Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cougar heathen

BYU placed on 3 year probation by NCAA for infractions

Recommended Posts

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-volley/stories/031108aac.html

I realize that this is only in mens volleyball, but volleyball is arguably one of BYU's most successful sports in the past decade. I wonder if BYU will be stripped of its national championships as well. So much for that squeaky clean athletic program. This also explains the sudden departure of their volleyball coach two years back.

March 11, 2008

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Brigham Young was placed on probation for three years by the NCAA on Tuesday for violations in men's volleyball.

The NCAA infractions committee said BYU gave several international men's volleyball players improper financial benefits and travel expenses.

BYU self-imposed a two-year probation. The NCAA added another year.

The men's volleyball team will lose a partial scholarship for the next two years and face limits when recruiting players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-volley/stories/031108aac.html

I realize that this is only in mens volleyball, but volleyball is arguably one of BYU's most successful sports in the past decade. I wonder if BYU will be stripped of its national championships as well. So much for that squeaky clean athletic program. This also explains the sudden departure of their volleyball coach two years back.

March 11, 2008

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Brigham Young was placed on probation for three years by the NCAA on Tuesday for violations in men's volleyball.

The NCAA infractions committee said BYU gave several international men's volleyball players improper financial benefits and travel expenses.

BYU self-imposed a two-year probation. The NCAA added another year.

The men's volleyball team will lose a partial scholarship for the next two years and face limits when recruiting players.

Funny though how it is BYU who is impossing the majority of the punishment on their own program. Without BYU's punishment it looks like they would have one year with only recruiting restrictions on them. How many programs actually impose their own punishment to that degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BYU self-imposed a two-year probation. The NCAA added another year.

Seems BYU tried to get off easy and the NCAA stepped in and added another year.

Like i said if BYU had not imposed a 2 year probation they would have a 1 year probation instead of a three year. The NCAA added a year of their own penalties. Spin it anyway you want but if interestingly ignored that BYU imposed a scholly restriction while the NCAA did not. Obviously the ncaa was less harsh on BYU then BYU was on BYU.

Like the NCAA was ever going to let them get off whether or not they imposed their own penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BYU self-imposed a two-year probation. The NCAA added another year.

Seems BYU tried to get off easy and the NCAA stepped in and added another year.

And the Cougars will still own the Rainbows on the volleyball court. Your infatuation with all things BYU is never ending.

TMays360-vi.pngHarveyUnga11Cover.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most teams do this now. They know something is coming down and they slap themselves first. UNM recently did, Fresno recently did, Utah may have (iirc) after the Majerus bit.

A couple of years ago you heard a lot of complaining from other MPSF programs. BYU's winning big this year again but you don't hear the same scuttlebutt. That's good.

Go Cougars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like i said if BYU had not imposed a 2 year probation they would have a 1 year probation instead of a three year. The NCAA added a year of their own penalties. Spin it anyway you want but if interestingly ignored that BYU imposed a scholly restriction while the NCAA did not. Obviously the ncaa was less harsh on BYU then BYU was on BYU.

Like the NCAA was ever going to let them get off whether or not they imposed their own penalties.

This statement is probably not accurate. If they were only going to give them one year then why would the NCAA add a year on top of two years? Probably would still have been three years. What would I know I am from Idaho. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNM self imposed probation and recruiting restrictions after a grade fixing scheme was discovered among some assistant football coaches and a few recruits. Schools do this all the time, hoping to avoid even harsher punitive actions by the NCAA. Seems the NCAA thought the self imposed 2 year probation by bYu was not quite sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like i said if BYU had not imposed a 2 year probation they would have a 1 year probation instead of a three year. The NCAA added a year of their own penalties. Spin it anyway you want but if interestingly ignored that BYU imposed a scholly restriction while the NCAA did not. Obviously the ncaa was less harsh on BYU then BYU was on BYU.

Like the NCAA was ever going to let them get off whether or not they imposed their own penalties.

I think Warbow is right. I bet we would have gotten 3 years by the NCAA but because we added 2 ourselves so they only tacked on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like i said if BYU had not imposed a 2 year probation they would have a 1 year probation instead of a three year. The NCAA added a year of their own penalties. Spin it anyway you want but if interestingly ignored that BYU imposed a scholly restriction while the NCAA did not. Obviously the ncaa was less harsh on BYU then BYU was on BYU.

Like the NCAA was ever going to let them get off whether or not they imposed their own penalties.

Almost all teams self impose punishment when they commit infractions. It shows the NCAA there is still institutional control. Your premise that the NCAA would have only imposed a one year penalty because they added one year to BYU's self imposed penalty is not correct. Many times the NCAA will not issue any punishment if they feel the institutions own punishment was sufficient. That was obviously not the case here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

Too bad, but it looked like BYU handled it fairly well. Unfortunately the actions of a few can cast shadows on many. Hopefully this was just a lone incident by a few rouge people. How much money did they give?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad, but it looked like BYU handled it fairly well. Unfortunately the actions of a few can cast shadows on many. Hopefully this was just a lone incident by a few rouge people. How much money did they give?

