Rick Hart the muppet AD

[2ndandlong]

Does Y count as a vowel or consonant?

[Mestengo]

We never really got out of the 1500, even with moody. Sold out moody from a season ticket holder point of you represents 1800 accounts. So 1800 people are actually "season ticket holders" with an average of around 3 tickets each

I realize that ☆ moreover the snafu on the numerical pecking order was more in line with my original thought.

Your number and my number is not 1700 or 2909 its a lie haha. Seriously considering nothing next year

[EastStang]

I really think we need to appeal this for three reasons: (1) To get the NCAA to figure out if this is level 1 or level 2; (2) To show our seniors that we have their backs on this. (3) To tell our fan base that we heard their anger and even if we lose at least we took a stand on this. As to the Appeals Board Vandie is SEC, they'll want to lower a 1 to a 2 so that when Alabama, Auburn, LSU, etc. get caught they don't lose bowl money. GW and Miami of Ohio are a lot like us, trying to claw their way up the ladder. They know that a Level 1 penalty for something as insignificant as this would destroy the gains they've made. UT will want to hammer us, because they always have. A Detroit lawyer well, if some of our alums decide it might be nice to do some redevelopment in Detroit, but we'll have to wait and see how the NCAA treats us.... In other words, pressures are there for all these members. Just need to know where to squeeze.

[RGV Pony]

If level 1=academic fraud.. How do we overcome that?

[redpony]

guess we should consult with NC on that to see how they are going to avoid it.

[2ndandlong]

I really think we need to appeal this for three reasons: (1) To get the NCAA to figure out if this is level 1 or level 2; (2) To show our seniors that we have their backs on this. (3) To tell our fan base that we heard their anger and even if we lose at least we took a stand on this. As to the Appeals Board Vandie is SEC, they'll want to lower a 1 to a 2 so that when Alabama, Auburn, LSU, etc. get caught they don't lose bowl money. GW and Miami of Ohio are a lot like us, trying to claw their way up the ladder. They know that a Level 1 penalty for something as insignificant as this would destroy the gains they've made. UT will want to hammer us, because they always have. A Detroit lawyer well, if some of our alums decide it might be nice to do some redevelopment in Detroit, but we'll have to wait and see how the NCAA treats us.... In other words, pressures are there for all these members. Just need to know where to squeeze.

If Larry doesn't want us to appeal because he wants this behind us and doesn't want to spend the next 5 years of his career under potential sanctions, would you change your mind? I don't think he wants this hanging over him until he's 80.

I don't see what there is to figure out. It is a level I by definition. An individual in athletics was involved in a level I violation. That individual ADMITTED IT in her infractions interview. This is a quote from infractions committee . . . "Head coach responsibility violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program." By that member committing a violation, level I states that the head coach is responsible.

I would love to show our seniors that we have their backs, but I am not willing to sack our program for two more years because of it. I will show our seniors that I have their backs by attending every home game (plus one or two token road games) and cheering like I have for the last 6 years of being a basketball season ticketholder and fundraiser for the program. I went to a lot of home games when I knew we wouldn't have a post-season those years either.

And no. You don't appeal for a fan base knowing you will likely lose the appeal. Spending a huge amount of money and screwing recruiting further for additional years to come isn't going to grow our fan base. By the way, this isn't going to make Chad Morris happy if we're dumping money on something that we have no chance winning while not spending money on his to-do list.

I will only support an appeal in basketball if we can achieve all the following:
1) Legal has found grounds for a greater chance of reversing post-season ban than not
2) Larry Brown is in full support of submitting the appeal
3) All seniors commit to finishing the year at SMU (they don't have to publicly commit, but I sure would love to see them tweet it)
Right now, I don't think you have a chance at one of those.

I will only support an appeal in golf:
1) it doesn't affect timing of sanctions in basketball
2) it would lift post-season ban for BD

[EastStang]

Level I - Severe. A severe breach of conduct is one or more bylaw violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.

Violations that may constitute a severe breach of conduct include:

Lack of institutional control
Academic fraud
Failure to cooperate in an NCAA investigation
Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether underlying violations are Level I
Head coach responsibility violation resulting from a Level I violation within the program
Benefit provided intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a PSA
3rd party involvement in recruitment where officials knew or should have known of involvement
Intentional violations or reckless indifference to NCAA bylaws
Collective Level II and/or Level III violations.

Okay, let's parse this. Was this single isolated event one that would seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA? First, this assumes that the NCAA has integrity. That is not a given. But even then, I am not sure it reaches that level. Further did the conduct give SMU an impermissible advantage? KF was already eligible, he didn't need this course to get admitted to a Division I school. So, this is a question of fact.

Second of all academic fraud MAY constitute a Level I offense. The rule does not say that Academic fraud IS ALWAYS a Level I offense. Again, isolated, self-reported, action, is not systemic academic fraud (like UNC for example) of the variety that threatens the integrity of the NCAA. So, it goes back to whether this really was a Level I offense. As to whether this will hang over the head of the program for two years, it may. But we are already looking at 9 scholarships hanging over the head of the program for the next three years. I say appeal.

