quote:

---

There was no point in finishing those last three matches. Everyone knows that. The NCAA tournament knows that. Once a team gets 4 points they have won. The contest is over. Its called TEAM tennis for a reason.

---

Please represent Baylor a little better than this...you are turning into a spin machine. The NCAA tournament knows that they shouldn't finish? Oh really? This is exactly what I'm talking about...it's like arguing with a child when talking to you. By you saying there is no point in finishing insinuates that the individual matches don't matter. Don't be an idiot and try to spin this because you are wrong. Baylor won...no use crying about it. It was close, but they deserve the Championship. The NCAA and many others have noted that Baylor does have an unfair advantage, and as a result will be changing the recruiting rules.


[This message has been edited by Silvertaps (edited 4/23/2003 2:39p).]

The thread that just will not die. A couple of quick points. The average age for Baylor players is 21; the average age for A & M is 19. Sir is correct that there are only three German players on the Baylor squad that I am aware of, and they are all at least 21 years or older, and two are classified as sophmores. The two A&M sophmores (Lester and Ante) are 19. Does this make a level playing field....you tell me. Whether the NCAA will do anything about this situation remains to be seen.

Raven...
If you noticed, I clarified my original post about this. I didn't mean just this year (sorry for the misunderstanding). Baylor has a history of recruiting players much older than the normal recruit. An example of this is a player that played about 2 years ago earned $85K professionally in Germany before being recruited by Baylor. I don't recall his name at the moment, but I do remember this as being the big eye opener to the loop hole that exists in the NCAA recruiting rules. By the way, it's not IF the NCAA will make changes...it's when. They have already decided to make the changes and will be implimented the next fiscal year.

I hope you are correct about the NCAA. As I stated earlier, each coach and school must decide the type of program that they want. The Aggies have made their choice, and I personally think it is the best thing for our school and our kids. Baylor has made their decision as as to the type of program they want, and I assume they are happy with it as they have won championships and have some great players. I hope the NCAA will level the field a little bit, but if they don't we will have to live with our beliefs and commitments.

silvertaps,

Dorsch's loss to Newport will hurt his NCAA seeding, not seating. But he will still be one of the top 2 seeds, so it wont hurt that much, but it will give Ryan a huge benefit in the seedings.

Taps, I'm glad you now admit I never said the result of the Newport/Dorsch match "didn't matter." Now you just say that I "insinuated" it. You can ASSUME and spin things all that you want. I know what I said and I know what I mean't.

FYI: The average age of Baylor's team is 20, not 21. Baylor has not broken any rules in the players it has recruited.

They have simply been better than the players A&M-College Station has recruited. The field is already level. Get over it. Do you realize what cry-babies ya'll sound like? Boo-hoo. We can't compete with little ole Gaylor, so lets change the rules. Thats pathetic. Thats like me saying that since Baylor hasn't competed with A&M-College Station on the football field lately, the NCAA should change the rules so that each team can only give scholarships to players in the county the school is located in.

If the NCAA changes the rules, they change them. Big deal. The Aggies have a freshman from Australia, a player from Egypt (I know, I know, he went to high school in Texas) and a player from Croatia.

All of the top teams in college tennis have foriegn players and older players. If everybody is playing under the same rules, that sounds fine to me.



Aggie11 says: Go Home Gaylor bear.


[This message has been edited by Sir Edmund Bearke (edited 4/23/2003 4:28p).]

Sir: I got my 21 figure from the Baylor tennis site. It actually worked out to be exactly 21 by my figures (not a fraction). I will admit I might be wrong, and I only found nine players mentioned on the site, so there well may be some others on the team that I did not count. In any event the Baylor players are older than the Aggies. Maybe next year the age difference will not be so pronounced. Time will tell, I guess.

Raven, I think you might have missed one. There are 10 players and by my calculation the average age was 20 years, 4 months. For what thats worth . . . .


[This message has been edited by Sir Edmund Bearke (edited 4/23/2003 5:24p).]

