Toledo loses 6 football scholarships.

factman · Post by **factman** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:43 pm

I would never change my name, if for no other reason than it bothers you soooooooooooo much. I think it is a stitch, that you take some stupid screen name so seriously. The only thing I take seriously about any of this, is my deep love for BG and how much I dislike Toledo and anything to do with the school, city, or people from their boards that come over hear and spout off their verbal diarrhea

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:13 pm

Sorry to rain on your parade factman, but it appears Toledo has already completed all 6 scholarship penalties and 2 of the 3 initials. None of our 23 signed recruits will be affected by this.

The real story on the APR and how it will affect Toledo.

http://www.toledorockets.net/football/apr0301200601.php

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:30 am

Two thoughts on this matter:

(1) Really is funny to watch Toledo fans try to spin this thing in their favor. Much like a mid-year closing of dorms and announcing it during finals, no matter how much you claim to have "planned for this," it is still embarassing not only to the U. of Toledo, but to the MAC as well. Thanks.

(2) I think the politics of these penalties is pretty damned obvious. You can't tell me that schools like Florida State and Miami aren't deserving of having scholarships taken away if this is truly about academic matriculation - don't even try. Was the report that this was based on made public at some point? If so, I would love to see the report itself laid side-by-side with the list of teams that actually lost scholarships. You mean to tell me that 4 MAC schools, 1 independent (and soon to be MAC) school, one WAC school, one Sun Belt School and one C-USA school are the only ones affected by this? Hmm...seems to me that all of these schools have one thing in common. I can't seem to figure out what it is, though? Hmmmmm......

As with anything else the NCAA does, this = $$$$$$$$$, and it is further bullshit, much like their championship series.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:58 am

Bleeding Orange wrote:Two thoughts on this matter:

(1) Really is funny to watch Toledo fans try to spin this thing in their favor. Much like a mid-year closing of dorms and announcing it during finals, no matter how much you claim to have "planned for this," it is still embarassing not only to the U. of Toledo, but to the MAC as well. Thanks.

(2) I think the politics of these penalties is pretty damned obvious. You can't tell me that schools like Florida State and Miami aren't deserving of having scholarships taken away if this is truly about academic matriculation - don't even try. Was the report that this was based on made public at some point? If so, I would love to see the report itself laid side-by-side with the list of teams that actually lost scholarships. You mean to tell me that 4 MAC schools, 1 independent (and soon to be MAC) school, one WAC school, one Sun Belt School and one C-USA school are the only ones affected by this? Hmm...seems to me that all of these schools have one thing in common. I can't seem to figure out what it is, though? Hmmmmm......

As with anything else the NCAA does, this = $$$$$$$$$, and it is further bullshit, much like their championship series.

Bowling Green's football team scored a 920, which is 5 points below the standard. Luckily for BG, there is a "squad size" clause that can be used for the next couple of years and BG used it so that they didn't get penalized and lose any scholarships themselves.

Spin that Bleeding Orange.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:12 am

I'm sorry -- maybe you can help me. Is an 853 or a 920 better? Would you rather lose 6 scholarships or 0? These are all very difficult questions.

No matter what Rocket fans say about how this will or won't affect them, this will most definitely be used by many other schools in negative recruiting. Even thought it isn't fair or correct, this development combined with the Ray Williams situation will give people the impression that Toledo's team is comprised of retards and felons.

Toledo fans better hope that score improves drastically by next year, or else the impact could be more than any of you can spin.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:06 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:I'm sorry -- maybe you can help me. Is an 853 or a 920 better? Would you rather lose 6 scholarships or 0? These are all very difficult questions.

No matter what Rocket fans say about how this will or won't affect them, this will most definitely be used by many other schools in negative recruiting. Even thought it isn't fair or correct, this development combined with the Ray Williams situation will give people the impression that Toledo's team is comprised of retards and felons.

Toledo fans better hope that score improves drastically by next year, or else the impact could be more than any of you can spin.

Of course 853 is lower than 920. But it doesn't take a BG grad to figure out that 920 IS below the standard and if BG receives a 920 for the 2007-08 academic year you will not be protected by the "squad size" clause and will receive penalties. We both have to work at things, Toledo just has more work to do. Having all 13 seniors on the football team in 2005-06 graduate is a huge improvement for UT and will help our APR score next time around.

You can say that this will affect recruiting, but how? If a kid signs a LOI they will not have their scholarship taken away. If a kid is being recruited and offered a scholarship be will not be affected.

factman · Post by **factman** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:40 am

RF really likes to listen to himself!!! Maybe no one from Toledo will listen to his BS, so he brings it over here!!

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:46 am

factman wrote:RF really likes to listen to himself!!! Maybe no one from Toledo will listen to his BS, so he brings it over here!!

I have no clue what you are talking about. My posts have been in replies to BG fans posting here, not to myself.

So tell me factman, what do you think about BG's football team scoring a 920? In the 2006-07 academic year that score would get a loss of scholarships for BG. Maybe you should concentrate more on what BG is doing to improve their score before they get into a situation like Toledo is in, and a little less about Toledo. After all, you don't give a rat's ass about Toledo, right?

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:49 am

So, RF, you don't think that this news will negatively affect recruiting for Toledo in the coming years? I think some parents and student-athletes will factor this kind of thing into their decision. I understand it doesn't affect this year's class at all, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think it won't affect future recruiting.

factman · Post by **factman** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:08 am

..................or maybe YOU should worry about your SCUDS, and not spend half of your day talking about Bowling Green!

