Recruiting Violations

[anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7]

What scares me about Clemson is consistency they have won 10 or more games for 5 years in a row now you can't argue that.It may be against weak competition but it has happened,Auburn was up and down during their stretch.

LOL, took you long enough to get to your true motive for this thread. Yes, your Tigers have had a successful run the last 5 years. Congrats on your recruiting class

 

[Tiger1425]

If you remember the last time Clemson got this many recruits from the state of Tennessee probation shortly followed.

Unfortunately, for you guys this ain't 1981. I don't believe Clemson is cheating to get these recruits. But, even we are the NCAA doesn't do anything except give you a slap on the wrist now.

For Release After 11 p.m. (EST) November 22, 1982

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION

-- Clemson University has been placed on probation for a two-year period by the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Committee on In-fractions as a result of violations occurring in the conduct of the institution's intercollegiate football program.

The penalty includes sanctions that will prohibit the university's football team from participating in any postseason football bowl game following the 1982 and 1983 seasons or from appearing on any live football telecast during the 1983 and 1984 seasons.

In addition, the Committee on Infractions limited the university to 20 initial grants-in-aid for new football recruits (rather than the normal limit of 30) during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 academic years.

Further, as a result of his involvement in the case, the university placed one assistant football coach on probation for a three-year period and will prohibit him from participating in off-campus recruiting activities, accepting off-campus speaking engagements, participating in the university's summer football camps and from receiving salary increases during that period.

In addition, the university placed a second assistant football coach on probation for two years and will prohibit him from participating in off-campus recruiting activities, participating in the university's summer football camp and from receiving a salary increase for one year. Also, the university will prohibit four representatives of its athletic interests from participating in recruiting activities on behalf of the institution for at least a two-year period.

"Due to the large number and serious nature of the violations in this case," said Charles Alan Wright, chair, NCAA Committee on Infractions, "the committee believed that institutional sanctions related to appearances on television and in postseason football bowl games were appropriate. In addition, because the violations indicated a pattern of improper recruiting activities, the committee determined that a two-year limitation on financial aid to new recruits should be imposed to offset any recruiting advantage that was gained improperly by the university.

"Also," noted Wright, "based on the involvement of two of the university's present assistant football coaches and four outside athletic representatives in this case, the university took meaningful disciplinary and corrective action against those individuals.

"Accordingly, the committee believes that the actions taken in this case against the university, its coaches and representatives are fully justified and that the overall penalty supports the interest of all NCAA members in maintaining compliance with NCAA legislation."

In considering the case, the Committee on Infractions found violations of NCAA legislation related to recruiting, extra benefits to student-athletes, ethical conduct and certification of compliance with NCAA legislation.

The following is a complete text of the penalty imposed upon Clemson University and a summary of the violations.

Penalty To Be Imposed Upon Institution

1. Clemson University shall be publicly reprimanded and censured, and placed on probation for a period of two years, effect ive November 21, 1982, it being understood that should any portion of the penalty in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penalty shall be reconsidered by the NCAA; further, prior to the expiration of this period of probation, the NCAA shall review the athletic policies and practices of the university.

2. The university's intercollegiate football team shall end its 1982 and 1983 football seasons with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and the university shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason football competition.

3. During the 1983 and 1984 football seasons, the university's intercollegiate football team shall not be eligible to appear on any television series or program subject to the administration or control of this Association or any other television programs involving live coverage.

4. During the 1983-84 and 1984-85 academic years, no more than 20 student-athletes in the sport of football shall be recipients of initial, athletically related financial aid (as set forth in 0.1. 600), which has been arranged for or awarded by Clemson University.

5. In accordance with the "show cause" provision of the NCAA penalty structure, the university will take disciplinary and corrective action in regard to:

a. One assistant football coach who will be placed on probation for a three-year period. During that period, he will be prohibited from:

(1) participating in any off-campus recruiting activities; (2) receiving a salary increase; (3) participating in the university's summer football camps or receiving income from the camps, and (4) accepting speaking engagements off-campus at booster club functions or at high school sports banquets.

b. A second assistant football coach who will be placed on probation for a two-year period. During the first year of that period, he will be prohibited from: (1) participating in any off-campus recruiting activities; (2) receiving a salary increase, and (3) participating in the university's 1983 summer football camp or receiving income from the camp.

c. Four representatives of the university's athletic interests, which will preclude these individuals from involvement in any activities associated with the recruitment of prospective student-athletes on behalf of the university during the institution's probationary period, and result in any further measures that the university determines to be within its authority to curtail the involvement of each individual in the university's athletic program during the probationary period.

Summary of Violations of NCAA Legislation

1. NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(b) [improper recruiting inducements] -- (a) In December 1980, a former assistant football coach offered to provide a prospective student-athlete a substantial sum of cash and an automobile to sign a letter of intent; (b) During the fall of 1978, a representative of the university's athletic interests offered to pay the costs for the two sisters of a prospective student-athlete to attend the university; (c) In 1978, the university awarded a scholarship to a friend of a prospective student-athlete; (d) During the 1980-81 academic year, representatives of the university's athletic interests directly assisted a prospective student-athlete and his family in paying four telephone bills; (e) During the 1980-81 academic year, a former assistant football coach and a representative of the university's athletic interests offered to provide the mother of a prospective student-athlete transportation to attend the university's football games during her son's enrollment; (f) During the summer of 1978, a prospective student-athlete was permitted to attend the university's summer football c amp at no cost to him, and (g) In January 1978, an assistant football coach offered inducements to a prospective student-athlete to attend the university that included substantial sums of cash to sign conference and national letters of intent, a television set, a wardrobe and six complimentary football tickets for the university's home football contests.