Sir: Just to make sure I wasn't completely losing my mind I went back to the site I got the information and found the following nine players listed: Becker-Soph-22;Dorsch-Soph-22;Garcia-Sr-22;Gould-Fr-19;Lovrak-Fr-20;Marin-Jr-21;McLaren-Fr/RS-19;Neurohr-Jr-22;Papp-Sr-23. I don't doubt that there may be some others, but these are the ones listed on the Baylor Tennis webpage. Now....the horse has been completely beaten.

Sir...
I will post your quote AGAIN so you can read and reread it until you get it through your thick skull...

quote:

---

There was no point in finishing those last three matches. Everyone knows that. The NCAA tournament knows that. Once a team gets 4 points they have won. The contest is over. Its called TEAM tennis for a reason.

---

It speaks for itself. You and I know what you meant, now you're trying to use damage control. I'll give you a little help here:
"The contest is over." = The Ryan/Dorch match didn't matter.
"There was no point in finishing those last three matches." = the Ryan/Dorch didn't matter.

Does that help? How are you going to spin it this time?
It's too bad that a university build on Christian values have had to resort to finding a legal way to cheat. I guess this shows the state of Baylor athletics these days and how much they are willing to compromise. Doesn't suprise me that you are one to defend such a compromise.

Raven and Sir...
The age thing is just a part of the problem. What the NCAA is very concerned about is the fact some of the players for Baylor present and past have played AND EARNED MONEY PROFESSIONALLY in their respective country.

[This message has been edited by Silvertaps (edited 4/23/2003 7:25p).]

Taps: I am acultely aware of the other side of the equation. I don't have the specific information available on that issue, although I am told it is available through the internet and other mediums. I still am not sure how the NCAA is going to address this problem.

Raven...
I haven't heard the details about the details about the changes either...I do know they are coming. Remember, this isn't the first time Baylor has been caught cheating in men's tennis (although this current situation isn't defined as cheating, just a loop hole). Here is a reminder from the past of the trend Baylor tennis seems to be starting:
http://www.ncaa.org/releases/infractions/2000122102in.html

[This message has been edited by Silvertaps (edited 4/23/2003 6:48p).]

Point is Gaylor has to cheat to be on an equal footing with us, or to be better than us. I take this as a compliment, we are haves of the Big 12 and they are have nots...POooooooooooor Gaylooooor...

Now I have heard it all.

quote:

---

Legal way to cheat

---

What the hell does that mean?

Silvertaps, as for your continued attempts to put words in my mouth, we will just have to agree to disagree. I know there are several smart Aggies out there who can read the thread themselves and realize you are either 1) a very bad mind reader or 2) full of crap.

I'll leave it with this. You think I mean't:

quote:

---

"The contest is over." = The Ryan/Dorch match didn't matter.
"There was no point in finishing those last three matches." = the Ryan/Dorch didn't matter.

---

What I actually mean't was this: "The contest is over." I apologize to you that I didn't clarify for you that I was referring to the team match even though that WAS WHAT THE ENTIRE THREAD WAS ABOUT!!! Please accept my apology. That was immediately followed by "There was no point in finishing those last three matches." What I actually mean't was this: There was no point in finishing those last three matches. That was a personal opinion. Once again I apologize for not clarifying for you that my statement was one of opinion and not one concerning ramifications for individual "seatings" in the NCAA singles tournament. Those individual matches, SINCE THEY WERE PLAYED, obviously mean't a great deal to you and to others. I apologize if I hurt your feelings in not acknowledging how important they were in your life.

On to this lie of yours about Baylor using professional players. That is against NCAA rules. Can you show me where you read this or tell me where you heard it? How about a little evidence?

. . . and please fellas, lets not talk about past NCAA violations. I really don't think you want to bring that up. You are Aggies you know.


Aggie11 says: Go Home Gaylor bear.


[This message has been edited by Sir Edmund Bearke (edited 4/23/2003 9:49p).]

Raven, I stand corrected. There are only nine actually playing this season and the average age of those nine is 21.

I do have a question for you though. What was the average age of the Aggies last year? I know they have a very young team this year, but wasn't last year more senior dominated?


