Do you know how many NCAA Infractions your Team has?

[AtlantaBama]

Alabama has 4. The Barners lead the SEC with 7 major NCAA Infractions yet they claim BAMA cheats all of the time. Now why is that?

[vandyfan84]

I'm going to say that Vanderbilt has 0, but I am not sure.

[gatorunvrsty]

Here are the facts https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBI.lsdbi_menu.homepage:

AUBURN - 7
GEORGIA - 6
KENTUCKY - 6
MISS. STATE - 5
ALABAMA - 4
SOUTH CAROLINA - 4
FLORIDA - 4
ARKANSAS - 3
OLE MISS - 3
TENNESSEE - 2
LSU - 2
VANDY - 1

I might point out, that despite protestations to the contrary, one of Bama's cases was improper recruiting in 1964 (a NC year)... right in the middle of Bear's NC runs. There was no penalty other than a public reprimand. As far as programs that have actually been caught, and had official NCAA cases brought against them, Auburn is the SEC's dirtiest.

EDIT: To use the site, click on major infractions in the menu on the left. Then simply pick the team you want to research from the pop-up menu at the top of the page (you don't even have to bother with conference). If you leave all the options alone, it'll give you a list of all the cases in a team's history, a brief explanation of the events surrounding them, and the punishment, or penalty.

[The Ramp]

A vandy player got caught making a B once and put the whole team on probation

[KillerNut]

Here are the facts https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBI.lsdbi_menu.homepage:

AUBURN - 7
GEORGIA - 6
KENTUCKY - 6
MISS. STATE - 5
ALABAMA - 4
SOUTH CAROLINA - 4
FLORIDA - 4
ARKANSAS - 3
OLE MISS - 3
TENNESSEE - 2
LSU - 2
VANDY - 1

I might point out, that despite protestations to the contrary, one of Bama's cases was improper recruiting in 1964 (a NC year)... right in the middle of Bear's NC runs. There was no penalty other than a public reprimand. As far as programs that have actually been caught, and had official NCAA cases brought against them, Auburn is the SEC's dirtiest.

EDIT: To use the site, click on major infractions in the menu on the left. Then simply pick the team you want to research from the pop-up menu at the top of the page (you don't even have to bother with conference). If you leave all the options alone, it'll give you a list of all the cases in a team's history, a brief explanation of the events surrounding them, and the punishment, or penalty.

Statking to the rescue! :laugh: Good info man!

[KillerNut]

4 total

Mar 10, 2006 Ohio State University Violations of NCAA legislation in the men's basketball program involving re ...
Jun 23, 1994 Ohio State University BASKETBALL -- IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING: improper contacts during junior ye ...
Jun 07, 1978 Ohio State University Improper transportation; improper recruiting entertainment and transportati ...
Jan 11, 1957 Ohio State University Improper employment and financial aid; extra benefits; improper recruiting ...

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Statking to the rescue! :laugh: Good info man!
All I want to know is why he put Florida behind Alabama and South Carolina in these standings. If Florida were tied with a team in any other standings (e.g., wins), GU would have put Florida above those they were tied with. :laugh:

j/k GatorUniversity. Good find. Appreciate the info.

[gatorunvrsty]

All I want to know is why he put Florida behind Alabama and South Carolina in these standings. If Florida were tied with a team in any other standings (e.g., wins), GU would have put Florida above those they were tied with. :laugh:

j/k GatorUniversity. Good find. Appreciate the info.

Good eye, GCF! ;) Let's see... how can I weasel out of this? Oh, I know: I listed them that way because it's been over 15 years since UF had a violation (1990), and both Bama and USC have recent violations (2002, and 2005).:laugh:

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Good eye, GCF! ;) Let's see... how can I weasel out of this? Oh, I know: I listed them that way because it's been over 15 years since UF had a violation (1990), and both Bama and USC have recent violations (2002, and 2005).:laugh:
Sounds reasonable to me. :thumpsup: :laugh:

However, using that criteria, we need to be moved up above Alabama. :laugh:

[Carolina_Dawg]

If we look at it as Football violations only (which is all that really matters)