2. NCAA Bylaws 1-l-(b), 1-8-(j) and 1-8-(l) [improper recruiting inducements and entertainment] -- (a) In December 1979, an assistant football coach provided a prospective student-athlete local automobile transportation, a meal and made remarks that were reasonably interpreted by the young man to be an offer of an automobile, clothing and cash, and (b) In January 1981, a representative of the university's athletic interests offered to provide a prospective student-athlete the use of an automobile, and transportation home during his attendance at the university; further, the representative provided local transportation and a meal to the prospect on this occasion.

3. NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(b)-(l) [improper recruiting inducements] -- (a) In December 1980, a representative of the university's athletic interests gave a prospective student-athlete a substantial amount of cash in return for his signature on a letter of intent, as well as several other gifts; (b) In December 1980, a representative of the university's athletic interests arranged for a substantial amount of cash to be given to a prospective student-athlete and provided the young man and his mother other gifts; (c) During Christmas vacation in the 1977-78 academic year, a former assistant football coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive round-trip airline transportation between a junior college he was attending and his home; (d) During the 1977-78 academic year, a prospective student-athlete made personal long-distance telephone calls through the use of a former assistant football coach's credit card number; (e) During the 1980-81 academic year, a former assistant football coach and a representative of the university's athletic interests gave two prospective student-athletes cash; (f) On numerous occasions during the 1980-81 academic year, a representative of the university's athletic interests gave a prospective student-athlete cash; (g) In January 1978, a former assistant football coach gave a prospective student-athlete's fiancé cash; (h) In the fall of 1978, a former assistant football coach gave a prospective student-athlete cash; (i) A representative of the university's athletic interests paid the cost of numerous long-distant telephone calls made by two prospective student-athletes during December 1980; (j) In February 1981, the head football coach offered to help find a job for a prospective student-athlete's mother; (k) In the spring and summer of 1979, a former assistant football coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive medical examinations and treatment for an ankle injury at no cost to the young man; (1) In November or December 1978, a former assistant football coach gave a prospective student-athlete two sweaters; (m) During January or February 1981, a former assistant football coach mailed a pair of basketball shoes to two prospective student-athletes; (n) During the 1978-79 academic year, a former assistant football coach gave a prospective student-athlete cash to pay the necessary fee to take a college entrance examination; (o) In November 1980, an assistant football coach provided a prospective student-athlete several articles of clothing at no cost to the young man; (p) During December l980~ a representative of the university's athletic interests gave the friend of two prospective student-athletes a briefcase; (q) In January or February 1981, a representative of the university's athletic interests employed a prospective student-athlete's mother and his sister for one day; (r) In the fall of 1979, a former assistant football coach gave a white sport shirt to a prospective student-athlete, and (s ) Numerous prospective student-athletes have been provided T-shirts, football jerseys or souvenir photographs during visits to the university's campus.

4. NCAA Bylaw l-8-(g) [improper transportation] -- In January 1978, a former assistant football coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive a prepaid, one-way commercial airline ticket at no cost to the young man to travel to the university.

5. NCAA Constitution 3-1-(g)-(5) [extra benefits to student-athletes] -- (a) In January 1982, a representative of the university's athletic interests cosigned a promissory note to arrange a loan for a student-athlete to finance the purchase of an automobile, and (b) In April 1980, the head football coach, director of athletics and dean of student affairs arranged for the university to pay the cost of a dental bill on behalf of a student-athlete.

6. NCAA Constitution 3-6-(a) [ethical conduct] -- (a) A former assistant football coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct inasmuch as he did not on all occasions deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics in that his involvement in the violations set forth in this report demonstrates a knowing and willful effort on his part to operate the university's intercollegiate football program contrary to the requirements and provisions of NCAA legislation, and (b) In the fall of 1981 and again in late February 1982, an assistant football coach telephoned the father of a prospective student-athlete, which were reasonably interpreted a being request to provide the NCAA false information concerning his son's recruitment by the university.

7. NCAA Constitution 3-6-(a) and Bylaws l-l-(b)-(l), l-8-(i) and 1-8-(j)-(3) [ethical conduct and improper transportation] -- (a) In the fall of the 1980-81 academic year, an assistant football coach provided a prospective student-athlete's father round-trip automobile transportation between his home and the university at the time he accompanied his son on an official paid visit to the university; further, the coach filed a false mileage reimbursement receipt with the university concerning this transportation, and (b) in November 1980, an assistant football coach gave cash to a prospective student-athlete during his official paid visit to the university for entertainment purposes and later filed a false expense report with the university regarding a meal provided to the young man during this visit.

8. NCAA Constitution 3-l-(g)-(5) and 3-4-(a) [extra benefits and improper financial aid] -- (a) In September 1980, following one of the university's scheduled intercollegiate football contests, a representative of the university's athletic interests gave a student-athlete cash, and (b) On three separate occasions during the fall of the 1979-80 academic year, representatives of the university's athletic interests gave a student-athlete cash as a reward for being selected "specialty team player of the week."

