FACE OF THE PROGRAM: JUNE JONES

[ponyboy]

Way to go, ponyboy...did you forget about Kyle Rote, Forrest Gregg, Don Meredith, Jerry LeVias, Chuck Hixson, Arthur Whittington and a host of others who were GREAT players for the Mustangs prior to the Pony Express Days?

Don't get me wrong, I love these guys. But every team has its greats.

Did you forget about our record from 1950 to 1979? Allow me to remind you. 130 wins and 172 losses. Sounds like less than mediocre to me.

Our glory years ended in 1949. Here's hoping June Jones brings 'em back.

[MrMustang1965]

Way to go, ponyboy...did you forget about Kyle Rote, Forrest Gregg, Don Meredith, Jerry LeVias, Chuck Hixson, Arthur Whittington and a host of others who were GREAT players for the Mustangs prior to the Pony Express Days?

Don't get me wrong, I love these guys. But every team has its greats.

Did you forget about our record from 1950 to 1979? Allow me to remind you. 130 wins and 172 losses. Sounds like less than mediocre to me.

Our glory years ended in 1949. Here's hoping June Jones brings 'em back.

59 years is a long time....

[ponyboy]

June will do it. It's our time.

[couch 'em]

If it were up to me all incoming students would have an aggie-esque indoctrination including a trip to Heritage Hall, but then again, they keep refusing to make me Emperor of SMU.

How does "Mayor of the Boulevard" sound?

As long as I get the boulevard equivalent of jus primae noctis.

[couch 'em]

"cheating" is just part of the game of college football. We simply did the recruiting version of overthrowing the receiver. It was picked off and returned for a touchdown.

[jtstang]

"cheating" is just part of the game of college football. We simply did the recruiting version of overthrowing the receiver. It was picked off and returned for a touchdown.

That's a pretty good analogy. And smart cheaters bring an element of subtleness to their plans. We were not very good cheaters...

[redpony]

I guess we could have been called the Richard Nixons of the SWC.

GO PONIES!!!

[Mustangsabu]

If it were up to me all incoming students would have an aggie-esque indoctrination including a trip to Heritage Hall, but then again, they keep refusing to make me Emperor of SMU.

How does "Mayor of the Boulevard" sound?

As long as I get the boulevard equivalent of jus primae noctis.

That would be assuming that there are virgins on the boulevard (I know I will get in trouble for saying that)

I think you'll find there would be slim pickings (I'll be in trouble for that too)

[SMU Hockey 2010]

F-

[Buckethead]

Well they named Doak as our face. I find it funny that A$M's face was not a player but a tradition. Only the Aggies!!!!!!

[RednBlue11]

Well they named Doak as our face. I find it funny that A$M's face was not a player but a tradition. Only the Aggies!!!!!!

that's all they have...and their championship 70 years ago!...happy anniversary you hicks!

[Charleston Pony]

Doak Walker is a choice that is tough to argue with.

The only other option would have been a more modern "faces" with Dickerson & James as "The Pony Express"

[PlanoStang]

and what exactly was the NCAA supposed to do after catching SMU in serious violations 5 times in 10 years and when it received information that the Chairman of the Board of Govenors, the ad hoc group of prominent alumni that ran the Board of Govenors, the President of the University, the AD and the Head Coach were all fully informed that SMU had made a decision to completely ignore the NCAA because it had a payroll to meet. If anything it was selective coverage by Dallas media outlets but not one person on this site can deny that the NCAA had sufficient evidence to fully support the punishment. That's the difference between the SMU case and the others.

1. Don't think it was 5 times in 10 years. List your charges

2. $1.65 for a tackle or 2 by one coach without permission in 75 or 76 is
not serious, and would be laughed at nowdays. I think we had
another very minor infraction which envolved a booster flying an
athlete somewhere to see a sick Mom or something similiar in 72 or
73 which got us banned from TV appearances, and bowls for a year or
two.

3. Other schools have had almost as bad charges as we had in the 80s,
and had no reduction of games per season. The DP can be levied
proportionately.

NCAA scapegoats small non revenue producing schools who lack the
means to defend themselves legally, and proves it by their selective
enforcement penalties. The NCAA is run by college presidents, and
the BCS schools have the most votes.

[jtstang]

1. Don't think it was 5 times in 10 years. List your charges

2. $1.65 for a tackle or 2 by one coach without permission in 75 or 76 is
not serious, and would be laughed at nowdays. I think we had
another very minor infraction which envolved a booster flying an
athlete somewhere to see a sick Mom or something similiar in 72 or
73 which got us banned from TV appearances, and bowls for a year or
two.

3. Other schools have had almost as bad charges as we had in the 80s,
and had no reduction of games per season. The DP can be levied
proportionately.

NCAA scapegoats small non revenue producing schools who lack the
means to defend themselves legally, and proves it by their selective
enforcement penalties. The NCAA is run by college presidents, and
the BCS schools have the most votes.

Wrong, nobody had done or has done what SMU did. From the NCAA major infraction database, regarding the death penalty:

III. Factors Considered in Judgment of Case.

A. At the June 1985 NCAA special Convention, the NCAA membership enacted a series of mandatory penalties applicable to member institutions found [Page 3] guilty of repeat major violations. A "repeat major violation" is a second major violation found at an institution within a five-year period following the starting date of a major penalty.

At the February 13, 1987, hearing before the Committee on Infractions, the university agreed that repeat major violations had been committed by key members of both the football coaching staff and the athletics administrative staff, and another person for whose actions Southern Methodist University is responsible. A statement of the violations that the university agrees took place is set forth in Part II of this Infractions Report.

