Baylor Football

NCAA releases findings from investigation into Baylor Football program

August 11, 2021
56,003

On Wednesday, the NCAA made available its findings from a recently concluded investigation into the Baylor football program that began in 2016. 

According to the release, “A Division I Committee on Infractions hearing panel could not conclude that Baylor violated NCAA rules when it failed to report allegations of and address sexual and interpersonal violence committed on its campus.

“However, the panel did find other violations occurred between 2011 and 2016: impermissible benefits were provided to a football student-athlete who was not reported for failing to meet an academic performance plan following an academic violation and the university operated a predominantly female student-host program that did not align with NCAA recruiting rules. Additionally, a former assistant director of football operations did not meet his obligation to cooperate and violated ethical conduct rules when he did not participate in the investigation.

“Penalties in the case include four years of probation, recruiting restrictions, a vacation of records and a five-year show-cause order limiting all athletically related duties for the former assistant director of football operations.”

The exact punishments were as following.

  • Four years of probation.
  • A $5,000 fine.
  • A reduction to 30 football official visits during the 2021-22 academic year.
  • A three-week ban on unofficial visits in football during the 2021-22 academic year.
  • A two-week ban on football recruiting communication during the 2021-22 academic year.
  • A reduction of football evaluation days by three during fall 2021 and by 10 during spring 2022.
  • A five-year show-cause order for the former assistant director of football operations. During that period, any NCAA member school employing him must restrict him from any athletically related duties unless it shows cause why the restrictions should not apply.
  • A vacation of all records in which student-athletes competed while ineligible. The university must provide a written report containing the contests impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 14 days of the public release of the decision.

Baylor is expected to release additional information on the findings at 11:30 a.m. CT on its official University website.

The NCAA will make available Joel Maturi, former athletics director at Minnesota and chief hearing officer for the panel, to the media at 12 p.m. CT. 

Baylor President Linda Livingstone and Vice President and Director of Athletics Mack Rhoades will hold a joint virtual press conference at 1:30 p.m. CT. 

Discussion from...

NCAA releases findings from investigation into Baylor Football program

26,140 Views | 58 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by gold rewards
Grizz Air
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So is this good or bad??
Big_Pumpin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Probation?
SJ8999
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big_Pumpin said:

Probation?


Starting from what date? Today? 2016?
Ewalker80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At first read I would say this is very very good. The violations are not related to sexual assault directly and ticky tack. I'm curious whom the ineligible players were and what must be vacated, but there are only two things we care about --- our two Big 12 championships.
Ewalker80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big_Pumpin said:

Probation?
that just means there are enhanced penalties if there is another violation.
CTbruin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Grizz Air said:

So is this good or bad??
Very manageable......
MrGolfguy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most of this is punishing the current staff and players who had zero to do with this. So stupid
Well I ain't no greenhorn!!
parch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
From an actual day-to-day competitive perspective, this will have minimal impact on the current staff, if any - and certainly much less impact with recruits than the conference musical chairs. The only tough pill could be losing some bowl wins/Big 12 titles as a result of the infractions not related to the sexual assaults.
Ewalker80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
this appears to be the issue leading to potential vacation --- "impermissible benefits were provided to a football student-athlete who was not reported for failing to meet an academic performance plan following an academic violation"

But that's also potentially standard language in these findings. They put it on the university to tell when this player competed b/c they might not keep records of that. hopefully whomever this is they didn't play much. If every conference championship was vacated for this kind of thing there wouldn't be any conference championships left.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MrGolfguy said:

Most of this is punishing the current staff and players who had zero to do with this. So stupid


It could've been worse. This is possibly the best outcome we could've hoped for.

The NCAA seems to have been very careful of what it could and couldn't punish us for. They did mention there were things very wrong with what was going on, but they couldn't do anything because it was out of their jurisdiction. We need to take this (lenient) L and move on. This chapter is done finally.
CTbruin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It could have been much worse.
parch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I will also say this - if we had a student-athlete who was allowed to play impermissibly, then we'll take our medicine. But this was only discovered after a root-to-stem investigation into a different issue lasting for a half decade that to my knowledge has few if any parallels in its scope.

Do the same meticulous investigation at the majority of title-winning programs in this country - something the NCAA has never done and won't do for obvious reasons - and you're going to kick over some rocks with some ugly things underneath. I would venture a guess that the majority of conference titles won over the last 10 years were won with a vacateable NCAA infraction on the books. Unfortunate finding all the way around.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did y'all notice no show cause for Briles or anyone on staff except director of football operations as far as I can tell.
Polycarp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"A vacation of all records in which student-athletes competed while ineligible in the 2011 season. The University must provide a written report containing the contests impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 14 days of the public release of the decision."

The above is from the other thread. It seems to state the ineligible player(s) are limited to 2011.