[Stallion]

"INTENDED to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage(emphasis added)"

you danced around the actual NCAA standard. Under the standard set forth above arranging to take a correspondence course thought to be required in order to allow a student athlete to be admitted under SMU and NCAA rules CLEARLY unquestionably was intended to provide a competitive advantage. Its quite obvious-every other team except for Tech backed off a McDonalds All American Keith Frazier because he didn't project to qualify. SMU was trying to cheat to get him in-a bunch of other schools weren't willing to cheat to gain that same advantage. Some violations like the $20 handshake don't meet this standard but recruiting inducements prior to admission and academic cheating to qualify a marginal recruit are serious violations no matter how much SMU fans want to look the other way

Not a particularly strong legal argument to people who are used to parsing that kind of legal standard

[smusportspage]

"INTENDED to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage(emphasis added)"

you danced around the actual NCAA standard. Under the standard set forth above arranging to take a correspondence course thought to be required in order to allow a student athlete to be admitted under SMU and NCAA rules CLEARLY unquestionably was intended to provide a competitive advantage. Its quite obvious-every other team except for Tech backed off a McDonalds All American Keith Frazier because he didn't project to qualify. Some violations like the $20 handshake don't meet this standard but recruiting inducements prior to admission and academic cheating to qualify a marginal recruit are serious violations no matter how much SMU fans want to look the other way

Did the University of Texas at Austin back off because of qualification issues? Yea right. Like they or most other P5 schools don't ever recruit marginal all star athletes. Schools back off athletes all the time for various reasons...fact is, the other schools realized that Keith wanted to stay home. He had family responsibilities. The other schools backed off because SMU, being the home school, was Keith's first choice. As for the competitive advantage, by definition isn't that what recruiting is? So $20 is ok, does that mean a $20,000.00 hand shake is ok? Your lines are blurred. Do you honestly believe the latter does not occur? College basketball is filthy with the AAU, branding and endorsement tie-ins. Also, we know about the class, what are the other recruiting inducements that you refer to ?

[RGV Pony]

Mickey D's five star recruit and in the end it was Tech with a coach in limbo and us. Why else might that be?

[smusportspage]

SMU was always Keith's first choice.

[whitwiki]

I paid for Keith's shoes

[Stallion]

$20 Dollar handshakes is a term referring to alumni giving money to players already on the team usually for playing well. Probably should be upgraded to $100 handshakes due to inflation. Such payments are not recruiting inducements because they don't affect the decision on which school the recruit should attend. They are still violations but of less concern to the NCAA.

[2ndandlong]

Level I - Severe. A severe breach of conduct is one or more bylaw violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.

Violations that may constitute a severe breach of conduct include:

Lack of institutional control
Academic fraud
Failure to cooperate in an NCAA investigation
Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether underlying violations are Level I
Head coach responsibility violation resulting from a Level I violation within the program
Benefit provided intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a PSA
3rd party involvement in recruitment where officials knew or should have known of involvement
Intentional violations or reckless indifference to NCAA bylaws
Collective Level II and/or Level III violations.

Okay, let's parse this. Was this single isolated event one that would seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA? First, this assumes that the NCAA has integrity. That is not a given. But even then, I am not sure it reaches that level. Further did the conduct give SMU an impermissible advantage? KF was already eligible, he didn't need this course to get admitted to a Division I school. So, this is a question of fact.

Second of all academic fraud MAY constitute a Level I offense. The rule does not say that Academic fraud IS ALWAYS a Level I offense. Again, isolated, self-reported, action, is not systemic academic fraud (like UNC for example) of the variety that threatens the integrity of the NCAA. So, it goes back to whether this really was a Level I offense. As to whether this will hang over the head of the program for two years, it may. But we are already looking at 9 scholarships hanging over the head of the program for the next three years. I say appeal.

This is the first sentence of the report:
Southern Methodist University committed multiple violations, including academic fraud, unethical conduct and head coach control in the men’s basketball program . . .

That lists 3 level I violations in your post above, plus the honorable mention for multiple level II and III violations:
-Academic fraud
-Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether underlying violations are Level I
-Head coach responsibility violation resulting from a Level I violation within the program
-Collective Level II and/or Level III violations.

So, even if your defense of academic fraud were legitimate, you did not address 2-3 other level I violations.

I'm all for the appeal with good reason. I haven't seen the concrete basis to overturn the postseason ban in basketball and am not getting my hopes up. Appealing just to appeal makes no sense to me and sounds to be more harmful than good. I don't want them to appeal unless
1) Larry wants the university to appeal
2) we have a concrete basis to overturn the postseason ban
3) we have an internal (non-public) commitment from the seniors to stay at SMU for the duration of the season

[Smulaw90]

There are multiple basis for filing an appeal:

1. The appeal (with or without legitimate merit) stays the sanctions until an official determination. The determination by the NCAA, based on the timelines I've seen, would come at the earliest right at the cusp of the NCAA tournament. When has the NCAA ever been that timely?;

2. The appeal sends a message (with or without legitimate merit), that SMU disagrees with the underlying penalties;

3. The appeal lobs the ball back into the court of the NCAA at a time when it will continue its in-depth investigation of UNC and now Louisville (the allegations of which now appear to have been confirmed by at least one recruit);

4. The appeal creates an incentive to this senior laden team, to really put its mark on this season .