This made me chuckle...

LINK

"We think the penalty is appropriate," said Dennis Thomas, chairman of the Committee on Infractions. "The head coach should be aware, but, also in the same frame, the head coach obviously cannot be aware of everything that goes on within the program. However, the head coach bears that responsibility."

So, let me get this straight...

The school said that it found that the basketball staff exchanged more than 1,400 calls and 1,100 text messages with Nochimson between June 2005 and December 2008.

The NCAA and the school have been investigating the program since shortly after a report by Yahoo! Sports in March 2009 that former team manager Josh Nochimson helped guide recruit Nate Miles to Connecticut, giving him lodging, transportation, meals and representation.

Two members of last year's basketball staff, Beau Archibald, the director of basketball operations, and assistant coach Patrick Sellers lost their jobs after allegations they provided false and misleading information to NCAA investigators.

The Division I Committee on Infractions levied a two-year show-cause penalty on Archibald.

Here is a little more...

Thomas said a postseason ban was considered, but the committee was not swayed because the case involved a high-profile coach and program.

So which is it?

Are we tracking high profile players or not? Isn't that the standard set by Paul Dee?

So, lets review...a UConn athletic department employee cheats repeatedly and pays to get a player to come to the school, he then subsequently lies to the NCAA during their investigation which results in no tourney ban for said lying.

On the other hand, USC fails to catch a cheater - with NO booster or employee involvement in the violations (Ornstein was deemed a booster after the fact)....and 'SC gets a 2 year bowl ban along with all the other draconian penalties.

And that Idiot Forde say the punishment is right.

Right, he's not biased.

Sounds about right.

Discuss...