If so, championships are safe.
ImABearToo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is the witch hunt over and can Art move forward now?
LatigoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aranda must have been apprised of how minimal the NCAA punishment was likely to be before he accepted the position.
Space Cutter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A student athlete which means ONE person. And Baylor gets all these penalties probably designed to hurt our current recruiting. Not to mention the NCAA, which is dying itself, can't find any violations for what everyone says we did but kept digging to find something ( anything ) else to hit us with. FIGHT IT ! ! ! Plus make Big 12 give us all our money back they withheld PLUS interest.
burg0047
How long do you want to ignore this user?
parch said:

I will also say this - if we had a student-athlete who was allowed to play impermissibly, then we'll take our medicine. But this was only discovered after a root-to-stem investigation into a different issue lasting for a half decade that to my knowledge has few if any parallels in its scope.

Do the same meticulous investigation at the majority of title-winning programs in this country - something the NCAA has never done and won't do for obvious reasons - and you're going to kick over some rocks with some ugly things underneath. I would venture a guess that the majority of conference titles won over the last 10 years were won with a vacateable NCAA infraction on the books. Unfortunate finding all the way around.
And the den of iniquities we call UT Austin is so quick to point it's spindly fingers at Baylor while we know that, if they for forced to lift their skirt the way BU has had to... it would not be pretty.
KIA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Polycarp said:

"A vacation of all records in which student-athletes competed while ineligible in the 2011 season. The University must provide a written report containing the contests impacted to the NCAA media coordination and statistics staff within 14 days of the public release of the decision."

The above is from the other thread. It seems to state the ineligible player(s) are limited to 2011.

If so, championships are safe.
2011 was the Heisman season.
Big12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Heisman Trophy is not an NCAA award.
Bearanon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
After 6 years of investigation, fired coaches, and a complete evisceration of our program...

"A Division I Committee on Infractions hearing panel could not conclude that Baylor violated NCAA rules..."
BUGWBBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big_Pumpin said:

Probation?


As in DONT FYUCK UP AGAIN OR WE'LL REALLY GET HUFFY!
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big12 said:

The Heisman Trophy is not an NCAA award.

Exactly - and RGIII isn't the player in question.
PaperBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, basically we got Al Capone'd
Ewalker80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

Aranda must have been apprised of how minimal the NCAA punishment was likely to be before he accepted the position.


He knew there was a risk of much worse.
PaperBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just read the ESPN story. Gotta love the way they barely mentioned what we were actually punished for and spent 95% of the story explaining how the NCAAA decided to tie its own hands on the sexual assault allegations ... and of course rehashed the entire history going back to 2013.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PaperBear89 said:

spent 95% of the story explaining how the NCAAA decided to tie its own hands on the sexual assault allegations ... and of course rehashed the entire history going back to 2013.


You know they have had the ready and waiting in the can for the moment the ruling came out...
PaperBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

PaperBear89 said:

spent 95% of the story explaining how the NCAAA decided to tie its own hands on the sexual assault allegations ... and of course rehashed the entire history going back to 2013.


You know they have had the ready and waiting in the can for the moment the ruling came out...
Typical lazy-ass journalism that the media has become.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
parch said:

Do the same meticulous investigation at the majority of title-winning programs in this country - something the NCAA has never done and won't do for obvious reasons - and you're going to kick over some rocks with some ugly things underneath. I would venture a guess that the majority of conference titles won over the last 10 years were won with a vacateable NCAA infraction on the books. Unfortunate finding all the way around.
I totally agree with this and have always felt this way. You could write down all the names of D-1 programs that have averaged being a winner over the last decade, throw them in a hat and pick one at random for this kind of an anal stem to stern NCAA investigation and I would bet the farm that vacateable infractions will be found no matter who it is. It all just boils down to who is unfortunate enough to get investigated.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PaperBear89 said:

boognish_bear said:

PaperBear89 said:

spent 95% of the story explaining how the NCAAA decided to tie its own hands on the sexual assault allegations ... and of course rehashed the entire history going back to 2013.


You know they have had the ready and waiting in the can for the moment the ruling came out...
Typical lazy-ass journalism that the media has become.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that legal or civil issues including even serious ones like sexual assault allegations are totally outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction?
Born_A_Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And why did NCAA not know they had no jurisdiction from the beginning?
Correct Answer: Because it is the NCAA.
McCavebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

PaperBear89 said:

boognish_bear said:

PaperBear89 said:

spent 95% of the story explaining how the NCAAA decided to tie its own hands on the sexual assault allegations ... and of course rehashed the entire history going back to 2013.


You know they have had the ready and waiting in the can for the moment the ruling came out...
Typical lazy-ass journalism that the media has become.
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that legal or civil issues including even serious ones like sexual assault allegations are totally outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction?
They are also totally outside the jurisdiction of universities to properly investigate and prosecute. Such matters are for the law courts...

