCAA got outside word of the illegal scouting scheme.
2) The NCAA went to the Big 10 front offices and said "Look out. It looks like Michigan is using an illegal scouting scheme".
3) The Big 10 sent notification to Michigan's Big 10 opponents "Look out. It looks like Michigan is using an illegal scouting scheme."
4) The NCAA opened an investigation into Michigan's illegal scouting scheme.
Call what Michigan's Compliance Department did 'intentional' or 'unintentional', but the initial violation was "Failure To Monitor" by the Michigan Compliance Department. They've admitted to such. It is a Level II violation.
Worst case scenario here is "Lack Of Institutional Control". That has not been eliminated is a Level 1 violation.
You don't expect Michigan's lawyers to admit to "Lack of Institutional Control" do you?
They're hoping to plea bargain down to "Failure to Monitor" (The initial violation) because the penalties will be lesser.