Tags

Couldn’t let this go without also posting something on it. I’ve been debating a few people over the last few days over whether or not Miami should receive the ultimate punishment – the death penalty. I am also in favor of them receiving it. I will also admit to being a Miami fan. As Andy has already said, the scope of allegations against Miami by Shapiro is alarming and perhaps exceptional among all the incidents the NCAA has investigated.

Many of us assume that most major college football institutions participate in these kinds of actions, but to have such evidence to its occurances, and to catch the program while it’s still occuring is rare. The NCAA is known for failing to find things as they occur, but remove trophies and awards after the fact.

Major things to consider as this plays out.

1. This is a debate between the systems rules and the assumed rules. Many assume that these violations occur regularly across the country. I would argue they would be correct. Some will argue taht because that is the case, Miami shouldn’t receive the death penalty. I will argue that until the system is changed in a way that doesn’t foster these kinds of situations, Miami must be punished to the fullest extent of the NCAA law – as should all schools that violate the rules so extensively.

2. When SMU receive the death penalty, their campus became a recruiting block for anyone looking to fill out their own teams. Most players left the school, knowing that they would be unable to play there. I think that in order to prevent the school from receiving all the punishment and leaving most of the players in the clear, the NCAA should rule that any player convicted / confirmed of violating major rules should be forbidden from playing football at another institution. I would allow players to come forwards to receive lesser punishments, like a plea deal, but I do not think that the players should not be held accountable and skip off to win a championship or Heisman at another school.

3. Miami is a second time offender. The ESPN 30 for 30 covering “The U” showed that this is a program that had already been talked about as being unwelcome for college football. In that case, it was simply a rejection of the style of football they were playing, but there were violations in that era as well. To say that because this is one person causing the problems is not an excuse. Shapiro stated that he replaced a booster convicted of violations. That shows evidence of repeated offenses and failure to change their habits after a first warning.

Advertisements