|
|
Post by therealeman on Nov 16, 2012 23:43:18 GMT -8
Coach Fish said they would hear whether or not their appeal to the NCAA would be overturned by today (Friday) in Shep's three game suspension.
Anyone have any news?
Did Shep travel with the team to Missouri?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Nov 17, 2012 7:31:10 GMT -8
Yeah, who cares about Shabazz, what about Winston??
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Nov 17, 2012 7:41:37 GMT -8
I find it distressing that essentially Shepard and Shabazz got the same penalty but Shep, when it was sorted out and determined that the act of co-signing a small loan is a minor violation, immediately reversed the deal and made it right. I saw where an analyst said that Shabazz's penalty should have been 9 games and Shepard's was appropriate at three. This is interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhonka34 on Nov 17, 2012 9:08:29 GMT -8
I find it distressing that essentially Shepard and Shabazz got the same penalty but Shep, when it was sorted out and determined that the act of co-signing a small loan is a minor violation, immediately reversed the deal and made it right. I saw where an analyst said that Shabazz's penalty should have been 9 games and Shepard's was appropriate at three. This is interesting. Dana O'Neill wrote something similar but instead of Winston as the comparison, she used the two guys from Indiana who got the 9 game suspensions. Of course, UCLA and Indiana have a good chance to meet in a tourney next week where 'Bazz will be eligible and the guys at Indiana won't be. |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Nov 17, 2012 9:09:20 GMT -8
And fucal gets the advantage from the politics of the bcs monopoly, again.
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by BBA on Nov 17, 2012 9:11:13 GMT -8
Big bank takes little bank
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Nov 17, 2012 9:11:27 GMT -8
I find it distressing that essentially Shepard and Shabazz got the same penalty but Shep, when it was sorted out and determined that the act of co-signing a small loan is a minor violation, immediately reversed the deal and made it right. I saw where an analyst said that Shabazz's penalty should have been 9 games and Shepard's was appropriate at three. This is interesting. Dana O'Neill wrote something similar but instead of Winston as the comparison, she used the two guys from Indiana who got the 9 game suspensions. Of course, UCLA and Indiana have a good chance to meet in a tourney next week where 'Bazz will be eligible and the guys at Indiana won't be. Hmmmmm.... Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by jhonka34 on Nov 17, 2012 9:41:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by csfoster on Nov 17, 2012 10:03:05 GMT -8
The facts of the cases would suggest that Winston's suspension should be changed from 3 games to 1 game with that one game already served.
According to the NCAA, violations involving more than a $1,000 results in a nine game suspension and those involving less than $1,000 a three game suspension.
Shabazz's involved $1,400 which he has to pay back. Yet upon appeal they reduced his suspension from nine games to three games which he has already served thus he is now eligible.
Winston's involved $400 which he has already paid back. If all things were equal, upon appeal his suspension should be reduced from three games to one game which he has already served and thus he should now be eligible.
But of course not all things are equal even when they actually are.
|
|
