No Justice, No Peace

[novasmu]

I apologize in advance for the long post. But, for the record, I want it documented just how egregious this decision is.

The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee (“DIC”) affirmed a 9-scholarship reduction over 3 years on SMU arising from one incident involving one student-athlete. In the Syracuse case, DIC modified the scholarship reduction to only 8 over 4 years for “violations that occurred over a 10-year period [that] included deliberate violations and a willful, blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.” DIC stated the need to look to precedent, and cited the Texas Tech case, which prior to the Syracuse case, was the highest number of scholarship reductions (7), as the reasons for its decision. However, DIC saw fit to punish SMU with a 9-scholarship reduction for one incident involving one student-athlete.

See DIC excerpts from the Syracuse case below:

“Central to the resolution of whether the hearing panel abused its discretion is the role and effect of precedent – whether it was considered and weighed in this case. In the appeal submissions, the appellant and the Committee on Infractions compared and contrasted this case with a number of previous major infractions cases. This committee has reviewed those cases and believes that given the violations found in this case, the scholarship reduction is a departure from precedent.”

“The highest number of scholarship reductions occurred in the Texas Tech University (1998) case. In that case, there were violations related to eligibility certification, extra benefits, recruiting, unethical conduct, failure to monitor and lack of institutional control over seven years. [Texas Tech Committee on Infractions Public Report, August 4, 1998, Page Nos. 6 and 7] In the men’s basketball program, the Committee on Infractions imposed a scholarship reduction of seven scholarships over three years. (Texas Tech Committee on Infractions Public Report, August 4, 1998, Page No. 35)”

“We recognize that the Committee on Infractions should not be strictly bound to previous decisions when circumstances of intercollegiate athletics were qualitatively different than those which presently obtain. However, this does not mean that prior decisions provide no restraint on or guidance to the Committee on Infractions and this committee, or that changes in the environment in which NCAA member institutions operate, alone, can justify ignoring those prior decisions. It means only that the guidance provided by prior decisions is, and always has been, a matter of judgment. [University of Southern California Infractions Appeals Committee Public Report, May 26, 2011, Page No. 21].”

“In appeals, this committee looks to the Committee on Infractions’ infractions decisions for explanation of the rationale for prescribed penalties, especially in the circumstances where there is a departure from precedent. In reviewing, the infractions decision in this case, we were unable to determine how the Committee on Infractions weighed precedent when prescribing the scholarship reduction penalty. Further, there appears to be no qualitative distinction in the record, as compared to the Michigan and Texas Tech cases, that would warrant the extent of the departure from prior precedent that was undertaken by the Committee on Infractions in this case.”

“The hearing panel failed to consider and weigh material factors and therefore, abused its discretion in the imposition of Penalty V.6.”

“Penalty V. 6 is modified to a total of eight (8) scholarship reductions with two (2) scholarship reductions in each of the next four (4) years. The removal of one scholarship per year reflects a penalty in line with the outer limits of penalties previously imposed for similar cases by the Committee on Infractions.”

[Charleston Pony]

simple translation of the NCAA's decision: SMU is not supposed to get this good this fast!

[hoopmanx]

3) This was a one-off offense (one player, one coach)
4) No other player or coach was involved
5) We are happy to run an up and coming, clean program at SMU

hahahahahaha

Lol, oK. Between that and DiamondM's, I'm beginning g to think there is more to this than a secretary post,, im dying

[RGV Pony]

3) This was a one-off offense (one player, one coach)
4) No other player or coach was involved
5) We are happy to run an up and coming, clean program at SMU

hahahahahaha

I'm so glad I keep Coach Meyer cued up.

We run, basically, a clean program. We've just got some bookkeeping issues to clean up.

[One Trick Pony]

Fugazi

[Wild Mustang]

Well said @novasmu Great post! Sorry to all for my long post below. This topic definitely gets me worked up.

There is no reason why the NCAA came so hard at SMU. None. Other posters mention that there is a difference of NCAA punishments for schools that self-reporting NCAA infractions and/or self-punishment... Respectfully self-reporting does not matter, neither does self-punishment. Facts are facts. Punishment should be made based on facts. Think about it. When the Louisville news first broke Pitino denied everything, then prior to the NCAA tournament Louisville all the sudden decided to punish themselves prior to hearing from the NCAA. I think Louisville deemed themselves ineligible for this year's NCAA Tournament, even though they were not good enough to get into the NCAA Tournament. Has Louisville been punished by the NCAA? No. If Louisville did nothing wrong why would they punish themselves? Exactly.