Sounds like they went through our athletic program with a fine toothed comb and found only de minibus technical improprieties totally unrelated to the ginned up sexual assault narrative that caused us to lose Coach Briles and Ian.
McCavebear Lives!
Ewalker80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Born_A_Bear said:

And why did NCAA not know they had no jurisdiction from the beginning?
Correct Answer: Because it is the NCAA.
They did know, but they were desperately hoping to find violations with some nexus to the sexual assualt allegations so they could send the PR message that the NCAA is tough on sexual assault. Also you must remember that this investigation spanned the entire me too movement, during which time it would have created a firestorm to be perceived as light on such issues.

Proof of NCAA's bad faith is as follows:

(1) these penalties are actually extremely harsh for these ticky tack violations. 4 years for one testing violation in 2011 and having our own (probably of much more moral character) Aggie Angels? Every dang program has the Aggie Angels or whatever --- I used to see them posted on every restaurant in college station. the penalties were really for the sexual assault conduct and dressed up in the best ticky tack stuff they could find. If they could have found more serious conduct they would have. We would also appeal if not for the PR nightmare it is for us to keep the sexual assault stuff in the news.
(2) They put all this gratuitous stuff in there about how the NCAA should change its rules to penalize this kind of thing. Detail all of the other law enforcement actions, etc. None of that is necessary to their decision and has no business in an investigation report. That was put in for their own self-serving, PR reasons and to show moral approbation against Baylor.
(3) they mention tons of unsubstantiated allegations like that Baylor's Aggie Angels committed inappropriate conduct with football players. Ya I'm sure people allege that kind of thing against every school's angels but that doesn't mean you can and should put that kind of hearsay in your official report. the report just throws everything negative about Baylor against the wall without saying they found it credible, just to smear and virtue signal.
(4) THEY MADE NO STATEMENTS ABOUT ALL THE PROGRESS MADE, in sharp contrast to their retraction of the Penn St sanctions, in which they rave about all the progress made. What about noting we have met all 100 or whatever recommendations from our own voluntary Pepper Hamilton report? What about commending us for self-reporting or cleaning house throughout the university? They only included negative facts and allegations, whether proven or not.

This report further demonstrates the NCAA investigation process is corrupt, unprofessional, self-serving, and broken.
Ewalker80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ewalker80 said:

Born_A_Bear said:

And why did NCAA not know they had no jurisdiction from the beginning?
Correct Answer: Because it is the NCAA.
They did know, but they were desperately hoping to find violations with some nexus to the sexual assualt allegations so they could send the PR message that the NCAA is tough on sexual assault. Also you must remember that this investigation spanned the entire me too movement, during which time it would have created a firestorm to be perceived as light on such issues.

Proof of NCAA's bad faith is as follows:

(1) these penalties are actually extremely harsh for these ticky tack violations. 4 years for one testing violation in 2011 and having our own (probably of much more moral character) Aggie Angels? Every dang program has the Aggie Angels or whatever --- I used to see them posted on every restaurant in college station. the penalties were really for the sexual assault conduct and dressed up in the best ticky tack stuff they could find. If they could have found more serious conduct they would have. We would also appeal if not for the PR nightmare it is for us to keep the sexual assault stuff in the news.
(2) They put all this gratuitous stuff in there about how the NCAA should change its rules to penalize this kind of thing. Detail all of the other law enforcement actions, etc. None of that is necessary to their decision and has no business in an investigation report. That was put in for their own self-serving, PR reasons and to show moral approbation against Baylor.
(3) they mention tons of unsubstantiated allegations like that Baylor's Aggie Angels committed inappropriate conduct with football players. Ya I'm sure people allege that kind of thing against every school's angels but that doesn't mean you can and should put that kind of hearsay in your official report. the report just throws everything negative about Baylor against the wall without saying they found it credible, just to smear and virtue signal.
(4) THEY MADE NO STATEMENTS ABOUT ALL THE PROGRESS MADE, in sharp contrast to their retraction of the Penn St sanctions, in which they rave about all the progress made. What about noting we have met all 100 or whatever recommendations from our own voluntary Pepper Hamilton report? What about commending us for self-reporting or cleaning house throughout the university? They only included negative facts and allegations, whether proven or not.

This report further demonstrates the NCAA investigation process is corrupt, unprofessional, self-serving, and broken.
The Odell James statement further confirms NCAA's overreach and unprofessionalism. He had no obligation to meet with them so they could support their "fishing expedition." That's really the key term here. The ticky tack violations they found have absolutely zero connection with the allegations first brought to their attention BY BAYLOR. Their fishing expedition yielded essentially nothing so they tried to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.