Maybe YOU should worry more about next year.......maybe you will lose nine or ten scholarships then!! Even I know that losing ZERO is better than losing SIX. Damn, I'm smart!!

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:15 am

It is amazing how little Toledo fans tend to surprise me. You can say all you want about BG being FIVE POINTS below the 925 mark as opposed to being SEVENTY-TWO POINTS below it, but you really just sound like a broken record of a slow kid spinning on a turntable.

The fact of the matter is, people pointed out that this took place and almost immediately you dildoes are over here trying to "clear up the facts?" Well, I'm sorry chuckles, but the facts just don't work the way you want them to. Can you seriously believe that this won't hurt TU in recruiting in future years, or are you just confident that the Ray Williams' of the world will come to UT no matter what the NCAA says about the schools academics? Please. Just stop, because you are digging yourselves a hole that you really don't want to be in...

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:30 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:So, RF, you don't think that this news will negatively affect recruiting for Toledo in the coming years? I think some parents and student-athletes will factor this kind of thing into their decision. I understand it doesn't affect this year's class at all, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think it won't affect future recruiting.

Instead of asking that question, I think you need to go back and read my posts on here. Yesterday I did say that I feel it will have an effect on future recruiting to an extent. My recent post about it didn't say I don't believe it will effect recruiting, it asked how a particular BG fan thought it would effect recruiting.

I am sure there will be some effect, but not very much. It is not like the kid is going to ever get his scholarship taken away as long as he stays academically eligible himself.

rocketfootball · Post by **rocketfootball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:30 am

IMO, Miami is the only MAC school that did great in both men's basketball and football. Ball State did fairly good in both too, and Ohio wasn't too bad. The rest of the MAC is too close for comfort (or below 925) in at least one of those sports. Temple is downright scary. Only 3 of their men's sports teams had an APR score of 925 or higher!!!

Some numbers for MAC schools:

CMU Men's Basketball - 898 (saved by the "squad size" clause)
CMU Football - 907 (saved by the "squad size" clause)

Akron Men's Basketball - 931
Akron Football - 931

Buffalo Men's Basketball - 913 (saved by the "squad size" clause)
Buffalo Football - 878 (loss of 3 scholarships and 3 initial scholarships)
Buffalo Women's Basketball - 904 (saved by the "squad size" clause)

Ball State Men's Basketball - 981 (great score)
Ball State Football - 945 (good score)

EMU Men's Basketball - 858 (no listing by NCAA on a penalty or clause???)
EMU Football - 902 (no listing by NCAA on a penalty or clause???)
Men's indoor and outdoor track and wrestling are also below 925 but saved by the "squad size" clause.

Kent State Men's Basketball - 856 (loss of 2 scholarships)
Kent State Football - 916 (saved by the "squad size" clause)

Ohio Men's Basketball - 962 (pretty good score)
Ohio Football - 936 (just above the standard, not much room to slide)

BG Men's Basketball - 930 (just above the standard, not much room to slide)
BG Football - 920 (saved by the "squad size" clause)

WMU Men's Basketball - 965 (pretty good score)
WMU Football - 878 (loss of 5 scholarships and 3 initial scholarships)

Toledo Men's Basketball - 990 (great score)
Toledo Football - 853 (loss of 6 scholarships and 3 initial scholarships)

NIU Men's Basketball - 938
NIU Football - 905 (loss of 2 scholarships and 2 initial scholarships)

Miami Men's Basketball - 980 (great score)
Miami Football - 964 (pretty good score)

Temple Men's Basketball - 900 (saved by the "squad size" clause)
Temple Football - 837 (loss of 9 scholarships and 3 initial scholarships)
Temple Baseball - 903 (saved by the "squad size" clause)
Temple Men's Golf - 921 (saved by the "squad size" clause)
Temple Men's Soccer - 890 (saved by the "squad size" clause)
Temple Women's B-Ball - 923 (saved by the "squad size" clause)

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:38 am

rocketfootball wrote:
Jacobs4Heisman wrote:So, RF, you don't think that this news will negatively affect recruiting for Toledo in the coming years? I think some parents and student-athletes will factor this kind of thing into their decision. I understand it doesn't affect this year's class at all, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think it won't affect future recruiting.
Instead of asking that question, I think you need to go back and read my posts on here. Yesterday I did say that I feel it will have an effect on future recruiting to an extent. My recent post about it didn't say I don't believe it will effect recruiting, it asked how a particular BG fan thought it would effect recruiting.

I am sure there will be some effect, but not very much. It is not like the kid is going to ever get his scholarship taken away as long as he stays academically eligible himself.

You're missing my point. This APR deal is portraying UT Football academics in a very negative light. This will affect kids and especially parents when they are deciding between Toledo and a school that had a higher APR score. My argument has nothing to do right now with a loss of scholarships, which you keep harping on. I'm concerned with image and how it affects decision making.

The facts that you are so hellbent on providing in 50 different locations mean next to nothing to potential recruits and their families. What matters here is perception, and the perception of UT right now is felons and stupid football players. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but that's what the general public outside of Toledo message board posters feels. It ain't fair, but it is what it is. I think it will have a much bigger impact than you think it will.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:31 pm

Mr. 4 Star California Running Back does not know about the Ray Williams situation. But if I was a coach at an opposing school I may just mention that along with scholarships not being guaranteed at that school up North...