9. NCAA Bylaws 1-1-(b)-(l) and l-8-(d) [recruiting inducements and improper campus visits] -- (a) During the 1980-81 academic year, a prospective student-athlete was provided four official paid visits to the university's campus;(b) In December 1980, a representative of the university's athletic interests paid the costs for a prospective student-athlete to be lodged for three nights at a motel and provided the young man cash, two meals and the use of a rental automobile, and (c) In July 1980, two prospective student-athletes attended the university's summer football camp for one day at no cost to either young man.

10. NCAA Bylaw l-8-(d) [improper campus visits] -- (a) During the 1980-81 academic year, one prospective student-athlete was provided two official paid visits to the university's campu s, another was provided three visits and a third was provided two visits; (b) During the 1978-79 academic year, one prospective student-athlete was provided three expense-paid visits to the university's campus and another was provided two visits, and (c) During the 1976-77 academic year, a prospective student-athlete was provided several visits to the university's campus.

11. NCAA Bylaws 1-8-(j) and l-8-(l) [improper transportation and entertainment] --Between 1977 and 1981, four prospective student-athletes were provided local transportation and meals by an assistant football coach or a representative of the university's athletic interests.

12. NCAA Bylaws l-8-(i)-(5) and l-8-(j) [improper entertainment] -- In the fall of 1977, a former assistant football coach arranged for a friend of a prospective student-athlete to receive meals, lodging and entertainment during the young man's official paid visit.

13. NCAA Bylaws l-8-(i) [improper transportation] -- In December 1977, an assistant football coach provided the mother of a prospective student-athlete one-way automobile transportation from her home to the university's campus and the coach arranged for a student trainer to transport her home at the conclusion of the visit.

14. NCAA Constitution 3-l-(g)-(5) and Bylaw l-8-(j) [extra benefits and improper transportation] -- During his employment in the university's summer football camp in 1980, an assistant football coach provided local automobile transportation and a meal to approximately 10 prospective student-athletes; further, following the camp, the coach arranged for two student-athletes to utilize his automobile to travel home for a visit while also providing five prospective student-athletes transportation home.

15. NCAA Bylaw l-8-(j) [improper transportation] -- (a) In the fall of 1979, an assistant football coach provided round-trip automobile transportation for a friend of a prospective student-athlete to accompany the prospect on his official paid visit to the university; (b) In the summer of 1981, an assistant football coach and a high school coach arranged for a prospective student athlete to be provided automobile transportation to attend the university's summer football camp; (c) During the summer of 1980, a prospective student-athlete was provided automobile transportation following his attendance at the university's summer football camp; (d) On three occasions during the 1980-81 academic year, a representative of the university's athletic interests entertained a prospective student-athlete for a meal, and (e) During the 1980-81 academic year, four prospective student-athletes were provided improper automobile transportation by representatives of the university's athletic interests.

16. NCAA Bylaws l-8-(j)-(2) and 1-8-(j)-(4) [improper transportation] -- (a) In January 1981, an assistant football coach permitted a student-athlete to use his automobile to transport a prospective student-athlete during his official paid visit to the university; (b) In December 1980, a former assist-ant football coach permitted two prospective student-athletes to use his personal automobile during their official paid visits to the university, and (c) In November 1979, an assistant football coach provided his automobile to a student hostess in order to transport a prospective student-athlete during his official paid visit.

17. NCAA Bylaw 1-8-(c) [improper use of funds] -- In October 1980, a representative of the university's athletic interests gave a student hostess cash for her gasoline expenses to transport a prospective student-athlete from his home to the university's campus.

18. NCAA Bylaws 1-5-(b) and l-8-(m) [improper funds] -- In July 1980, an assistant football coach gave cash to a high school assistant football coach to reimburse the coach for expenses incurre d while transporting two prospective student-athletes to the university's summer football camp.

19. NCAA Constitution 3-l-(g)-(5) and Bylaws l-l-(b)-(l), l-8-(j)-(2) and 1-8-(j)-(3) [improper entertainment] -- (a) During the 1980-81 and 1981-82 academic years, the university's football coaching staff entertained prospective and enrolled student-athletes off campus at a restaurant located outside of Clemson, South Carolina, or a community contiguous thereto, and (b) During the 1980-81 academic year, individuals who were not enrolled in the university served as hosts for prospective student-athletes on their official paid visits to the university.

20. NCAA Bylaw l-6-(a) [tryout] -- In the fall of 1979, a prospective student-athlete was timed running the 40-yard dash by a former assistant football coach.

21. NCAA Bylaw 1-l-(b)-(2) [improper employment] -- (a) In December 1978, a former assistant football coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to be employed by a representative of the university's athletic interests prior to the completion of the young man's senior year in high school, and (b) In the summer of 1980, two prospective student-athletes were employed by a representative of the university's athletic interests in order to assist the young men in paying the costs to attend the Clemson football camp.

22. NCAA Bylaw 5-6-(d)-(4) [certification of compliance with NCAA legislation] --With full knowledge at the time that certain practices of the university's intercollegiate football program were not in compliance with NCAA legislation, certain individuals (i.e., two assistant football coaches in 1978, two in 1979, two in 1980 and two in 1981) attested on statements filed with the chief executive officer of the university that they had reported their knowledge of and involvement in any violation of NCAA legislation involving the university.

