NCAA Sanctions Have No Effect on W/L Records

What I have never understood is why there was no lasting penalty imposed on a coach actively breaking rules. Is there some sort of labor law I am not aware that prevents the NCAA from saying a coach is banned for X years due to cheating. Sampson is a great example of a coach that should never coach another college basketball game. He does not respect the rules.
 
or oklahoma or oklahoma state. i would say the restrictions (and bad management) were fairly effective in my home state.
 
SMU never recovered from the death penalty.

I believe a lot of Alabama's fall from power was a direct result of NCAA scholarship penalties also.
 
This is very interesting, and is just the kind of information I like to see when it comes to these types of questions. However, when it comes to scholarship reductions I wouldn't expect immediate impact, but rather impact after a few years when the "missing" players would have started making an impact. Apparently there was no statistically significant difference in years 1-5, but I wonder how the numbers would have looked if assesed solely on years 3-5.

Also, there is the ironic fact that bowl bans will (on average) IMPROVE team's W/L records, since bowl-eligible teams by definition have winning records, and the net cumulative total of all bowl games is a .500 record (just think how much better Notre Dame's record would look if they had been bowl-banned for their entire existence). I wonder if that was factored into the study, since that aspect alone could potentially offset any decreases in overall winning percentage caused by NCAA penalties, and make it appear that there is no effect even when there is some.
 
SMU wasn't all that great to begin with.

However in the 20 years before the cheating SMU had 5 winning seasons, in the 20 since they have had 1.
 
I just reread the article.

"There was no statistical difference in on-field performance between the five years prior to the NCAA penalties and the five years following them"

When looking at it that way, SMU seems to debunk that myth.

Then again he also said his research didn't begin until 87 so SMU would have nothing to do with it.

"McEvoy said his research dealt with 35 Division I-A football teams that received "major penalties" from the NCAA from 1987 to 2002."

SMU received the Death penalty in 1986 cancelling the 87-88 seasons.
 
Want to stop schools from cheating? Instead of banning the cheaters from TV and taking away scholarships, simply make them play all their non-conference games on the road. That would punish the home fans who mostly would not be able to attend the away games, many times at much smaller stadiums. It would punish the cheaters' athletic departments financially from lack of several large gates.

It would not punish nor reward their conference opponents since their games could be televised. Can you imagine Mack Brown trying to explain to Deloss why the Longhorns would have to play at North Texas for a half million dollar payout instead of at Memorial Stadium with a near ten million gate?

In some cases it might allow a lesser opponent to steal a win which might not have been possible if the cheaters had played at home.

The extent of the cheating could determine how many games or years the offender would be punished. For example, a school found lacking in "institutional control" could automatically receive a one season punishment.

Probably this idea could stand some refinement but you get the general idea.
 
Using SMU as a contradiction to this story isn't exactly valid.

The death penalty didn't do in the Ponies for the last two decades. The SMU administration did. By the time the program was ready to come back, there were so many restrictions in place that SMU would have had a hard time competing with Midwestern State U,

The June Jones hiring is probably the first seriously positive step SMU has taken toward restoring a competitive football program in twenty years. It will be interesting over the next two or three years to see how this plays out.

I think reducing scholarships of a powerhouse program that gets caught only forces the team to recruit smarter for a little while. I don't notice that 'Bama, or okie, or any other significant program has any trouble getting star players while on or just after sanctions. (No need to chime in here aggy...I said "significant" programs, and that leaves you out.)

The slant, to me, is that the NCAA needs to get more stringent sanctions in place, or give up oversight of the rules and regs. I'll believe that the NCAA has grown some cojones when they take any significant action against the dirt burglars, or any other big time program that bends or breaks the rules. I'm not holding my breath for a level playing field...the NCAA is a paper tiger, and folks north of the Red River know it.
 
Tell that to SMU and UH. Neither football team ever recovered. Out at Tech, only the football team didn't stumble but we weren't able to push through on some momentum. We had a good 1997 class but the sanctions and NCAA cloud kept us from following up in 1998 and 1999. The sanctions were the beginning of the end for Marsha Sharp, Larry Hays, and killed James Dickey.

Programs like Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, etc will get enough athletes to keep winning despite sanctions. They did take Miami down for a short period in the 90s.
 
Kind of depends on the dates they use. You wouldn't expect loss of sholarships to have a huge impact in the 2-3 years following sanctions as many good athletes would already be on site.

I did a real quick check on OU. Sanctions came down in 1988 I believe. 10 years prior to that OU won 106 games. 10 years after they won 65. I'd say that is statistically significant.
 
Nueheisel:

Didn't he just pick up a nice gig at UCLA? Probably will happen for Samson also. People desperate to win will compromise anything to be successful on the field...
 
Hell, Eddie Sutton was forced out of Kentucky when probation hit only to land a pretty sweet gig @ OSU only to be forced out @ OSU to land a SF.
If you can win, you always will have a job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top