Bill Nichols on SMU Appeal

by **PonySnob** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:33 am

Interesting article:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/colleg ... st-smu.ece

by **Stallion** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:44 am

The weakest legal argument is the tired overblown argument that it is not fair to the kids that sanctions be imposed on the kids this year

Is it any more fair to impose them on next year's team? This leads into the following most underappreciated rebuttal to that argument:

Theoretically a post game ban makes sense because SMU has in fact received a competitive advantage by signing a McDonald's All-American who in fact could start and help SMU win the conference and get the bid the NCAA Tournament. Why should Cincy, UCONN or Memphis for example have to compete against a team that was cheating and still is using a player that otherwise probably wouldn't be admitted to the university or qualify under NCAA rules. That's the big obstacle I see

I'm sure SMU will use the argument that the correspondence class didn't matter anyway-that also is an argument justifying cheating that doesn't sound good to untrained, non SMU affiliated listener. Pretty hollow justification. Sure officer I tried to shoot my wife BUT I missed-can I go home now!

by **SMUstangs22** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:51 am

Stallion wrote:The weakest legal argument is the tired overblown argument that it is not fair to the kids that sanctions be imposed on the kids this year

Is it any more fair to impose them on next year's team? This leads into the following most underappreciated rebuttal to that argument:

Theoretically a post game ban makes sense because SMU has in fact received a competitive advantage by signing a McDonald's All-American who in fact could start and help SMU win the conference and get the bid the NCAA Tournament. Why should Cincy, UCONN or Memphis for example have to compete against a team that was cheating and still is using a player that otherwise probably wouldn't be admitted to the university or qualify under NCAA rules. That's the big obstacle I see

I'm sure SMU will use the argument that the class didn't matter anyway-that also is an argument justifying cheating that doesn't sound good to untrained, pro-SMU listener.

That could be said of every infraction. We still should not be held to the new punishment standards since the infraction pre-dates the changes. That idea itself the NCAA used in the Syracuse ruling.

by **Stallion** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:02 am

To get the Tournament sanctions reduced SMU needs to focus their argument on the fact that they actually didn't receive a competitive advantage without justifying cheating. That's a walk on a tightrope

by **KWhiz77** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:06 am

Stallion wrote:To get the Tournament sanctions reduced SMU needs to focus their argument on the fact that they actually didn't receive a competitive advantage without justifying cheating. That's a walk on a tightrope

Stallion: Tightrope, yes. Do you think it can/should be done?

by **Hoop Fan** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:25 am

the argument/appeal is that we don't deserve a post season ban at all because no institutional lack of control was cited. if the appeal is denied, then the timing is what it is, its not that this years seniors are any more deserving than next year's seniors. I think we are getting over punished because of golf which is absurd. Revenue and non-revenue violations should not be mixed/compounded. We run one of the cleanest FOOTBALL program in D-1. That fact should count 10 times more as a mitigating factor than the irrelevant golf violations count against us. Could anyone at the NCAA grab one ounce of common sense?

by **smusportspage** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:28 am

"Could anyone at the NCAA grab one ounce of common sense?"

Nope, doesn't appear so.

by **Stallion** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:34 am

actually there might be a "taint fair to the kid" argument-with regard to our golfer defending his individual National Championship. But Basketball is a team game. Golf really isn't

by **RGV Pony** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:46 am

what was the argument that UCF used?

and how do we overcome the rebuttal "UCF [or whomever else] wasnt the world wide leader in sanctions, violations, appearances before the committee"

Seems like the monkey is already out of the bag..if it had been a proceeding with a jury, we'd have come up with better proposed jury instructions that excluded prior stuff lest it prejudice the jury

by **JasonB** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:12 pm

Keith wasn't ineligible. The NCAA clearinghouse cleared him, and that class he took wasn't involved in the evaluation. There was no competitive advantage gained.

Keith was given immunity by the NCAA in order to encourage him to be forthcoming. Which further means he wasn't ineligible.

The people who "tried" have all been fired. So it isn't like they weren't punished.

The University was found to have an incredibly strong compliance program that educated everyone involved on the rules. They had three people - Ulrich, Admin, and Golf coach - who chose to break the rules. The SMU compliance program was strong enough that we found the problems on our own, self-reported the problem, and fired the individuals involved. That is why SMU did not receive a lack of control penalty.

So... Larry should be punished for sticking his head in the sand.

Beyond that, it is in the NCAA's best interest to NOT punish the school inappropriately. You have a situation here where the school acted in a very appropriate manner and did everything they could to eliminate the bad apples. There is really nothing else they could have done. If you punish SMU harshly, you are encouraging schools to not do anything about discoveries.

All of those are reasons why SMU should not be facing a post-season band or significant scholarship reductions.

by **ponydawg** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:24 pm

If they are trying to punish the coach and not the kids, then why aren't the coaches banned from the tourney and allow the kids to play.

They obviously care, hence Boeheim is mad to be missing Conf games while LB gets to "only" miss the OOC games.

by **EastStang** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:30 pm

Either Keith was ineligible or he wasn't ineligible. If he was ineligible, then we got a competitive advantage and forfeited those games. If he was not ineligible, then our pre-emptive strike last year was inappropriate and he should have played last year and the punishments are inappropriate. Also they are disproportionate compared to sanctions levied against other programs for far more sins than ours.

by **mrydel** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:38 pm

He was deemed eligible out of HS. He became ineligible while at SMU, thus the sitting out. He never sat because of HS if I understand correctly.

by **JasonB** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:15 pm

mrydel wrote:He was deemed eligible out of HS. He became ineligible while at SMU, thus the sitting out. He never sat because of HS if I understand correctly.

This is a true statement. Keith sitting out in the spring had absolutely nothing to do with the NCAA investigation. It was completely based on his grades while at SMU.

by **Puckhead48E** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:52 am

Point of emphasis; school and fans must work to disseminate correct info. Seems at least 1/2 of the posters her have no idea of facts of case. If 50% of fans on supporter board don't know basic facts, how can we expect good knowledgeable discussion from the media and talking idiots? We have to get ahead of the idiot echo chamber to ensure those with bad intentions or the bad actors don't win.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk