Two important points after reading the NCAA report in full
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2015 5:09 pm1) 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.
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.