23. NCAA Bylaws l-2-(a)-(2) and l-2-(a)-(4) [recruiting contact] -- In September 1981, an assistant football coach contacted a prospective student-athlete for recruiting purposes at the young man's high school outside the permissible period for in-person recruiting contacts.

24. NCAA Bylaw 1-2-(a)-(3) [recruiting contact] -- (a) In the spring of 1979, an assistant football coach personally contacted a prospective student-athlete in person, off campus prior to the completion of the young man's junior year in high school, and (b) On two occasions in the spring of 1977, a former assistant football coach personally contacted a prospective student-athlete off campus for recruiting purposes prior to the completion of the young man's junior year in high school.

25. NCAA Bylaw l-2-(a)-(l) [recruiting contacts] -- (a) During the 1977-78 academic year, a prospective student-athlete was contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than three occasions by members of the football coaching staff; (b) During the 1978-79 academic year, three prospective student-athletes were contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than three occasions by members of the football coaching staff and representatives of the university's athletic interests; (c) During the summer of 1979 and during the fall of the 1979-80 academic year, two prospective student-athletes were contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than three occasions by members of the football coaching staff and representatives of the university's athletic interests, and (d) During the 1980-81 academic year, four prospective student-athletes or their relatives were contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than three occasions by members of the football coaching staff and representatives of the university's athletic interests.

You do realize that that was 34 years ago? Hardly relevant now. Besides, NCAA infraction punishment hardly scare schools anymore. I am not saying Clemson is cheating because I don't think they are. But, even if they were the punishments being handed down now by the NCAA amount to virtually nothing.

 

[mbsurfside]

Unfortunately, for you guys this ain't 1981. I don't believe Clemson is cheating to get these recruits. But, even we are the NCAA doesn't do anything except give you a slap on the wrist now.



You do realize that that was 34 years ago? Hardly relevant now. Besides, NCAA infraction punishment hardly scare schools anymore. I am not saying Clemson is cheating because I don't think they are. But, even if they were the punishments being handed down now by the NCAA amount to virtually nothing.

I think the most accurate part of your post is that the NCAA isnt doing anything about it. Ole Miss Tar Holes etc. Where is the incentive not to cheat? Do I think Climpsun is cheating to get recruits? Yes I do but I think other schools are too. Im sure every school at some level breaks the rules.

 

[clemtiger117]

Im sure every school at some level breaks the rules.

Yep anyone who thinks any P5 school is 100% clean is flat out delusional.

 

[Yorkcnty]

I think the most accurate part of your post is that the NCAA isnt doing anything about it. Ole Miss Tar Holes etc. Where is the incentive not to cheat? Do I think Climpsun is cheating to get recruits? Yes I do but I think other schools are too. Im sure every school at some level breaks the rules.

I am going to go against the tide here and say that most schools do not cheat in the recruiting of athletes. Ole Miss seems to be an exception, and even then the violations are not what most schools did years ago. If either SC or Clemson were cheating, somebody would turn somebody in. And high school coaches dont like cheaters. Kids parents, except in rare cases, dont like cheaters. The Cam Newton things are exceptions that show the rule, I think.

Some schools do operate on the fringes of the rules. How UNC is going to get away with operating a sham school for athletes is beyond me. Baylor is getting what they deserve, though mostly self imposed. But those are not recruiting violations, and that is where the big penalties have been.

No, I dont think Spurrier would give a player illegal inducements. No, I dont thing Dabo does. And one will notice that in both cases the recruiting momentum built over time, not a sudden one year deal like Ole Miss.

 

[mbsurfside]

I am going to go against the tide here and say that most schools do not cheat in the recruiting of athletes. Ole Miss seems to be an exception, and even then the violations are not what most schools did years ago. If either SC or Clemson were cheating, somebody would turn somebody in. And high school coaches dont like cheaters. Kids parents, except in rare cases, dont like cheaters. The Cam Newton things are exceptions that show the rule, I think.

Some schools do operate on the fringes of the rules. How UNC is going to get away with operating a sham school for athletes is beyond me. Baylor is getting what they deserve, though mostly self imposed. But those are not recruiting violations, and that is where the big penalties have been.

No, I dont think Spurrier would give a player illegal inducements. No, I dont thing Dabo does. And one will notice that in both cases the recruiting momentum built over time, not a sudden one year deal like Ole Miss.

I dont think its necessarily the head coaches. Most likely assistants connected with boosters. Maybe I am more cynical but I think it is more the rule than the exception.

 

[funktavious]

It's easier for them to just say "Clemson cheats", rather than look at the fact he didn't want to go to a team that's leading receiver had a total of 409 yds ALL SEASON. He is the #1 WR in the country and wants to go to a system where he can thrive. Not to mention the love they got last year from people in the NFL calling Clemson WRU. I'm pretty sure Gruden called Clemson WRU during a MNF game last year. It's really not that hard to figure out. But hey, he must have gotten paid....
Do I think Clemson used that and negatively recruited all those facts against Tennessee? You damn right they did. Who wouldn't. Facts are facts.

not really sure why they would call Clemson WRU. Outside of Hopkins and Bryant no one has really made any noise in the NFL.

 

[Yorkcnty]

I dont think its necessarily the head coaches. Most likely assistants connected with boosters. Maybe I am more cynical but I think it is more the rule than the exception.

