The Duke lacrosse saga that began in 2006 is an ongoing reminder that quick conclusions can be the epitome of a dangerous leap in sports.
With that in mind, far be it from me to say without reservation that Miami’s athletics program is on the verge of virtual devastation.
But if the NCAA eventually determines that this week's allegations of outrageous behavior by the school and its athletes are accurate, the ACC will forever rue the day that the Hurricanes only a few years ago were the centerpiece of expansion.
The league’s $2 billion, 12-year or so television contract with ESPN may not be compromised or downsized, but the immediate and long-range impact on the league almost surely will be far reaching. And costly.
At a time when UNC’s football program is in the NCAA’s on-deck circle and various other conference programs have been sanctioned, the potential mushroom cloud in Miami will be as bad for business as imaging.
The whole idea of bringing aboard Miami in 2004 was to add a big-hitter football commodity for TV contractual purposes. After much inspection (supposedly), the ACC pronounced the long-troubled Hurricanes a healthy, rehabilitated program that long would be an asset on and off the field for the conference.
In reality, the football team has been average – 30-26 against so-so league rivals – and anything except can’t-miss TV.
The only plus of expansion has been Virginia Tech, the “regional school” no one in the ACC wanted when the process began.
Boston College will never be a fan factor in the ACC – or in the city of Boston for that matter.
So here we are – eight years later – and the ACC is facing the prospect of forever forking over big checks from the TV bounty to a Miami program that may not be worth its weight in horse feathers when the next TV contract has to be negotiated.
Columnist
Comments
Chck out this site
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 23:32 — gvillegatrIf you have an hour to spare, you'll enjoy this read.
The long and short of it disproves 60 of the 72 players involved at Miami as well as all but one Miami football coach. Not to leave out there is zero evidence or proof that links any of the current football players including all of the accused during the Randy Shannon era.
Links can't be placed here so google: allabouttheu
Thats the website name.
Good Lord. Wake me when they
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:10 — andy65Simple
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:37 — SurferAs a UNC grad, I am upset with the actions of a few representing the football team and I trust that the administration, et.al. are well on their way to putting things in place so that we don't cross this bridge again. But my diploma "has been devalued"? Uh, I don't think so.
You know
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:06 — gvillegatrIts funny how ncsu fans talk about Diploma Mills at UNC and UM yet their own school is ranked second to last in the ACC in academics in Div 1 Football. And when I say "Div 1 football" I mean the entire student body.
I don't think this
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:23 — danofncI don't think this necessarily says what you think it does.
Kids that flunk out of school are actually indications that athletes are doing their own work, and sometimes not doing it very well. In situations where a school is allowing kids in who are obviously academic risks, it is expected that some will struggle.
The fact that guys haven't struggled academically at UNC is more of an indicator that the tutor stuff is more widespread than it is suggesting that they are all sudden scholars.
Heh
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 19:04 — Heels20More assumptions. Why am I not surprised?
What is an assumption? If a
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 20:39 — danofncWhat is an assumption?
If a school (any school) has a reputation as a diploma mill for athletes with easy courses, tutors that write papers in those easy courses, and professors that don't bother to check for plagiarism, isn't it crazy for a fan of that school to then turn around and brag about their academics?
UNC
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 22:46 — Heels20UNC is more highly regarded than NC State as a public university. That is not because of a media conspiracy, nor is it because of preferential treatment for athletes. You're going to need more than McAdoo's case to prove a point.
I'm guessing you were an engineering major, too. Right?
Blah blah blah
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 17:03 — gvillegatrBlah blah blah
Miami "could become" dead
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 03:28 — reasonableMiami "could become" dead weightt? I'd agree with that if you changed "could become" to "has been nothing but." And the same goes for BC. And in the case of BC at least, it was obvious from the start they'd be dead weight.
BC has five million people just in the Boston metro area and yet they average less than 40,000 attending their games. And they're not even remotely a TV draw either in or out of Boston. Miami isn't much bettter in terms of attendance and has slid a lot in terms of TV.
Meanwhile there are less than 2 million people in the entire state of Nebraska and yet lots of people attend their games and people everywhere watch them on TV. There are less than 2 million people in West Virginia and yet lots of people attend their games and people everywhere watch them on TV. There are less than 100,000 people in College Station, Texas and no towns of any size within 50 miles and yet lots of people attend Texas A&M games and people everywhere watch them on TV.