Aggie11 says: Go Home Gaylor bear.

quote:

---

INDIANAPOLIS---Baylor University has been placed on probation for two years for violations governing recruiting, extra benefits and financial aid in the men's tennis program. The Division I Committee on Infractions also considered an allegation involving a former assistant football coach, but did not make a finding.

Violations in the men's tennis program were discovered and self-reported to the NCAA by university officials and centered on the improper provision of financial aid to two student-athletes.

The committee determined that between September 1997 and March 1999, three former men's tennis student-athletes, who were receiving full noncountable grants-in-aid but no longer had remaining eligibility, were directed by the head men's tennis coach to make payments toward the rent of two current student-athletes receiving partial scholarships.

One of the post-eligible student-athletes paid approximately $850 toward the rent and two others paid approximately $225 each. The payments violated NCAA financial aid legislation because they were not administered by the university and caused the school to exceed maximum equivalency awards.

The university and the head tennis coach maintained that the coach suggested the three student-athletes contribute toward rent payments; the NCAA's enforcement staff contended the head coach directed the student-athletes to make the payments. The Committee on Infractions concluded that the post-eligible student-athletes felt obligated to provide the money, a major violation of financial aid rules.

The committee also said it was troubled by the head coach's actions and "firmly believed that he should have been aware that the rent payment scheme he foisted on post-eligible student-athletes was, at best, questionable under NCAA legislation, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to circumvent NCAA financial aid equivalency limits in the sport of men's tennis." The committee did not find a violation of ethical conduct against the coach because of a conversation between the coach and the university's compliance officer that may have caused the coach to have inaccurate information about financial aid legislation.

In its report, the committee also stated that it carefully weighed evidence in an allegation against a former assistant football coach involving improper recruiting inducements. Ultimately, the committee said it should not make a finding because it did not have information that was "credible, persuasive and of a kind on which reasonably prudent persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs," according to Bylaw 32.7.6.2.

As it determined appropriate penalties to impose, the Committee on Infractions considered the following self-imposed penalties and corrective actions taken by the university:


Declared two student-athletes ineligible and withheld them from two matches and required both student-athletes to repay the money they received from the rent subsidies.

Conducted rules education with the men's tennis team.

Issued a letter of reprimand to be included in the head men's tennis coach's permanent record.

Required the head men's tennis coach to attend one of the NCAA compliance seminars at his own expense.

Reduced the available financial aid in men's tennis for the 2000-01 academic year by twice the dollar amount of the total value of excess aid received by the two student-athletes.
Baylor could have been subject to repeat violator penalties because its last case before the committee occurred within the past five years. However, the committee said the violations in this case were limited in number and scope and were dissimilar to penalties in the previous case in choosing not to impose "repeat violator" penalties. Because the case involved serious violations of financial aid legislation and the university was making a second appearance before the Committee on Infractions in a relatively short period of time, these additional penalties were imposed:


Public reprimand and censure.

Two years of probation beginning December 21, 2000.

In addition to a self-imposed reduction in financial aid in men's tennis in 2000-01, the university will further reduce grants-in-aid by one additional equivalency during the 2001-02 academic year. (The men's tennis program will be limited to 3.5 total equivalencies during 2001-02.)

The university will issue a letter of reprimand to be included in the permanent record of the assistant director of athletics for compliance.

During the probationary period, the university will continue to develop and implement a comprehensive education program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA. At the end of the probationary period, the university's president will provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Baylor remains subject to the NCAA's repeat-violator provisions for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, December 21, 2000.
The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Jack Friedenthal, committee chair and professor of law, George Washington University; Richard J. Dunn, professor of English, University of Washington; Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; James Park Jr., attorney and retired judge, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Lexington, Kentucky; and Bonnie Slatton, chair, department of physical education and sports studies, University of Iowa (former member of the committee who substituted for this case).

A copy of the complete report from the Division I Committee on Infractions is available on NCAA Online at www.ncaa.org.