Good points. I agree that it can happen down the line, and likely does, with an assistant or booster. And boosters often have an enthusiasm that is in direct proportion to their ignorance. However, to say that a school's good recruiting is due to cheating is to propose a systematic program of cheating. That would be very hard to do today, I think.

Certainly SC's recruiting is going to improve. If it improves dramatically for the 2018 class, which is probably where we will see it, I am sure it will be due to hard work. If we later find out that one booster or assistant made illegal phone calls or gave an illegal plane ticket to a recruit - not likely, just saying - it would not show that Boom runs that kind of program.

Depending on what the Ole Miss truth actually is - and we don't yet know - one will say they are evidence that people cheat, or one will say they are evidence that you can't do it for very long. I think its the latter. We'll see.

 

[SpursUPgunsOUT]

Unfortunately, for you guys this ain't 1981. I don't believe Clemson is cheating to get these recruits. But, even we are the NCAA doesn't do anything except give you a slap on the wrist now.



You do realize that that was 34 years ago? Hardly relevant now. Besides, NCAA infraction punishment hardly scare schools anymore. I am not saying Clemson is cheating because I don't think they are. But, even if they were the punishments being handed down now by the NCAA amount to virtually nothing.

They have always been cheating. When it breaks it will be huge. It seems convenient that new springs is building a Clemson branch. Easy place to pay recruits through. I firmly believe that new springs is used by dablow to funnel money to football players. All those "unknown" donations..... Coming from honest people's money that they are thinking they are donating to a church....

I could be paranoid, but it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Pruittmatt44]

Can we all just admit that every power five school cheats when it comes to recruiting? They have since the 1950's, and they won't stop now. They just know how to hide it.

 

[Shadow86]

They have always been cheating. When it breaks it will be huge. It seems convenient that new springs is building a Clemson branch. Easy place to pay recruits through. I firmly believe that new springs is used by dablow to funnel money to football players. All those "unknown" donations..... Coming from honest people's money that they are thinking they are donating to a church....

I could be paranoid, but it makes a lot of sense.

LoL. Then a lot of Gamecocks are helping Clemson buy recruits then. I go to New Spring in Columbia and its full of Gamecocks fans. I think you may be a little off here buddy.

 

[mbsurfside]

Good points. I agree that it can happen down the line, and likely does, with an assistant or booster. And boosters often have an enthusiasm that is in direct proportion to their ignorance. However, to say that a school's good recruiting is due to cheating is to propose a systematic program of cheating. That would be very hard to do today, I think.

Certainly SC's recruiting is going to improve. If it improves dramatically for the 2018 class, which is probably where we will see it, I am sure it will be due to hard work. If we later find out that one booster or assistant made illegal phone calls or gave an illegal plane ticket to a recruit - not likely, just saying - it would not show that Boom runs that kind of program.

Depending on what the Ole Miss truth actually is - and we don't yet know - one will say they are evidence that people cheat, or one will say they are evidence that you can't do it for very long. I think its the latter. We'll see.

No and I am not making a blanket statement saying Dabo runs a dirty program because I dont believe he does. But I think Clemson is no different than other schools in that bending of rules goes on there. When Ole Miss got those recruits, first thing everyone thought is something is going on. Now with what came out about Tunsil that seems to be the case. How can a school that is struggling all of the sudden pull in 5 star recruits from out of state. From an outsiders perspective Clemson did something similar. Now they werent struggling as much as Ole Miss but not a top level program. JMO but I think it is a combination of really good recruiting and some rule bending. Doesnt matter as mentioned NCAA has shown they either dont enforce the rules or probably more likely selectively enforce them.

 

[SpursUPgunsOUT]

LoL. Then a lot of Gamecocks are helping Clemson buy recruits then. I go to New Spring in Columbia and its full of Gamecocks fans. I think you may be a little off here buddy.

I very well could be. I just don't like how close new springs high ups are with dablow and crew. Money can lead to corruption. I'm not saying it's happening. I just would just hate to see it happen. They do a lot of good for the youth, it would be horrible to see people going to jail because of football money...

 

[Yorkcnty]

No and I am not making a blanket statement saying Dabo runs a dirty program because I dont believe he does. But I think Clemson is no different than other schools in that bending of rules goes on there. When Ole Miss got those recruits, first thing everyone thought is something is going on. Now with what came out about Tunsil that seems to be the case. How can a school that is struggling all of the sudden pull in 5 star recruits from out of state. From an outsiders perspective Clemson did something similar. Now they werent struggling as much as Ole Miss but not a top level program. JMO but I think it is a combination of really good recruiting and some rule bending. Doesnt matter as mentioned NCAA has shown they either dont enforce the rules or probably more likely selectively enforce them.

I agree with most of what you say. The only problem with the conclusions it is that when Boom's recruiting turns around one will be forced to say the same things for the same reasons, and I don't think that will be true. Otherwise, the conclusion is that no struggling school can come up without cheating. Instead, I think the turnaround will be steady, and due to hard work, with success not being evidence of cheating.

As you said, clemson wasn't as far down as OM, and they didn't come up as fast. Davis was a start. Spiller was a breakthrough recruit, but the recruiting class rankings still weren't top 10. Dabo has been there 9 years, and only the last two classes have been in OM territory. What OM did was zero-to-100 in 4.5 seconds.

