We Have a New Enemy

DON'T BE RIDICULOUS.

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES, ESPECIALLY WHOEVER WROTE THE CHILDISH PIECE: "WE HAVE A NEW ENEMY AT BEARS NECESSITY," SHOULDN'T BE THROWING STONES. JUST LOOK AT #6 CAL'S RECORD IN REGARD TO SLEAZE, AND WORSE:

Football's Dirtiest Programs: #6, Cal

Pete HolidayPosted Jul 25th 2007 9:00AM by Pete Holiday

Filed under: California Football, Pac 10

Using its own calculus, FanHouse ranks the 10 Dirtiest Programs of the last 20 years.

I'm sorry, who? How is that that UC Berkeley ends up rounding out the first half of the ten dirtiest programs of the modern era? I have to admit that I was a little surprised when the spreadsheet told me that the Golden Bears were the sixth dirtiest program since the SMU death penalty, but that's how the numbers worked out, so I dove in.

What I found was a little surprising. The two cases considered for this ranking both involved academic fraud and unethical conduct with the most recent of them earning Cal the "lack of institutional control" ding. The Golden Bears were actually saved from a much higher ranking by some unusually soft punishments in their 1988 case.

Photos: College Football's Dirtiest Programs

In the Spring of 1987 it was determined that a JuCo transfer had earned enough credits to be admitted to Cal, but didn't have enough transferable credits to be eligible to play. The athletics recruiting coordinator took it upon himself to try to remedy that situation and, in so doing, committed a major infraction for the Golden Bears.

The coordinator's solution to this somewhat daunting problem was simple: get the kid some more credits, ASAP. The problem, he found, was that by the time this problem had been discovered it was too late to enroll him in any more classes. One can also imagine the concern when the coordinator realized that while the player didn't have enough credits to play at Cal, he would be eligible to play at a number of other schools. The coordinator then approached a booster who was also a teacher and convinced him to enroll the student past the deadline and give him credit for no attendance and no class work.

It worked temporarily, though it was caught by Cal before the player was actually able to play. That fact seemed to save them from major penalties despite the fact that it resulted in the player being forced to transfer and sit out a year. Cal lost two scholarships as a result, but didn't get any sort of probation or post-season ban.

Another after-the-fact, grades-for-free scheme was uncovered in 2002 when the NCAA learned that a Cal professor retroactively added two football players to a class in order to keep them eligible. In the summer of 1999 the professor in question added two students to the roster for a class he taught the previous Spring. Despite having gone to few, if any, of the classes and there being no evidence that the players actually did any coursework, they were both awarded Cs in the class in August, thus sustaining their eligibility for the Fall of 1999.

Athletics Department staff earned UC-Berkeley a Lack of Institutional Control violation by learning about the goings on, but sticking their heads in the sand to avoid hearing anything they might have to report to the NCAA.

When these incidents came to light, Cal did an investigation in which they determined nothing untoward had gone on. After the Pac 10's enforcement personnel came to the opposite conclusion, Cal hired an independent investigator who reached the same conclusions that the Pac 10 did. Instead of chastising them for their initial failure, the NCAA applauded their second investigation.

As the investigations were all wrapping up, the NCAA was made aware of a long-running custom of players receiving extra benefits relating to "incidental expenses" at hotels. These benefits ranged in value from less than a dollar to more than $300.

The 2002 infraction earned Cal much more harsh penalties than their 1988 transgressions did: five years of probation, a one year post-season ban, and nine scholarships.

Scoreboard:

* Unethical Conduct: '88 & '02 (10 points)

* Academic Fraud: '88 & '02 (10 points)

* Lack of Institutional Control: 2002 (10 points)

* Probation: 2002, 5 years (10 points)

* Post-season ban: 2002, 1 year (3 points)

* Initial scholarships: 11 total (5.5 points)

* Scholarship cap reduction: 2 total (0.5 points)

* Total: 49.00 points (1988: 11.50 points; 2002: 37.50 points)

The Pac 10 now has two teams in the top 10... will they place any more?

I've seen that list before. It's retarded. Ooh. Cheating scandals. That's much worse than DUIs, assault and battery, and cutting up pit bulls (which #7 UW is guilty of).

The only reason a place like Cal gets pushed up the rankings is because our athletic officials actually punish wrongdoing and it goes on record, as opposed to the backwards SEC/Big 12 heartland and our friends up at Seattle, who would overlook their moral compass to pursue bigger prizes.

You miss the point! I inserted that list re/Cal because of the comment by whoever wrote: "We have a New Enemy! Here's a quote near the end of that article: "In terms of personal rivalry, I guess I won’t mind. Losing to Dorrell was a shitty feeling. At least with Rick you’ll know you’ll get UCLA’s best shot. It’s nice to have three healthy California battles every fall. And dealing down a sleazeball next October is just fine with me. Let’s go."

Where does anybody representing CAL get off by referring to Rick by saying: "And dealing down a sleazeball next October is just fine with me. Let’s go."

I probably don't have the authority to call him such names. But ask folks in Seattle and Boulder what exactly they think of their beloved Slick Rick.

There you go again...you say you have no authority, yet you refer to him as "Slick Rick." As far as UW and UC faithful are concerned, they just don't, or can't, admit that THEY themselves, along with their administrations, their police, their attorneys, their judges, et al are responsible for ALL the negatives that occurred at their institutions(?) while Rick was there. Read the facts!! You're basing your cricism based on their inability to accept their credo of "win at any cost," and also for UC's proven guilt in unlawful dismissal of RN, as proven by the court decision. You there at Berkeley are name-calling and finger-pointing because you fear the competition you'll be receiving from UCLA, and really are resorting to childish behavior, even before the fall football season begins.

Also Avinash, you state above: "That’s much worse than DUIs, assault and battery, and cutting up pit bulls (which #7 UW is guilty of)." How does that relate to RN? Blame those who committed those acts, and the administrations of those colleges and other authoritative bodies who were in charge at the time for the lack of disciplinary actions, NOT RN. Now, let's play ball, and may the better team win.

Sounds good to me.