--30--

Attachment:


Complete Report from the Division I Committee on Infractions
RealMedia G2 recording of the press conference.




Open in new window Return to home page

© The National Collegiate Athletic Association

---

classic


Especially this one

quote:

---

Baylor could have been subject to repeat violator penalties because its last case before the committee occurred within the past five years. However, the committee said the violations in this case were limited in number and scope and were dissimilar to penalties in the previous case in choosing not to impose "repeat violator" penalties. Because the case involved serious violations of financial aid legislation and the university was making a second appearance before the Committee on Infractions in a relatively short period of time, these additional penalties were imposed:

---

Then you tell us aggies we should know about this ahhaha foot insert mouth..Idiot.




Aggie11 says:Go Home Gaylor Bear



[This message has been edited by aggie11 (edited 4/23/2003 11:00p).]

Sir: You are making my memory work over-time to remember last lears ages but I will give it a try: 1. Newport--20 2. From--21 3. Cook--17 4. Matijevic--18 5. Skube--22 6. El Dorry--19. The year before we had three seniors in the top group with Madden, Caradima, and Hubbell leading the way.

Thats what I was thinking of; the Madden group. That was a very successful year.


Aggie11 says: Go Home Gaylor bear.

Bearke...
Like I've said before, you seem like a new fan to college tennis...so I can understand your lack of intelligence in these matters. It's a known fact to people that follow tennis that the singles match-ups are just as important as the team match-ups. So your statement "The contest is over" and "There was no point in finishing those last three matches" may be your opinion, but not to the majority of people that follow tennis. I believe Dorch didn't throw the match against Newport because he's smart enough to know what could happen later on in his rankings. The fact that he lost to Newport AND Cook now adds to that damage (although I do realize he won't move out of the top 10).

By the way, I thought I would add something about the whole "legal way of cheating" statement. Let me educate you...not only did the men's tennis team get the recruiting violation from 2000, but the men's and women's team this season have been victims of protests by other teams. Why you ask?

1) The women stacked their lineup against Colorado.

2) The men's protest happened this past weekend. You want to explain to me how the baylor coaches can logically justify why Dorch (the #2 player in the nation) was moved to court 2 just before tournament play began? It's baylor back to their cheating ways. When I say "legal way of cheating", it's a synonym for loop hole in the rules....which the NCAA has been in the process of clarifying. Most of the players and coaches that I talked to this weekend from the other competing schools know what baylor is up to and are very upset about...it is unfair competition that is in the process of being changed.

On the other hand, I don't expect you to understand any of this you being a baylor fan...and this being the only sport baylor has been competitive in this year.

Your working on post 764 on an Aggie board...your support for A&M athletics is appreciated. You are assuming that my feelings are hurt? Riiiiight, that's quite a bit of posts for a non-Aggie don't you think? Especially from one with such opinions about us "cultish" Aggies that you seem to hold. Looks as though you are the one with the obsession. If you are lost, I can post the link do your beloved bear forum.


[This message has been edited by Silvertaps (edited 4/28/2003 5:21p).]

I am surprised no one pointed a guy that went to school in WACO calling us cult like.

quote:

---

I believe Dorch didn't throw the match against Newport because he's smart enough to know what could happen later on in his rankings.

---

You really don't know how to read, do you? No one ever said that Dorsch "threw the match" against Newport.

As for the move this weekend, Dorsch has played #2 singles a few other times this season. He also lacks the one thing that Becker doesn't this time of yearm -- experience. As President Bush would say, it's called "strategery" my friend. It was also totally within the rules. The women's line up against Colorado was also within the rules.

You have got to be the biggest crybaby I've ever conversed with on a message board.

So if you are now saying that he didn't throw that match, then explain why did you post this earlier...twice:

quote:

---

FYI, from the Waco Trib:

Top-ranked Benedikt Dorsch, locked in a tense match with A&M's Ryan Newport on Court 1, didn't have that much patience.

When teammate Benjamin Becker closed out Ante Matijevic, 6-3, 6-4, on Court 3 to give the Bears an insurmountable 4-0 lead, Dorsch threw down his racquet and ran to hug his countryman, risking a code violation.