 

[V1RUS]

This whole thread was a troll job...

Followed by delusion and argument for arguments sake

 

[Yorkcnty]

This whole thread was a troll job...

Followed by delusion and argument for arguments sake

Started out that way, but the discussion about recruiting/cheating is an interesting and valid one, I think. I agree with you that it is somewhat for its own sake, as none of us know the inside of these programs, but hey, its what talking football is about, no?

 

[SpursUPgunsOUT]

Started out that way, but the discussion about recruiting/cheating is an interesting and valid one, I think. I agree with you that it is somewhat for its own sake, as none of us know the inside of these programs, but hey, its what talking football is about, no?

Well said, and I'll always assume the taters are cheating.

 

[SpursUPgunsOUT]

Southern Conference, lol

The Southern Conference does pay the same as the acc.

 

[KNRTIGER]

I equate SC football recruiting in the SEC to Clemson's basketball recruiting in the ACC.
If a basketball player wants to play in the ACC and he is a highly recruited kid he is not coming to Clemson when he can go play for unc,duke,nc st,louisville, syracuse etc. Unless he is from the state of SC and more times than not he also decides to go elsewhere.
Same goes for SC in football. If a kid is highly recruited and not from the state of SC and he wants to play in the SEC then you are going to uga,fla.alabama,auburn, etc.

 

[SportsSuites1]

I equate SC football recruiting in the SEC to Clemson's basketball recruiting in the ACC.
If a basketball player wants to play in the ACC and he is a highly recruited kid he is not coming to Clemson when he can go play for unc,duke,nc st,louisville, syracuse etc. Unless he is from the state of SC and more times than not he also decides to go elsewhere.
Same goes for SC in football. If a kid is highly recruited and not from the state of SC and he wants to play in the SEC then you are going to uga,fla.alabama,auburn, etc.

Huh? That's BS.

SC's signed the top-rated SC football player SEVERAL TIMES (MOST of the time) over the last decade, and gotten TOP athletes from every state around us plus many from Florida during that same period. A BAD class for us was ranked #26 ... we've been anywhere from #4 to #20 nationally for a while in football recruiting.

 

[vehemon]

I equate SC football recruiting in the SEC to Clemson's basketball recruiting in the ACC.
If a basketball player wants to play in the ACC and he is a highly recruited kid he is not coming to Clemson when he can go play for unc,duke,nc st,louisville, syracuse etc. Unless he is from the state of SC and more times than not he also decides to go elsewhere.
Same goes for SC in football. If a kid is highly recruited and not from the state of SC and he wants to play in the SEC then you are going to uga,fla.alabama,auburn, etc.

Very generalized way to think about it but there is a lot of truth in it.

The thing is that the SEC in general recruits football very well across the country.
Specifically about South Carolina, some of their best years was when a majority of the team was NOT from South Carolina.

In the end, it simply matters where that player thinks they fit.
Until recently, that's been one of Clempson's biggest problems is they recruit well but those players simply didn't fit with the team dynamic or they simply didn't play as a team. There's no sense of having a bunch of 4-5 stars on the team if their main goal is simply not getting injured and waiting for their shot at the NFL.

 

[vehemon]

Huh? That's BS.

SC's signed the top-rated SC football player SEVERAL TIMES (MOST of the time) over the last decade, and gotten TOP athletes from every state around us plus many from Florida during that same period. A BAD class for us was ranked #26 ... we've been anywhere from #4 to #20 nationally for a while in football recruiting.

I think you missed his point, he was trying to say that by default most out of state players that are 4-5 stars typically wouldn't have USC high on their radar.

 

[KNRTIGER]

Huh? That's BS.

SC's signed the top-rated SC football player SEVERAL TIMES (MOST of the time) over the last decade, and gotten TOP athletes from every state around us plus many from Florida during that same period. A BAD class for us was ranked #26 ... we've been anywhere from #4 to #20 nationally for a while in football recruiting.

Sometimes the top recruits in the state arent of the quality that some of the more prominent powerhouse are going after. Just because a school throws out an offer doesn't mean its a commttable at that time. Its saves a place for them if they need a fall back player.
I will say that SC did well with JC,ML,SR,SG,DH,DJ etc. Most all of those players wanted to stay in state and play for the SEC.
A person can bring up a player such as Shaw because of his output on the field but he wasn't highly recruited early in the process and he showed SC love when he started being recruited harder because they were the first to offer. Cudos to SC identifying him early on

 

[IBleedUSC]

The point of this thread is that defining one's reality by denigrating others is a loser's game. We can say Dabo can't do this or that, but he took over a sinking ship several years ago and here they are now. That can't happen because of one qb. And by all accounts they have more qb's where that one came from. Not like this one maybe - and they were beating Auburn and Tenn before he got there - but who does?

We said he would drown if Chad left. Chad left. They got better. Now we say he will drown when Watson leaves. Like I said above, require a $500 ante to say that, and the room will get really quiet.

Boom is doing what he needs to do. Thank you for your post, but UGA fans better hope Smart can do the same. That is what will define our reality, nothing less or more.

Hold on now, last year was an anomaly, every remotely powerful team they faced was missing one or 2 key starters, and Notre dame almost came back to win in a monsoon! Watson refused to make mistakes and capatilized on just about every opportunity they could. It was their year in all accounts, the stars lined up better than it has for any team EVER and they STILL couldn't pull it off because when it came down to it, they were exploited a time or two and many times against Bama and they paid for it, once in a lifetime season lost.