The Big Ten just added Nebraska. Suppose for a minute that Northwestern, a school without much fan interest despite being located in a city, like BC and Miami, wasn't already in the Big Ten when the Big Ten was going to expand. Would the Big Ten have considered adding Northwestern instead of Nebraska even for a second? Would they have considered adding Northwestern instead of any of the other candidates mentioned even for a second?
The days of city schools that have little local fan interest being useful in college football are long gone. And so are the days of small, private schools that aren't in cities (Syracuse). And yet when the ACC expanded those are the only schools they tried to add.
The ACC should be thankful some Virginia politicians were sleazy enough to be deceptive and forced the ACC into adding a school that actually ended up benefiting the conference. But it would have been better yet if the ACC had simply done a better job in the first place of judging what schools would have benefited the conference.
I disagee with one thing
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:01 — gvillegatrThere are lots of people who watch UM football on tv in S Fla and around the country.
This is no..
Wed, 08/17/2011 - 19:58 — UNC1998small isssue for the Canes. They've been down this road before, albeit with different people in place. The NCAA will not go easy, and if Golden is a thinker he will load up the track team with football players.
This looks huge
Wed, 08/17/2011 - 20:13 — gvillegatrBut there's no way you can stop this kind of stuff. 100% impossible. I've witnessed "hand shakes" at ECU. The amt of money one gets is irrelevant.
I've been against it from Day 1, but it is time to do something ($) ... even though I just stated you can't stop the illegal crap.
Maybe it can't be stopped
Wed, 08/17/2011 - 22:07 — JPDOhioBut it is truly out of hand and major reform has to come. If the major programs don't get together with the NCAA and adopt changes that have teeth, some politician is going to take up the crusade and really screw things up. Whatever they do, the penalty has to cost the offender money, lots of it, and coaches have to suffer consequences. The Calipari shuffle won't do any more.
Consequences
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 00:11 — Heels20Coaches who are actively involved in this sort of thing should be banned from the college game. Whatever solution the NCAA comes to needs to start with that.
Black balled maybe
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:02 — gvillegatrBut it would be unconstitutional for a group with no legal authority to ban someone for life.
I am sure there is a way
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 21:31 — unc098I am sure there is a way around it though. How about forfeiture of compensation and a penalty for any coach that brings down the house.
The time for reform is now. In every crises there is opportunity. Hopefully the college presidents will take a larger role in determining the direction of these reforms.
Do you know what a
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 14:20 — danofncDo you know what a show-cause order is?
Hints: They come from the NCAA. They are used right now. They keep coaches from coaching at NCAA schools.
Synonym class
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 16:56 — gvillegatrShow cause order is synonymous with black ball. Go look it up.
In the National Collegiate
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 17:40 — danofncIn the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a show-cause penalty is an order saying that a coach involved in major rules violations at a university's athletic program may not be hired by any other NCAA member institutions without permission from the Infractions Committee for a set period of time. If a university seeks to hire such a coach, they must "show cause" as to why they should not be penalized for hiring him.
If you really want to know how biased Dan is (and wrong)
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 23:25 — gvillegatrWhat he copied and pasted up above trying to prove me wrong (once again) was frOm the exact same place I got my copy and paste from to prove that I was correct. To take it a step further, the very next sentence is where I started. So when you read what he copy and pasted just continue where I started and read mine all the way through. Congrats ! You have read the complete Wikipedia definition of show cause !!!
You're a joke and a fraud, Dan. But keep it up !
C'mon Dan
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 16:16 — gvillegatrWhere ya at ?
I'm right here. Typically,
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 18:14 — danofncI'm right here.
Typically, people who claim they have been blackballed think that something was done behind their back by people who are out to get them.
A show cause order from the NCAA is not any secret. It's a public thing that says a certain individual can't be trusted to follow the rules and shouldn't be hired.
I suspect we'll get an example soon, because there is most likely a show cause waiting for John Blake.
One thing....I'm not sure blackballed and blacklisted mean the same thing, but you are saying that they do.
Incredible
Fri, 08/19/2011 - 20:41 — gvillegatrYou are as full of it as someone on the Internet can be !
I got one to pal
Thu, 08/18/2011 - 23:18 — gvillegatrMost schools will not even consider hiring a coach with a show-cause penalty in effect; hence the show-cause order effectively blacklists him from the collegiate coaching ranks for the duration of the penalty, and many coaches who are given such a penalty never coach again, even after the expiration of the penalty. The penalty is intended to follow a coach for violations that he had a role in committing.