Rick Hart the muppet AD

[Stallion]

I was expecting to read at least one BASIS for filing an appeal rather than REASON for filing an appeal

[PonyKai]

I was expecting to read at least one BASIS for filing an appeal rather than REASON for filing an appeal

So ponyfans without any access to real information can confirm the narrative they have in their head and sleep better at night.

[2ndandlong]

I was expecting to read at least one BASIS for filing an appeal rather than REASON for filing an appeal

Thank you for saying that so clearly.

[EastStang]

The head coach violation only occurs if there was a Level 1 violation. Its an add on. Two, the ethics violation against Larry Brown is factually flawed. He mis-spoke and corrected it in the same interview. Was it intended to provide a competitive advantage when in fact none existed. KF was eligible, marginally, but eligible. Schools backed off. Is it in the findings of the NCAA that UT, GT or other schools backed off due to academics. Or was it assumed. If its not in the findings of the NCAA report, then its not a fact that the NCAA can consider on Appeal. As we all know from our own WDNWHA posts, many schools withdraw offers when it appears the player has committed elsewhere to save face. So, you have a questionable Level 1. As to the level 2 and 3 violations, they can of course slap us on the wrist like they do for everyone else in the NCAA.

[EastStang]

All you need is to give the NCAA something to hang its hat on if it wants to lower the penalty which it may want to do if it wants to treat UNC and Louisville mildly and avoid a lawsuit for being arbitrary and capricious. And remember, if we chose not to appeal the post season ban that affects not only us but the AAC. Remember tournament credits go to the benefit of the conference not the school. So, if we chose not to appeal that could open us up for some displeasure from our conference mates.

[2ndandlong]

You are saying it is Larry that was unethical, but, in fact, he was commended for his ethical behavior in the report for clarifying. I agree with that.

The unethical behavior was on the part of the "administrative assistant." To quote the report, "The former administrative assistant violated NCAA’s ethical conduct rules when she provided false information during her interviews and attempted to influence a student-athlete to provide false information during his interview."

That leads to 2 level I violations:
Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether underlying violations are Level I, and
Head coach responsibility violation resulting from a Level I violation within the program

Further, Larry was only found responsible for learning of the above and directing the administrative assistant to bring it to the attention of the infractions committee but withheld it from Conder, Hart and Turner as noted in the report here:
"Upon learning of the misconduct in 2014, the head basketball coach did not report it to the compliance staff, conference office or enforcement staff for more than a month."

You seem to be addressing misinformation that has been listed in news articles, not the actual charges written in the report.

[smusportspage]

What do the bylaws state about the time period of reporting the misconduct? I am assuming it says something to the effect that it should be reported immediately. I don't know. To me a month is not a long period of time in this instance. Point is, it was reported relatively quickly and not sat on.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

And remember, if we chose not to appeal the post season ban that affects not only us but the AAC. Remember tournament credits go to the benefit of the conference not the school. So, if we chose not to appeal that could open us up for some displeasure from our conference mates.

Excellent point.

[Stallion]

you are suppose to report it immediately to the NCAA upon the receipt of credible information that a violation has been committed, suspend the player immediately and request a ruling from the NCAA on the eligibility of the player-otherwise you are subject to forfeiture of games. That's what Auburn did before-what was it-SEC Championship-AND Johnny Manziel before Game 1 of Season 2. I remember wondering why Keith wasn't immediately ruled ineligible when this allegation first surfaced

[RGV Pony]

I was expecting to read at least one BASIS for filing an appeal rather than REASON for filing an appeal

a legal mind on another site presented this basis for appeal, posted with his/her permission:

"At the risk of third-hand parsing, let me make the following observations. There are a couple of arguments--and here's where the parsing comes in--that mitigate against a finding of an intent to provide a "substantial or extensive" advantage. First, he had already committed to SMU at the time of the offense (I think, correct me if I am wrong), so it was not a recruiting advantage. Second, it was an isolated incident involving one student-athlete that the NCAA admits in its own investigation was not a necessary course. This does not mitigate "intent" (and as I mentioned in another post constitutes stupidity on the part of the participants as a matter of law in my view), but how does this demonstrate a "substantial or extensive" advantage? As opposed to say Syracuse or UNC (10-year period of violations of academic fraud) or Louisville (I think we can all agree that getting laid constitutes a substantial benefit). I think a persuasive argument could be made on appeal, if this is indeed the standard, that what SMU did was not intended to provide itself with a "substantial or extensive" advantage. Especially as there is no precedent under these standards, and the appeals committee may want to create some that it can use to justify the inevitable slap on the wrist of NC and Louisville."

