Two important points after reading the NCAA report in full

[JasonB]

1) They compare LB not reporting to Jim Tressel.
Tressel learned about improprieties on April 2, 2010 about multiple players, signed a form in September of that year indicating that he didn't know of any violations, and still hadn't reported anything over a year later.

LB kept the information to himself for 1 month. The report does not state if LB already had a hearing scheduled at the time he found out, which could be a reason for not reporting.

The two instances are very, very different and the comparison is not warranted. Comparing the incidents without any admission or indication that the former incident is much more serious is in improper influence on the evaluation process.

2) IF the SMU story about LB taking 60 seconds and changing his response to a question is, indeed, accurate (and I am sure the session is recorded for proof), then classifying it as a "lie" and stating that the "damage was done", to the point that they infer that it actually did not matter at all that he came back and corrected his story shows an inherent bias towards conviction.

I think if you remove those two findings from the report, and you remove the negative influence stated about SMU's past doings (when none of the people involved then are even at the university now, so it certainly can't be held up in court), the penalty faced by SMU is going to be significantly reduced.

For those who haven't read it, even though Ulrich isn't charged with anything, there are a lot of inferences that he, indeed, was the person who influenced the admin to take the tests, and that he was way out of line.

Larry is going to be held accountable for that because of the new rules. But I would expect a suspension for Larry and a handful of scholarships after the appeal, nothing more.

[Stallion]

Point 2 is incorrect-although a witness is always able to correct the record-the fact finder doesn't have to give both statements equal dignity. Instead, he can choose to give greater credibility to one or the other statements based on perception of the witnesses' testimony, the truthfulness of the witness, the credibility of the witnesses' testimony and other factors such as presentment with other evidence discrediting the prior testimony (which happened in this case). Another situation often encountered is the counseled witness who asks to speak to his attorney after a question or take a break to consult with his attorney. You better come up with a reasonable explanation for why the prior statement needs to be corrected. When Perry Mason catches you testifying untruthfully on cross-examination in a gotcha moment-the witness doesn't get to erase the effect of the admission by cleaning up the mess on re-direct. Any due process proceeding involves the fact finder making conclusions and drawing inferences based on the fact finders perception of the truthfulness of the witness.

If SMU disagrees with that finding they can appeal by a point of the error that there was insufficient evidence supporting the finding. Generally, in an appellate proceeding the findings of the trial court are entitled to deference unless the appellate court finds "no evidence" supporting the finding ie. insufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference or conclusion that the finding is correct

[PlanoStang]

All of the above

I served on a jury for a felony, and you do not get to know the defendent's past convictions.

LB probably wanted to do some investigations on his own before raising the RED FLAG

Turner, and Larry said this in press conference interviews Don't know what Larry was
thinking in his first response, confused etc., but corrected it shortly afterwards in the same
infratcions committee interview.

New rules are bogus from what they seem to be. Haven't read them, but gleened from hearsay.

If you hold LB responsible without knowing, then you also have to hold Hart, and Turner
responsible Hart should be suspended from his duties for 3 weeks

I would really like it if he contacted Tom Brady's lawyers.

[PlanoStang]

Point 2 is incorrect-although a witness is always able to correct the record-the fact finder doesn't have to give both statements equal dignity. Instead, he can choose to give greater credibility to one or the other statements based on perception of the witnesses' testimony, the truthfulness of the witness, the credibility of the witnesses' testimony and other factors such as presentment with other evidence discrediting the prior testimony (which happened in this case). Another situation often encountered is the counseled witness who asks to speak to his attorney after a question or take a break to consult with his attorney. You better come up with a reasonable explanation for why the prior statement needs to be corrected. When Perry Mason catches you testifying untruthfully on cross-examination in a gotcha moment-the witness doesn't get to erase the effect of the admission by cleaning up the mess on re-direct. Any due process proceeding involves the fact finder making conclusions and drawing inferences based on the fact finders perception of the truthfulness of the witness.

If SMU disagrees with that finding they can appeal by a point of the error that there was insufficient evidence supporting the finding. Generally, in an appellate proceeding the findings of the trial court are entitled to deference unless the appellate court finds "no evidence" supporting the finding ie. insufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference or conclusion that the finding is correct

[Stallion]

oh you can also have a point of error that the trial court's finding is against the great weight of the evidence

[RGV Pony]

That one always gets tossed though

[PlanoStang]

Not exactly from the jury

[SMUstangs22]

So stallion are you saying there is no point appealing? Seems everything you have evaluated has been shot down

[ponydawg]

So stallion are you saying there is no point appealing? Seems everything you have evaluated has been shot down

No. He is a lawyer and a good lawyer always plays devils advocate.
You still appeal.

[Rebel10]

So stallion are you saying there is no point appealing? Seems everything you have evaluated has been shot down

I don't think that is what Stallion is saying at all.

[Stallion]

I said we should appeal

I just don't think we have a lawsuit with a chance in hell-although there might be some type of limited injunctive relief sought once all administrative appeals are exhausted if the NCAA for some reason didn't follow its own Bylaws or procedural rules. That would have limited application probably sending it back to the NCAA to abide by those Bylaws/procedures

[SMU_Alumni11]

Forgive me as I'm not a lawyer, but could one sue the NCAA for discriminating against certain programs with harsher penalties and choosing to keep or remove penalties for certain programs (I.e. Penn state)? I feel like NCAA has to provide uniform punishments for like-kind infractions, etc.

[smusic 00]

Apparently it's almost impossible to win a lawsuit against the NCAA once you partner up with them. Another thread has the case precedent.

[SMU_Alumni11]

Apparently it's almost impossible to win a lawsuit against the NCAA once you partner up with them. Another thread has the case precedent.

My bad Ill try to look for that thread for more detail and I get losing a suit against them in relation on how they select people to investigate and what not but I feel like there should be standing in terms of unfair treatment relative to multiple defendants. Like UNC having 3,100 violations should not receive the same or less punishment than our one little mishap.

[SMUstangs22]

I said we should appeal

I just don't think we have a lawsuit with a chance in hell-although there might be some type of limited injunctive relief sought once all administrative appeals are exhausted if the NCAA for some reason didn't follow its own Bylaws or procedural rules. That would have limited application probably sending it back to the NCAA to abide by those Bylaws/procedures

Was it within their bylaws to consider past transgressions as far back in history as they chose to go?