Mizzou Tigers were hit with a penalty worse than their fellow SEC partner.
On Friday, the NCAA released the penalties for Mississippi State for findings that a tutor committed academic misconduct to aid 11 student-athletes.
Among the penalties: Three years of probation; a reduction of two football scholarships during each of the 2020-21 and 2021-22 academic years; a reduction of one men’s basketball scholarship during the 2020-21 academic year.
Not among the penalties: A postseason ban.
The misconduct for the Bulldogs sounds about the same as Mizzou, but the Tigers were hit with the postseason ban back in late January. That is not the case here.
That sparked plenty of people asking the same question throughout Friday: Why did Mizzou football get hit with a bowl ban but not Mississippi State?
It might even be possible to some that the Bulldogs’ case was worse.
Here is the biggest difference between the two cases:
This is very similar to Missouri's case - except that Mississippi State went through negotiated resolution process with the NCAA and accepted the penalties that were agreed upon. The tutor did not cooperate with the investigation.
— Dave Matter (@Dave_Matter) August 23, 2019
The negotiation resolution option was adopted in August 2018. Missouri’s case was heard in 2017, and therefore the negotiation was not available. But the appeal is.
Missouri is going through that appeals process right now. It has taken all month since Mizzou officials met with the NCAA committee, and perhaps the NCAA was waiting to hit Mississippi State with its sanctions before moving on to the appeal. The NCAA has to make it right by removing the postseason ban that it chose not to even hand to the Bulldogs. It is the only move that makes sense.
People will say the NCAA has never made sense in regard to some of its penalties and rules. And that may be true, but it would be hurting itself so badly by sticking to a ban that was too harsh to begin with.
Missouri AD Jim Sterk released a statement Friday as well.
“In response to many questions we have received in regard to today’s NCAA infractions case decision involving another Division I institution, it is important to note that the University of Missouri did not have the opportunity to utilize the NCAA’s new negotiated resolution process because our case was already in process when the organization’s membership adopted it. We believe that the penalties imposed in the recently decided and factually similar case further illustrate that the penalties imposed on Mizzou were excessive and inconsistent with previous case precedent. We have never wavered from our stance or the merits of our appeal and remain hopeful it will be successful. Thanks to the incredible work of our student-athletes, coaches and staff, Mizzou is poised to have a breakout year across many sports, and we look forward to resolving this in the future so we can move forward as a University and continue to Win it Right.”
#makeitright NCAA. Its core purpose is to “govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner,” but this doesn’t seem fair.