“I didn't really care,” said the sophomore from Weiden, Germany, who lost seven of the next eight points and eventually the match — his first defeat since January and only his third all season. “It was over. Our goal was to win the match and win the Big 12, and we did it.”

“That just shows you where his head's at,” said Knoll, perhaps the first time that expression was ever used as a compliment. “It's a team sport.”

---

This statement that you post a long time ago shows me that you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to college tennis:

quote:

---

I haven't been talking *hit. As for the 4-3 result, it was OVER at 4-0. There was no point in finishing those last three matches. Everyone knows that. The NCAA tournament knows that. Once a team gets 4 points they have won. The contest is over. Its called TEAM tennis for a reason.

---

Maybe to those that aren't familiar with how college tennis works, that statement is true. The NCAA knows? HA! You are a piece of work dude. Maybe you should inform the NCAA that there will be no singles or doubles championships this year. The fact is, you are incorrect and have been incorrect in your assumption that the match was over. Team wise, yes it was over...but for individual rankings, it still mattered that they played, which by some of your previous quotes you disagree with. That's why they DO finish the individual matches after the team wins.

Calling me a crybaby? I'm just telling you the facts dude. Thanks for proving my point about Dorsch. Baylor has moved him around most of the year even though he was #1 and #2 in the country. The rules of the game say to match up the best players against each other. For example, A&M's number one player versus Baylor's number one player. If you are calling me a crybaby, then you are calling almost every coach and player in the Big 12 a crybaby...everyone knows what Baylor has been up to this season and were the talk of the town in Kansas City.

I've never said we ever "should have won" the match against Baylor either time we played them...they are a very, very good team. The issue that everyone has is the fact that they have used loopholes in the NCAA rules to create an unfair advantage.

I must say this though, I hope Baylor represents the Big 12 well at NCAA's and brings home a trophy. Big 12 tennis has been needing a national champion for some time, and Baylor is set up in a great position to do just that.

[This message has been edited by Silvertaps (edited 4/29/2003 11:42a).]

How about a rules clarification that not only applies to the Zarhi playing ahead of Simon issue, but also to "sophomore" Dorsch ahead of "sophomore" Becker.

Let's look at the handy USTA Friend at Court section on ITA rules. Sorry no link, you will just have to trust me.

Page 243 and 244

3. Players must play in order of ability. The lineup shall always be in order of ability. "Matching up" is prohibited. In singles, players must compete in order of ability with the best player on the team playing at the No. 1 position, the second best at No. 2 and so on through all positions.

a. A player who has established a winning record at a team position in six team matches and whose results show that he clearly is stronger than the players below him may not be moved down.

b. If a top-six player clearly is stronger than the player immediately above him, then the player must be moved up a position.

c. Players of equal ability and equal record may alternate between two adjacent positions so long as the alternating is not done for the purpose of "matching up."

d. A player shall not be moved down in the lineup because of
i. An injury that has lasted and forced the player out of the lineup for less than three weeks.

4. Lineup changes in back-to-back dual matches. In back to back dual matches (two consecutive dual meet matches played regardless of time between matches), the team lineup (as played) may be changed. A player may move up or down one position in this situation. The lineup must still stay in order of ability.



I'm sure you all can bat this around for while.

Keep spreading the good word Raven, see you later this week.

Once again, I, nor Dorsch, said he threw the match.

Taps, you aren't telling the truth. I have caught you in so many lies that they aren't worth repeating again. Your hatred of Baylor tennis has made you irrational.

As for playing Dorsch at #2 and Becker at #1, thanks for proving my point. Becker is playing better than Dorsch and has more ability. Perhaps that is why Becker won and Dorsch lost in the last team match. Crybaby.


[This message has been edited by Sir Edmund Bearke (edited 4/29/2003 2:13p).]

So then, what you are saying is that Baylor played an illegal lineup anytime Dorsch played ahead of Becker??

Then why wasn't Becker at number one. Was Papp clearly better than Becker. Then why not play Papp at No. 1.