Not to mention their best team in 30 years only beat o e of our worst teams ever by 5 points.

I'm not sold and I'm definitely not impressed.

 

[Yorkcnty]

Hold on now, last year was an anomaly, every remotely powerful team they faced was missing one or 2 key starters, and Notre dame almost came back to win in a monsoon! Watson refused to make mistakes and capatilized on just about every opportunity they could. It was their year in all accounts, the stars lined up better than it has for any team EVER and they STILL couldn't pull it off because when it came down to it, they were exploited a time or two and many times against Bama and they paid for it, once in a lifetime season lost.

Not to mention their best team in 30 years only beat o e of our worst teams ever by 5 points.

I'm not sold and I'm definitely not impressed.

We all need our teddy bears.

 

[Judson1]

So the Clemmers have 5 - 4 star QB'S and how many can be on the field at one time?

Never understood this remark as I have saw it many times already. When our 4 star Mitch went out with injury we replaced him with Perry Orth. We're playing walk-ons as backups yet some like the guy above think having a stable full of great athletes doesn't matter. Long season, lots of injuries.

 

[Rollerdude123]

Everyone cheats.


Not a day goes by now without a fan of a school contacting a recruit directly to try to recruit for their school. That is against NCAA rules, but the NCAA can't control it and the fans that do break the. Rules like that don't care if they are breaking the rules.

The entire system is a joke now.

 

[Six Million Dollar Man]

Louisville did manage to beat Kentucky the last five years and TAMU last year. I'm also surprised no one has mentioned that your five game win streak and three 11 win seasons coincided with NCAA probation that you just got off of 14 months ago.

Yep, that Whitney deal which the SEC commissioner characterized as an administrative error got us a bunch of recruits. Just goes to show that we are amateurs when it comes to cheating. That would be because we don't make a habit of it.

 

[UpstateGamecock2]

Yep, that Whitney deal which the SEC commissioner characterized as an administrative error got us a bunch of recruits. Just goes to show that we are amateurs when it comes to cheating. That would be because we don't make a habit of it.

clemsux loves to harp on the Whitney thing, which is nothing, really. And given their history and types of cheating, there's no comparison.

 

[SportsSuites1]

Everyone cheats.


Not a day goes by now without a fan of a school contacting a recruit directly to try to recruit for their school. That is against NCAA rules, but the NCAA can't control it and the fans that do break the. Rules like that don't care if they are breaking the rules.

The entire system is a joke now.

That's a lie. GE salesman pays the King of whatchamagig $3 million to buy GE jet engines that don't make Bob Welch a crook.

Hillary lies like a rug to cover her SUBSTANTIAL ass that don't make the career diplomat in Timbucktoo one.

EVERYONE makes no exceptions and there are thousands of exceptions. I'm one. There are lots of others.

 

[mbsurfside]

I agree with most of what you say. The only problem with the conclusions it is that when Boom's recruiting turns around one will be forced to say the same things for the same reasons, and I don't think that will be true. Otherwise, the conclusion is that no struggling school can come up without cheating. Instead, I think the turnaround will be steady, and due to hard work, with success not being evidence of cheating.

As you said, clemson wasn't as far down as OM, and they didn't come up as fast. Davis was a start. Spiller was a breakthrough recruit, but the recruiting class rankings still weren't top 10. Dabo has been there 9 years, and only the last two classes have been in OM territory. What OM did was zero-to-100 in 4.5 seconds.

We will not be pulling 5 stars from other states

Louisville did manage to beat Kentucky the last five years and TAMU last year. I'm also surprised no one has mentioned that your five game win streak and three 11 win seasons coincided with NCAA probation that you just got off of 14 months ago.

This mouth breather is anything but a gentleman. About as much as Dumbo is.

 

[JSpears5]

If guys think that everyone does not cheat in some way or another, you are wrong. Mostly little things, improper contact to show just how much the kid is needed type of stuff. Heck, I had a buddy the other day tell me how his kid is getting called during dead periods from really small schools.

Most of the time though, cheating is about getting a kid into school in the first place. Getting a grade changed, or a SAT passed. Not really as school specific as people trying to make sure the kids get out of the town they are in. Not much different to Cam Robinson get off of drug and weapons charges because he is a football player. Let just say this, there are a lot of high profile guys that do not take the sat in their own town because people know what they look like.

 

[clemtiger117]

if new springs is the new big church in Bluffton too then yes we are buying Clem recruits. One of their preachers brags about being on clems 81 team during his sermon.

That is a pretty serious accusation with zero proof.

 

[SportsSuites1]

YES, we were o n PROBATION!!! ... 'cause some dork hotel clerk charged half a dozen players $600 mo. for a dumpy 1BR-1Bath 'suite' that slept 2 instead of what the NCAA claimed it should rent for, which was $800 mo. THAT was ca ca and the whole affair was BS. Gimmee a break ... ANY student could have gotten the same deal.

clemson's 'probation' was the result of throwing wads of money at players, giving 'em passing grades for classes they never attended, paying players for jobs they never showed up for, passing 'girls' around for game-day passes, buying appliances and CARS for players families, paying utility bills for the families of several recruits, substituting 'test-takers' for players that couldn't write their names, much less read the tests ... and it went on from AT LEAST 1977 until 1989. HA! Just admit it scumball, clemson sucks - and YOU know it. The WORLD knows it. Fans everywhere know it. An athlete with a degree from clemson could get more for a roll of Charmin.