Auburn - 5 (57,58,79,80,93)
Georgia - 4 (78,82,85,97)
Miss State - 3 (75,96,04)
Alabama - 3 (64,95,02)
Kentucky - 3 (64,76,02)
Ole Miss - 3 (59,86,94)
Florida - 3 (57,85,90)
South Carolina -2 (67,05)
Arkansas - 2 (65,03)
Tennessee - 2 (86,91)
LSU - 1 (86)
Vanderbilt - 0 (Only infraction involved Women's Basketball)

[Bulldog Bry]

If we look at it as Football violations only (which is all that really matters)

Auburn - 5 (57,58,79,80,93)
Georgia - 4 (78,82,85,97)
Miss State - 3 (75,96,04)
Alabama - 3 (64,95,02)
Kentucky - 3 (64,76,02)
Ole Miss - 3 (59,86,94)
Florida - 3 (57,85,90)
South Carolina -2 (67,05)
Arkansas - 2 (65,03)
Tennessee - 2 (86,91)
LSU - 1 (86)
Vanderbilt - 0 (Only infraction involved Women's Basketball)

DAMMIT!!!! Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.............

[lacene]

hmmm, the 1967 infractions involved the Men's Basketball. In '65, I believe USC was co-ACC champs in football with Duke, but had the conference games revoked, with USC being shown as going 0-6 officially, and the wins going to the ACC teams that lost. That doesn't show up....it must have been an in-conference infraction, only....

[Carolina_Dawg]

1967 at S. Carolina involved both Basketball and Football

Institution: University of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: 08-JAN-67

Facts Summary: Improper financial aid; extra benefits; improper recruiting entertainment, lodging and transportation; tryouts; eligibility; improper administration of financial aid; outside fund.

Violation Summary: Improper financial aid; extra benefits; improper recruiting entertainment, lodging and transportation; tryouts; eligibility; improper administration of financial aid; outside fund.

Penalty Summary: Men's basketball: two-year postseason ban. Football: two-year postseason ban, two-year television ban.

Involved Sports:
Football
Men's Basketball


Involved Penalties:
TV: 2 yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: No
Postseason: 2 yrs Recruiting: No
Probation: 2 yrs Show Cause Action: No

[Carolina_Dawg]

And the public record from the NCAA involving that infraction.

University of South Carolina, Columbia

WHEREAS, the NCAA Committee on Infractions has investigated alleged violations of NCAA legislation by the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and has reported its findings to the Council,

WHEREAS, the Council has found the University of South Carolina to have violated the principles governing sound academic standards [NCAA Constitution 3-3], in that:

1. In September 1965, a prospective student-athlete was admitted to the University contrary to the regular published entrance requirements of the institution.

WHEREAS, the Council has found the University of South Carolina to have violated the principles governing financial aid [NCAA Constitution 3-4], in that:

1. During the college year, 1965-66, the University's then director of athletics (also head football coach) provided three student-athletes, all ineligible to receive institutional financial assistance, with cash, meal tickets and books from personal funds or from sources under his control.

2. During the college year, 1965-66, and continuing through the first semester of the 1966-67 college year, the educational expenses of a student-athlete were paid by a corporation upon which the student-athlete was neither naturally or legally dependent.

3. Institutional financial assistance awarded to student-athletes by the University of South Carolina was not administered by the institution's regular committee or agency responsible for awarding scholarships or grants-in-aid to students generally.

W!~REAS, The Council has found the University of South Carolina to have violated the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 6-2-(a), in that:

1. During the college year, 1965-66, the then director of athletics with the assistance of the then business manager of athletics, created a secret fund, reportedly to be used for entertainment purposes, including entertainment of high school coaches.

WHEREAS, the Council has found the University of South violated the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 6-3, in that:

1. During the month of July 1965, a representative of the University of South Carolina's athletic interests arranged for and conducted a basketball game at a summer camp in New Jersey in which four prospective student-athletes were provided the opportunity to display their talents in the sport of basketball.



WHEREAS, the Council has found the University of South Carolina to have violated the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 6-5-(a), in that:

1. In conjunction with the July 1965, basketball game, the representative of the University's athletic interests who arranged and conducted it, provided or arranged for the transportation, meals and lodging for three prospective student-athletes during the round trip from their homes to the game site.