I don't remember the numbers on it but I do know that the coach was dismissed quickly and without much argument. Holmoe and company will not tolerate infractions of this kind.

TMays360-vi.pngHarveyUnga11Cover.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ragtimeJOE

I don't remember the numbers on it but I do know that the coach was dismissed quickly and without much argument. Holmoe and company will not tolerate infractions of this kind.

No big deal on the numbers; I was just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

real mature.

You're a queer rainbow fan and you have the gall to accuse ANYBODY of trying to get off easy after your football schedule from last year?!?! PLEASE!!!!!

nXlmx.gif

Back to Back Mountain West Tourney Champs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<SLTrib>

Peterson's Response To Findings

Former BYU men's volleyball coach Tom Peterson, who resigned in the wake of the allegations of violations committed by the program, distributed a press release through his attorney Steven Andersen regarding the NCAA's findings.

Here is what he sent in full length (Disclosure: it is very long and everything below this point was written by Peterson and his attorney):

Breaking 18 months of silence, Dr. Tom Peterson, former head coach of

BYU Men's Volleyball, responds to today's NCAA announcement of findings

based on an investigation involving the Cougar's men's volleyball program.

"Essentially, the university and I were accused of failing to monitor the program for NCAA rules compliance. I deny that accusation," said Peterson.

In Peterson's view, the NCAA findings that certain technical violations

occurred does not support the conclusion that the head coach was turning a blind

eye. He points to his previously unblemished record of 27 years of NCAA

coaching, and to what former assistants, players and administrators describe as the

atmosphere of compliance he created.

"The fact that rules were violated in spite of our consistent efforts to foster compliance proves only that even the most

conscientious efforts on the part of the head coach are not always enough to prevent players, boosters, and even coaches from technical mistakes," said Peterson.

"The evidence is clear I consulted with the university's compliance officers.

I appointed one of my assistant coaches as our program's recruiting coordinator -

with the assignment of closely monitoring all aspects of recruiting and compliance.

We reviewed his recruiting reports in weekly staff meetings and I was consistently

assured by him that specific requests and concerns were being taken care of. I also

made diligent efforts to personally communicate with players, recruits, and

boosters regarding expected behavior. Given my history with and affection for the

BYU program," said Peterson, "I did everything I thought was necessary and

appropriate to keep the program in compliance."

Both the NCAA and BYU agreed early on that no unethical conduct was

displayed by Peterson - there were no violations of an intentional nature and

nothing that gave BYU an unfair recruiting advantage. The violations were

technical in nature.

"All of the allegations that the NCAA chose to pursue stemmed from

humanitarian concern for others, and the actions were inadvertent. No one was

trying to circumvent rules, and none of the violations gave BYU an unfair

recruiting advantage," states Peterson.

For example, BYU and Peterson were accused of recruiting violations in

connection with the decision of an individual who moved on his own from Puerto

Rico to Provo to seek admittance to the university and membership on its men's

volleyball team. (In the NCAA press conference, Committee on Infractions Chair

Jo Potuto misquoted Coach Peterson on the subject of recruiting this player,

attributing to him salty language that the Coach did not and does not use.) Without

Peterson's knowledge, a player gave the individual a ride from the airport and,

when his housing plans fell through, allowed him to stay at the player's apartment

for some weeks. When Peterson saw they were developing a close friendship, he

consulted with the compliance office and insisted that both maintain a proper

student athlete/potential recruit relationship. Both informed Peterson that they

were conforming to this, and Peterson tasked his recruiting coordinator to follow

up on the situation.

When it appeared to all that the individual would not qualify to join the

team, he sought career employment with a booster, not itself a violation of any

rule. In fact, the individual had sought permanent employment only because of a

mistake by the NCAA Clearinghouse in initially declaring him ineligible. Again,

Peterson asked the university's compliance officers for guidance, provided the

booster with printed regulations, reviewed the pertinent NCAA rules with the

booster and the recruit, and made it clear that the individual must be treated no

differently from any other employee.

The employer insists, in writing, that he made every attempt to follow the 30

or so pages of rules and guidance provided to him by Peterson, and that he paid a

fair wage in U.S. dollars rather than Canadian dollars because the employee had a

U.S. work permit. He even made this employee pay room and board during

training, a cost not imposed on other employees. The booster acknowledges that he

let the employee ride along in the family car on a few trips without charge, a

common business practice in a remote, rural town.

Ultimately BYU compliance helped the NCAA Clearinghouse discover its

mistake in not qualifying the player early on. However, the rides and the monetary

exchange rate somehow persuaded the NCAA that the young man was given

preferential treatment.