Always so many questions when it comes to integrity and Baylor tennis.

there is nothing wrong with putting dorsch at #2 occasionally. all he is trying to do is to improve the rankings of papp, marin, and becker by putting them at #1, and is trying to get them a chance to play in the singles tourny. yes, dorsch has had a better year than becker, but becker was ranked top 5 last year, so he cleary has the ability to play #1. as does marin and papp who have both been ranked at some point in the top 30. now don't get me wrong, i am in no way a baylor fan, but when you have that many strong players, its not necissarily a stack. stanford did the exact same thing a few years ago with the bryan twins, goldstein, and humphries. they swithced every match.

Then let's just throw out the rules then. The rules apply to this season and Dorsch was clearly the established number one player. Having Becker at three is probably the stack. When all is said and done, not only did Newport beat Dorsch in straight sets, but Cook beat him in straight sets too.

Good luck in the NCAAs Hub.

Bearke...
Me a liar? You have proven over and over again that you are new to tennis and have a lack of knowledge about it....you admitted in an earlier post: "Although, I must say that college tennis is one of the more exciting sports around. I wouldn't have said that before I actually went to a few matches."

Yes, he DID say he didn't care about winning the match by saying "I didn't really care"...."It was over. Our goal was to win the match and win the Big 12, and we did it."
Are you sure you aren't related to Bill Clinton? Or maybe you are actually THIS GUY:


Now lets look at who is lying...
You said "There was no point in finishing those last three matches. Everyone knows that. The NCAA tournament knows that. Once a team gets 4 points they have won. The contest is over. Its called TEAM tennis for a reason."
Now you are saying that the Dorsch/Newport match DID matter. Care to make sense of that? I can...you had know idea what the hell you were talking about before, now you are trying to talk your way out of it. Just admit that you were wrong and be on your way.

I would like to know what "lies" that I've said. The fact is, you haven't known a damn thing about what you've been talking about all along...you just don't have the sack to admit it. All I've stated are facts, but it's obvious arguing with a bear fan is like talking to a 5 year old.

765...

[This message has been edited by Silvertaps (edited 4/30/2003 11:59a).]

duplicate message

[This message has been edited by AgTenGod (edited 4/30/2003 1:10p).]

i agree a lot of rules need changing, and the ncaa is in the process and should be some differences starting next year.

AgTenGod, thanks for the luck, but i think there is a good chance we will be playing in Aggieland against the home team for a berth in Sweet 16. Just a hunch, we will know shortly.

Cory...
I agree. Unfortunately, college tennis has to deal with the same problem as women's soccer. The NCAA regionalizes everything, so you have top 10 teams playing each other early instead of later.

silvertaps,
i think its unfair, too. i know for a fact we are better than a lot of schools ranked ahead of us (Georgia, usc, alabama, auburn, south carolina, lsu) and would love to get shipped out and play one of those schools in a different region, but the ncaa looks too much at regions and not fair match ups like they do for march madness

quote:

---

"I didn't really care"...."It was over. Our goal was to win the match and win the Big 12, and we did it."

---

That quote does not equal "threw the match." Maybe it does in your irrational fantasy world, but for those of us who read and understand English it doesn't.

As for your lies . . . I'm not going to repeat everything again. However, I will ask AGAIN for any evidence that Baylor uses professional players. That was just one of your many lies. Crybaby.



Aggie11 says: Go Home Gaylor bear.

Agten, the rule is "c. Players of equal ability and equal record may alternate between two adjacent positions so long as the alternating is not done for the purpose of "matching up."



Aggie11 says: Go Home Gaylor bear.

Bearke...
What part of "I didn't really care" do you not understand moron? Welcome to planet earth idiot.

For those that have been keeping up and familiar with the situation, it is a known fact that some of the players baylor has recruited earned money in their foreign countries. The loophole baylor has been using is presenting a case that what is professional overseas is ameatur here in the states. (I could go into detail about this, but it would take FOREVER.) It IS a loophole that baylor HAS used and the NCAA is correcting.

Next?

767...