Hey, chatters. Busy week, busy couple days in the world of Mizzou sports. I'm sure you have many questions and comments. I'll get to as many as possible.
Novel concept, but you'd have to find a team who could make it work for their schedule, and I'm not sure it would even be legal. The NCAA's report specifically said under the postseason ban, MU's final game would be its final game on the regular-season schedule. Something like that would require a waiver and probably the SEC's blessing. I wouldn't count on it.
I'm not going to comment on a show or a conversation on a show I wasn't part of. I'll be on Paul's show later today. He's a friend and a colleague and I always enjoy talking Mizzou and the SEC with him.
Crazy talk. The SEC isn't deciding Missouri's basketball games. Basketball officials are independent contractors who work games for multiple leagues. There isn't an SEC conspiracy for MU to lose basketball games. I'm all for having an adult conversation about Mizzou sports, but that's tinfoil hat nonsense.
Here's something some folks are forgetting about: Mizzou is the NCAA. The NCAA isn't some independently run governing body. Its rules and policies are created by the schools and for the schools. Yes, there are people who work for the NCAA, but the committees who decide these things all work for the member institutions.
This case is unique in that it's one of the first major academic cases post-UNC ... so there's some thought around the industry that this is the NCAA COI flexing its muscle after getting embarrassed with the Chapel Hill scandal. Missouri was punished for cooperating ... but was also in a lose-lose situation. Ms. Kumar is a wild card. Mizzou had no idea what she'd tell the NCAA if indeed Mizzou didn't investigate on its own and opens its doors to the NCAA investigators. Had MU not self-reported, that's a huge risk should the NCAA found more incidents of fraud.
You don't usually see other schools making public statements in support of a school hit hard by the NCAA.
It can't hurt, but ultimately a five-person appeals committee will decide if the penalties are too severe.
Missouri will not sign him, according to my latest info. Same with Arvell Ferguson from Kirkwood. Both are not expected to make the cut academically.
The NCAA members (the schools) are the ones who establish the penalty structure for Level I offenses. It's up the committee's discretion to hand out those sentences. Ultimately, the postseason bans punish athletes who weren't involved in what landed the school in this situation. I don't understand the logic of recruiting sanctions in a recruiting class. All you're doing is making it harder for prospective athletes to earn a scholarship.
I'm not sure Smith will ever be more than an end-of-the-bench guy for Martin, though he played more minutes at Auburn. The power forward position is a bit of an albatross right now. Puryear played great at Texas A&M but has struggled the last three games. Santos has a few spurts here and there but hasn't been very productive. Smith hasn't seen much time at all. It's a vital position in Martin's system.
No. He hasn't done any interviews since he moved to campus. His longtime personal coach told me this yesterday via text message: "He’s staying and looking forward to getting to know his teammates and competing in the SEC."
I agree. If I'm Odom, Bieser and Anderson, I'm more concerned about the recruiting limits. They're really going to have to be creative with the calendar when it comes to official and unofficial visits. The scholarship reduction isn't that major for football. You're talking about the loss of about 4 scholarships over one year, pending the appeal. It's the recruiting restrictions that should be a big concern. On one hand, it's fortunate for MU that the NCAA has allowed schools to host recruits earlier in their high school years, but recruits also tend to commit earlier than ever before with the early signing date. Mizzou will have to adjust and be proactive.
I have the same question, but we aren't privy to all the evidence. According to the narrative to the NCAA's report, it was working with a men's basketball player when Ms. Kumar first started doing coursework for her athletes. Patient Zero, if you will. (Or Student-Athlete Zero.) I had always heard the same, including the player's identity. But she must not have had compelling evidence to prove to the investigators that any men's basketball players engaged in fraud. Clearly the bulk of the evidence fell on the players from football, baseball and softball.
To follow up on that, I know Ms. Kumar named a bunch of athletes that she helped cheat on Twitter last night, but we made a staff decision last summer that we wouldn't identify these athletes without being able to corroborate her allegations with further reporting. I doubt she's falsely accusing random athletes, but without other sources or documents confirming their identity, I'm not going to take her word for it.
Months. Maybe six. Maybe more. An NCAA committee can always ask for an extension before making a ruling.
Jon, you're nothing if not predictable.