Think about this... The NCAA dragging their feet allowed North Carolina to play in the National Championship Game. Tell me that is not ridiculous. SMU sits at home while North Carolina plays in the National Championship Game. This made me physically sick. Nic Moore, Markus Kennedy, and JT deserved to play in the NCAA Tournament. The fact that the media all but stopped talking about the allegations against North Carolina makes me sick. Professors, University Administration, Basketball Players, and Football Players at North Carolina have all admitted to wrong doing on camera and in the media. What more evidence does the NCAA need to issue punishment?

Think about this... High Profile Basketball Louisville Recruits and former Louisville Players have all admitted to wrong doing. Funny thing is that the Louisville allegations are not all centered around the Book. There were texts, there were interviews with Louisville recruits, Louisville past and present players. What more evidence does the NCAA need to issue punishment?

We all know that the SMU punishment does not come close to the alleged NCAA infractions. Something here does not add up. Because the NCAA does not like Larry Brown is not a valid reason for extreme punishment. That would not hold up in actual court, let alone the court of public opinion. Self-reporting vs not self-reporting infractions is not a valid reason for harsher punishment. SMU should appeal the unjust punishment (again). This time with high powered attorneys. This time using the media. SMU needs to take action now.

The media paired with high-powered attorneys have the power to hold the NCAA accountable for fair and just punishments for all schools. Give the media a narrative and let the media run with it. SMU has every right to expect a fair punishment if indeed we did misstep. SMU also has every right to expect other schools, like North Carolina and Louisville to be punished more severely. Maybe a long shot, but we need to have our very successful SMU Alums who are attorneys or know powerful attorneys go hard at the NCAA. With all the facts and hard evidence surrounding both North Carolina and Louisville this seems very doable. I will say it again, the NCAA needs to be held accountable.

F the NCAA!

[Stallion]

Actually there is a quite simple reason SMU got the punishment that doesn't seem fair in comparison to prior cases

There is a new mandatory range of punishment for schools found guilty of academic fraud. Therefore, prior cases under the old NCAA rule regime are not applicable.

[StallionsModelT]

Actually there is a quite simple reason SMU got the punishment that doesn't seem fair in comparison to prior cases

There is a new mandatory range of punishment for schools found guilty of academic fraud. Therefore, prior cases under the old NCAA rule regime are not applicable.

LOL. As long as you can manipulate the rules then corruption is not only easy it has the appearance of being "fair".

This entire saga is just more proof that the NCAA has become a complete shill for the large institutions who line their pockets and keep the status quo in order. College athletics is morphing into a NFL/NBA minor league. It is truly scary to think of where a school like SMU will fit into the NCAA of 2025 or 2035.

[JasonB]

Actually there is a quite simple reason SMU got the punishment that doesn't seem fair in comparison to prior cases

There is a new mandatory range of punishment for schools found guilty of academic fraud. Therefore, prior cases under the old NCAA rule regime are not applicable.

And the other difference is that they cited SMU's past, which wasn't considered in the Syracuse case.

[Stallion]

that's always and forever been an aggravating factor for the NCAA-but it is considered under a different framework of penalties. It was a factor going back to the DP

[gostangs]

The big programs just don't want to share, and it drives them crazy when the little guys break through and grab a biscuit off the table every now and then.

They use the bowl system, the P-5 nonsense, the TV networks and most of all the totally corrupt and reprehensible NCAA to keep us at bay, hoping to starve us off. If we didn't have some very wealthy and incredibly loyal alums we would be long gone off the stage.

To reference our probation from 30 years ago proves it. I hate these people and dont mind saying it. The only reason we can't call them out "officially" is that we hold out hope for an invite to a meaningful conference, and they don't ask you in if it doesn't look like you will play ball.

Of course, they won't ask us in anyway, so I say unload on them.

[Junior]

Eff 'em.

[RebStang]

If I'm reading the stuff about the 2nd notice that UNC received today correctly, I fully expect this board to go into a full meltdown soon...

But the NCAA removed a charge of school athletes receiving improper benefits through access to problem courses in the formerly named African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) department between 2002 and 2011.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/artic ... rylink=cpy

So, yeah, that swishing sound you just heard was just the NCAA sweeping UNC's academic fraud under a rug.

[One Trick Pony]

I wonder how many college graduates would be stripped of their degrees if it was found out that someone took a test for them online. 80%? This stuff is so laughable

[EastStang]

New rules, old rules. Syracuse was under the new rules which is why Boeheim was suspended. So, why did they catch a break and we didn't? Because Syracuse is in the ACC. We aren't. End of story. The NCAA is so feckless its ridiculous. Add in the new UNC stuff. The fix is in. If it weren't so obvious, I'd be very angry. They don't even know how to finesse their duplicity.