Peterson acknowledges that he allowed an ecclesiastical leader to lend

bicycles to two students who had inquired about and requested help with

transportation to get around in Provo.

"I take full responsibility for this situation," states Peterson. "The bicycles were never intended to be inducements to players."

Peterson points out that BYU has a unique culture dedicated to service to others,

that the ecclesiastical leader had for years provided similar humanitarian aid to

other students. The bikes were supposed to be returned for loan to other needy

students or charities.

As for $17,000 provided to a second Cuban athlete, Peterson denies any

failure to monitor the situation, and does not agree that this matter even belongs in

the NCAA investigation. BYU initially agreed.

"I do not know what influenced the university to change its position and join the NCAA allegation against me," said Peterson. "Possibly it was their legal strategy. We did not know who this prospect was, we did not solicit him to come, and the compliance office never identified him as a viable recruit."

This second Cuban showed up on a booster's doorstep as a refugee who

would be deported back to his country but for humanitarian aid. The $17,000 is an

eye-catching figure characterized by the NCAA as inducements given by a booster.

But virtually all the money identified in this investigation was paid to private legal

counsel to have this individual stay in the United States.

"What would any decent person have done?" asks Peterson. "This booster even now believes he did the

right thing for this young man, who later joined the LDS church. The booster told

the young man that if he accepted assistance he would not be able to play

volleyball for BYU. This defection and assistance given had nothing to do with

the recruitment of a volleyball player."

As the NCAA investigation interviews were concluding, but long before the

allegations were filed, Peterson was summoned to a late night meeting and told he

must either resign or be fired. This action, announced on August 31, 2006, came

as a shock to the man that was the 1994 National Coach of the Year, and the only

coach ever to lead two different men's programs to a national championship (Penn

State in 1994, BYU in 2004). To this day, Peterson is uncertain as to the real

reasons he was asked to resign. It is unclear whether BYU based its decision

solely on the NCAA allegations, on sudden dissatisfaction with Peterson's job

performance, or on political machinations.

If the administration had problems with the way I ran my program, it was a

surprise to me," said Peterson.

"I received consistently positive feedback from the administration, and no one mentioned any problems until I was abruptly asked to resign. When I was asked for my resignation, I was told, among other things, that I

didn't care enough about certain issues such as academics, graduation, and being

lenient with meting out punishment to players who were no longer on our team.

Those accusations didn't make sense then and they still don't make sense. Anyone

who knows me knows that I care deeply about academic achievement and the

welfare of my players."

"The technical nature of the NCAA allegations did not warrant the BYU

athletic department taking the action it did against me," said Peterson. "If the

NCAA allegations were the basis for the university's decision, it does not make

sense that my resignation would have been demanded even before the allegations

were formulated and fully investigated by the NCAA. I understand that the buck

stops with the head coach," adds Peterson. "But I have some trouble with the idea

that my then assistant and recruiting coordinator, who was in at least as good, if not

better, position than I to have discovered and prevented these violations, was

promoted to interim head coach while I was forced to resign. I can't shake the

sense that some political maneuvering was taking place behind the scenes and that

the university decided to designate me as a scapegoat."

Nearly a year after his forced resignation, Peterson was finally given access

to interview statements given by various individuals during the prior year's NCAA

investigation - access he was supposed to have had early on but was not granted.

Peterson recalls being "stunned" upon listening to recordings of testimony given by two staff members presenting false and misleading statements concerning him. Some of the testimony was so outlandish it was completely disregarded by the

NCAA.

But Peterson thinks the university's decision to remove him was based on

such statements. "I realized these individuals must have taken an opportunity to

further personal agendas by making false and inflammatory statements about me

and my coaching practices. It is unfortunate that I was terminated without ever

being apprised of the misinformation that had been given. I didn't have an

opportunity to know or defend myself against my accusers. I would like to have

seen more loyalty from my alma mater, the institution that I have long served to

the best of my ability."

Positive support from Peterson's long-time assistant, Grayson DuBose, now

head women's volleyball coach at Utah State University, was apparently ignored.

"I served as coach Peterson's assistant coach at three institutions, and I was the

recruiting coordinator at two of them," says DuBose. "At BYU I also helped when

needed with recruiting. I think I am in a better position to talk about Tom and his

coaching practices than other staff members. At no time did I ever feel that Tom

tried to take unfair advantage with recruiting; quite the opposite, if there were a

question about something, Tom would err on the side of being cautious." BYU

athletic officials did not interview DuBose in connection with the decision to

terminate Peterson, even though DuBose requested that he be contacted.

"It is unfortunate that the university acted precipitously in asking for Coach

Peterson's resignation in the middle of the fact finding," comments Peterson

Go Cougars

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...