 

[SportsSuites1]

If guys think that everyone does not cheat in some way or another, you are wrong. Mostly little things, improper contact to show just how much the kid is needed type of stuff. Heck, I had a buddy the other day tell me how his kid is getting called during dead periods from really small schools.

Most of the time though, cheating is about getting a kid into school in the first place. Getting a grade changed, or a SAT passed. Not really as school specific as people trying to make sure the kids get out of the town they are in. Not much different to Cam Robinson get off of drug and weapons charges because he is a football player. Let just say this, there are a lot of high profile guys that do not take the sat in their own town because people know what they look like.

That's just follow the crowd, dumb-ass unsubstantiated BS opinion. Mindless blather. Eyes rolling back in your head drivel.
You gotta' be wearing pajamas and a robe.

 

[JSpears5]

That's just follow the crowd, dumb-ass unsubstantiated BS opinion. Mindless blather. Eyes rolling back in your head drivel.
You gotta' be wearing pajamas and a robe.

You have no idea what really happens but you are a heck of a keyboard warrior. What do you want me to do, call out specific situations where a kid's coach drove 30 miles away to take the SAT for him? Or how the same coach did it again the next year for the only other high profile recruit that ever came out of that school? Both ended up in the 1st round instead of ending up never leaving town. Do I have prove this happened, no. Did the word of this come from the coach involved? Yes.

Take a look at any school secondary violations they report to the NCAA every year. Typically, there are 10-12 "accidental" meetings or "butt dials" or an extra dessert is served on a recruiting trip or whatever that end up on the report and that is what the schools are reporting. But that is childs play, the real work is done without contact to coaching staffs. Momma and daddy get new jobs alot.

 

[V1RUS]

Blind hatred for a rival is typical of college football fans. I get it... Honest I do!

What I will never understand is the conference hate. Every conference post in this thread point to the idea that it's actually a disadvantage to play in the SEC. By all accounts tOSU, Oklahoma, or Clemson have a decided advantage to making the playoffs. Even when they aren't as good as the SEC runner up.

What used to be a grand advantage (BCS era) is now a disadvantage if winning championships is the goal

 

[SportsSuites1]

You have no idea what really happens but you are a heck of a keyboard warrior. What do you want me to do, call out specific situations where a kid's coach drove 30 miles away to take the SAT for him? Or how the same coach did it again the next year for the only other high profile recruit that ever came out of that school? Both ended up in the 1st round instead of ending up never leaving town. Do I have prove this happened, no. Did the word of this come from the coach involved? Yes.

Take a look at any school secondary violations they report to the NCAA every year. Typically, there are 10-12 "accidental" meetings or "butt dials" or an extra dessert is served on a recruiting trip or whatever that end up on the report and that is what the schools are reporting. But that is childs play, the real work is done without contact to coaching staffs. Momma and daddy get new jobs alot.

Yes, do that. Name names. You can't. THAT never happened and it's asinine to say it did without evidence. Something like that ain't simply cheating it's illegal. It didn't happen A 'coach' took a player's SAT test? Are you stupid or just a liar? Or maybe the test administrator was 'in on it', too.

What a putz.

 

[Rollerdude123]

College football is a cheating business.

Almost all schools cheat- especially larger schools.

fans of those schools break NCAA rules all the time when they contact recruits on social media. Most of the fans brag about such contact.

It's a mess and the fans don't care.

If guys think that everyone does not cheat in some way or another, you are wrong. Mostly little things, improper contact to show just how much the kid is needed type of stuff. Heck, I had a buddy the other day tell me how his kid is getting called during dead periods from really small schools.

 

[ascott101]

YES, we were o n PROBATION!!! ... 'cause some dork hotel clerk charged half a dozen players $600 mo. for a dumpy 1BR-1Bath 'suite' that slept 2 instead of what the NCAA claimed it should rent for, which was $800 mo. THAT was ca ca and the whole affair was BS. Gimmee a break ... ANY student could have gotten the same deal.

clemson's 'probation' was the result of throwing wads of money at players, giving 'em passing grades for classes they never attended, paying players for jobs they never showed up for, passing 'girls' around for game-day passes, buying appliances and CARS for players families, paying utility bills for the families of several recruits, substituting 'test-takers' for players that couldn't write their names, much less read the tests ... and it went on from AT LEAST 1977 until 1989. HA! Just admit it scumball, clemson sucks - and YOU know it. The WORLD knows it. Fans everywhere know it. An athlete with a degree from clemson could get more for a roll of Charmin.

You can't truly believe what you wrote in this post. How do you know all of the details of Clemson's probation in 1981, but don't even know the infractions of your own school just a few years ago? This is truly delusional.

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article14388002.html

They were charged 450/month when it should have been over 1200/month. You also say that "any student at USC could have gotten the same deal!" Yeah sure any student could have gotten the same deal except for the fact that it happened to be all football players! If they offered that deal to all students, They would have been completely booked within a week! My goodness man, you blow everything that clemson does way out of proportion and act as if anything USC does is no big deal.