WHEREAS, the Council has noted that under date of July 25, 1966, the Commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference took action against the University of South Carolina for violation of Conference requirements, as follows;

1. Declared ineligible for further intercollegiate athletic competition at the University of South Carolina the three student-athletes who received improper financial assistance from the institution's then director of athletics.

2. Declared forfeited all 1965 football contests in which the three student-athletes receiving improper financial aid participated.
3. Declared that any student-athlete whose eligibility is in question be withheld from intercollegiate athletic competition until such time that his eligibility status be cleared.

4. Declared that the University of South Carolina bear the costs of the investigations conducted by the Conference.

WHEREAS, the Council has noted that under date of October 28, 1966, the Executive Committee of the Atlantic Coast Conference supported the rulings of the Conference Commissioner;

WHEREAS, the Council supports the findings by and actions of the Atlantic Coast Conference, its Executive Committee and its Commissioner, recognizing that their efforts give meaning to the cooperative principle and philosophy of the NCAA enforcement program and these actions were taken into consideration in determining the terms and extent of this penalty;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the University of South Carolina be placed on probation for a period of two years from this date (January 8, 1967), it being understood that prior to the expiration of this probationary period the NCAA Committee on Infractions shall review the athletic policies and practices of the institutions;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that during the period of this probation the University's basketball and football teams shall end their seasons with the final regularly scheduled, in-season games and they shall not be permitted to participate in any post-season basketball or football competition;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that during the period of this probation the University's football team shall not be eligible to participate in any television program subject to the administration and control of this Association and the institution shall not make any commitments for such a television appearance before it has been restored to full rights and privileges of membership;

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that record be made of the assistance and cooperation extended to the NCAA and its Committee on Infractions by the executive and athletic administrations of the University of South Carolina and the Commissioner's office of the Atlantic Coast Conference.

[pvilleguru]

the 1964 bama infraction did not involve football.

[Carolina_Dawg]

Institution: University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Date: 05-JAN-64

Facts Summary: Improper recruiting contact.

Violation Summary: Improper recruiting contact.

Penalty Summary: Public reprimand.

Involved Sports:
Football

WHEREAS, the Council has found the University of Alabama to have violated the provisions governing recruiting (Article VI, Section 8, NCAA Bylaws), in that football coaches of the university recruited a student-athlete enrolled at another institution without first contacting and obtaining permission from the director of athletics of that institution;

I beleive that it did involve football.

[lacene]

OK, that explains it, then. I did not read the whole thing through...

[Tider27]

the 1964 bama infraction did not involve football.

This is true, I was going to point this out.

[Carolina_Dawg]

Actually it did involve football, refer to my other post.

[Seppeh]

Aww two pages and still no sign of Charles' quote?

[True Grit]

Im pretty sure I know how many each SEC team has:

Auburn- 5
Georgia- 4
Bama- 3
MSU- 3
Florida- 3
Ole Miss- 3
Tennesse- 3
Kentucky- 2
USC- 2
LSU- 2
Arky- 1
Vandy- 0

[Tider27]

Actually it did involve football, refer to my other post.

It's a old old arguement that really will never be known. I've seen that no telling how many times. :closedeye

[vandyfan84]

what did vandy do for its 1 infraction?

I know it was in womens BBAll, but just curious

[gatorunvrsty]

Refer to my original post, and you can look it all up on the NCAA site.

[Sabanocchio]

Alabama has 4. The Barners lead the SEC with 7 major NCAA Infractions yet they claim BAMA cheats all of the time. Now why is that?

Because of the severity of the infractions Bama committed.

[bamaboy]

ooohhhh Blake, ooohhh blake,

wherefore are thy blake. ya'll are in the lead. bad boys, bad boys.

sorry, people. super bored and trying to start something. can this get bama put on probation?

[azamugg]

Because of the severity of the infractions Bama committed.

ALL BOOSTERS.............the NCAA exxagerated and are being taken to task in court by Cottrell and are about to lose...........there was not one charge of lack of institutional control,