The issue, therefore, that the Committee on Infractions has confronted is whether to impose the mandatory penalties, the so-called "death penalty," or to exercise its discretion to impose less serious penalties because of unique circumstances in the case.

B. The present infractions case does present some unique circumstances that arguably call for the committee to exercise its discretion to impose less than the mandatory penalties. The efforts of the university in this investigation are commendable, and the dedicated work of the university's faculty athletics representative, Lonnie Kliever, went far beyond what could fairly be expected of a single faculty athletics representative. So impressed was the NCAA enforcement staff with the efforts of Mr. Kliever that the staff joined in the university's request that the committee impose penalties that were substantially less severe than those prescribed by the membership for a repeat major violation. Specifically, the staff joined with the university in urging that no football season be canceled. The university recommended a cancellation of two nonconference games for two seasons, while the enforcement staff recommended that all nonconference games be canceled for two years. Otherwise, the university and enforcement staff were in agreement with regard to coaching staff, grant-in-aid and recruiting reductions. The penalties recommended by the university are attached as Appendix A.

C. The committee gave serious and prolonged consideration to the recommendations of both the university and the enforcement staff, but declined to accept either recommendation. Factors that the committee believes call for more substantial penalties than those recommended include the following:

1. As a committee of the Association, the Committee on Infractions is bound by the judgment of the membership. That judgment was made absolutely clear in the recently adopted legislation and provides that serious repeat violators are to receive heavy penalties. That legislation was passed by an overwhelming majority of the membership.

2. Not only is Southern Methodist University a repeat major violator, but its past record of violations is nothing short of abysmal. Both the current infractions case and the university's 1985 [Page 4] infractions case involved major violations that occurred at times when the university was on NCAA probation for previous serious violations. These violations and additional past infractions cases demonstrate that numerous individuals associated with the university's athletics program, including key staff members and outside representatives, have been committed to achieving athletics success through deliberate and flagrant violations of fundamental NCAA rules that were designed to maintain equal and fair competition.

3. Past efforts at the university to design a program to gain a competitive advantage over the university's competitors by cheating did achieve its apparent goal -- a winning record and national prominence for its football program.

4. As recently as September 1986, the university requested the committee to grant relief from an earlier penalty. This request was made at a time when some key athletics department staff members knew full well the cheating that caused the penalty to be imposed was continuing, and those individuals deliberately failed to disclose this fact.

5. Three unidentified enrolled student-athletes with eligibility remaining who have received improper payments refuse to identify themselves despite efforts by the university to persuade them to do so and despite the fact that they were offered limited immunity by the Committee on Infractions.

6. Although institutional personnel who were responsible for the football program have been separated from the university, the terms of their separation are unknown, and there has been no acknowledgment of the identity of those staff members who are most responsible for the flagrant, continuing violations found in this case.

7. There was no explanation in this case from the former director of athletics or the former head football coach regarding the reasons violations continued to occur after the appearance of the university's representatives before the committee in April 1985. During that appearance, assurances were given to the committee that all known violations had been disclosed and that every effort would be made to avoid violations in the future. Both assurances turned out to be false.

8. The continuing source of the funds for the violations found in this case was a university booster who the institution assured the committee in 1985 had been disassociated from the athletics program. The fact of this disassociation was stressed by the university as evidence of institutional remedial action at the time of its April 1985 hearing. Yet, when it subsequently became apparent in August 1985 that payments to football team members had not stopped, this booster was requested by key athletics department staff members to continue to fund the payments that were distributed through the athletics department. This arrangement was concealed by certain institutional staff members. [Page 5]

D. The penalties that the committee determined to be appropriate in this case are severe, but they differ in some respects from the prescribed repeat major violator penalties set forth in Section 7-(d) of the NCAA enforcement procedures. The committee accepted the view that there are uniquenesses in this case, but concluded that the university should be permitted to rebuild a football program only under carefully controlled conditions. The committee is satisfied that the university went to extraordinary efforts to uncover wrongdoing in its program in this case, and the committee is encouraged that there is evidence of actions by the university to obtain full compliance with NCAA regulations. Therefore, although the committee's penalties are intended to eliminate a program that was built on a legacy of wrongdoing, deceit and rule violations, the penalties also are intended to permit a new beginning for football at the university under a timetable that provides some relief from the recovery period required by the prescribed penalty structure.

In addition, it should be noted that one of the prescribed penalties would have prohibited the university's membership on NCAA committees and denied institutional voting privileges for four years. These penalties were not imposed, in part because the institution's actions in this case demonstrate that it should be permitted to participate in the consideration of significant issues facing NCAA athletics programs.

BTW, our record prior to that (major infractions only):

Sel Date Institution Summary
Dec 13, 2000 Southern Methodist University Violations of NCAA bylaws governing recruiting, extra benefits, academic fr ...
Feb 25, 1987 Southern Methodist University EXTRA BENEFITS: 21 football student-athletes received approximately $61,00 ...
Aug 16, 1985 Southern Methodist University Improper recruiting contacts, employment, entertainment, inducements, lodgi ...
Jun 10, 1981 Southern Methodist University Extra benefit; improper recruiting contacts, entertainment, inducements, lo ...
Jan 21, 1976 Southern Methodist University Improper financial aid; improper recruiting entertainment, inducement and t ...
Aug 26, 1974 Southern Methodist University Improper entertainment, financial aid and lodging; extra benefits; complime ...
Apr 12, 1965 Southern Methodist University Improper transportation; improper recruiting inducements and transportation ...
Apr 21, 1958 Southern Methodist University Improper recruiting employment. ...

So you're right, five times in 13 years, not 10.

Look it up yourself next time, sunshine.

And, oh, by the way, there was no BCS in 1987.