[2ndandlong]

What do the bylaws state about the time period of reporting the misconduct? I am assuming it says something to the effect that it should be reported immediately. I don't know. To me a month is not a long period of time in this instance. Point is, it was reported relatively quickly and not sat on.

I believe he is supposed to immediately report to compliance; although, I have not found the exact source in the NCAA rules. With that said, the report says he never reported to compliance or athletics. He only disclosed it when asked by the infractions committee.

[Stallion]

that's about as close as your going to get, however, as Devil's Advocate, many many players don't know they are going to qualify on the date they committed. (Frazier committed on April 1). We didn't know with regard the kid from North Carolina this last August. SMU must have assumed it was going to be mid-summer before they would know because he was set up to take the +1 correspondence course which by definition has to come after graduation from high school. The fact is they INTENDED by cheating to gain a substantial advantage. I would look to the date that the INTENTION is applicable-between the date (s)he signed up for the +1 Correspondence class and the date (s)he took the +1 correspondence Class-there might be something about that time frame that could help (or hurt) the argument. Note: I think the argument above is trying to move the date of intent to the date he committed which I really don't think is correct-nice try but I don't think it is accurate. Intent could change over time due to arrival of final high school grades, new SAT score, the applicable change in his grades at Kimball investigated by DISD etc. But if you are going to appeal you got to run an argument up the Flag Pole

[EastStang]

Every one did agree that he told the offending employee to go talk to compliance. I know that is the Joe Paterno defense, but it seemed to work for Penn State on appeal. Its not like LB engaged in a cover-up, and the employee did report the offense. A month later, Larry confirmed the violation. I am not sure the season had even started yet. As far as immediately declaring the subject player ineligible as Stallion suggested, the fact is that this class apparently did not affect his initial eligibility and the player was apparently unaware of the violation as well. This was a rogue employee, doing something illegal, without consent of player or coaches, it was reported internally and to the NCAA. It would be as though I signed up for a class at Baylor for one of its football players and took the class without him knowing it, administrators knowing it, or the coaches knowing it. Suppose that kept him eligible. Baylor got a competitive advantage. Should Baylor forfeit its post season because some rogue criminal did something lack that. Or say an identity thief, steals the identity of an NCAA athlete and suddenly paperwork shows the athlete buying houses and stuff. Should the athlete and the University be punished in those circumstances.

[RGV Pony]

that's about as close as your going to get, however, as Devil's Advocate, many many players don't know they are going to qualify on the date they committed. (Frazier committed on April 1). We didn't know with regard the kid from North Carolina this last August. SMU must have assumed it was going to be mid-summer before they would know because he was set up to take the +1 correspondence course which by definition has to come after graduation from high school. The fact is they INTENDED by cheating to gain a substantial advantage. I would look to the date that the INTENTION is applicable-between the date (s)he signed up for the +1 Correspondence class and the date (s)he took the +1 correspondence Class-there might be something about that time frame that could help (or hurt) the argument. But if you are going to appeal you got to run an argument up the Flag Pole

he/she continues:

"It mitigates against a 'substantial or extensive' recruiting advantage if this occurred, as has been reported elsewhere, after most other schools had backed off him for whatever reason, again assuming those reports are accurate."

[Sacco]

Stallion - thoughts on "intended to"? Doesn't NCAA need to establish that intent? Who has to have that intent? The University? Coach Brown? Wouldn't seem either had such an intent.

Can you intend for something that's not possible? Can one intend for an unfair advantage when there was never an unfair advantage to be had? This is seriously a "thought crime" committed by an underling of an underling that penalizes many, many people without such thought.

Even if SMU fits the guidelines of the violation as written, can we at least agree that this is some stupid drafting? I'm betting this provision gets revised again.... after SMU gets this unfair kick to the nuts.