Page 1 of 4
"Lack of Institutional Control"
Posted:
Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:43 pmby smudad
Given this phrase, often cited by the NCAA when meteing out punishment, anyone care to compare SMU of the 80's with U of M in recent years with the thugs they trot out week in and week out?
Posted:
Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:44 pmby J.T.supporta
Our "thugs" of the 80s dont compare to the UM "thugs" of the 90s.
Ray Lewis & Warren Sapp...enough said.
Posted:
Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:48 pmby smudad
While I would certainly agree if comparing only the players. I was speaking more to the lack of control by the institution - certainly their demonstrated lack of remorse with the 'punishments' handed down.
Posted:
Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:00 pmby Treadway21
Don't get me started on this, but Donna Shalala said she didn't event look at the video tape because she was there. if she was truely interested in distributing an appropriate punishment, she would have watched the tape at least a few times to determine what happened and who did what.
If you remember, Michael Irvin with 14 brothers and sisters was driving around in a BMW and wearing gold chains and diamonds, yet somehow U of M never had any probation problems. As far as I'm concerned our cheating was a matter of bad timing. The NCAA didn't care before or after. If we had managed to get through that period, we would not be an also ran.
Kenneth Pye was the worst thing to happen to SMU, as a result of the death penalty (may he rest in peace, though). What he did to the university was worse than what we endured being on probation.
Posted:
Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:22 pmby BUS
Being a person that was there in 82 and 83 our guys were nothing like that at U of M. Our guys tried to go to school ( Even then SMU and Rice had the 1 and 2 spot for graduation )
We partied a little but, no harlets or drug queens were around. No gang crap was going on. Nobaody beat up people for fun. There were a few cases of adjustment to SMU life but that is to be expected.
Actually the guys were very nice and polite, except on the field.
Pye, RIP. went a little overboard for my taste but remember that L. Donald was the other side of the coin. Turner is more middle ground.
Posted:
Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:41 pmby jtstang
smudad wrote:I was speaking more to the lack of control by the institution - certainly their demonstrated lack of remorse with the 'punishments' handed down.
Lack of remore for punishments handed down--that is precisely why SMU got the Death Penalty.
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:00 amby smudad
We ll if that is the case, then U of M deserves worse. I would be less offended if they done nothing and waited for the conference. In fact, Donna S. admitted they only did what the conference mandated and then beat their chests and acted as if they had really done something. She is an example of the don-nothing, permissive parent. And she tried to get off leaving the impression she HAD viewed that film until pressed. I guess it still depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
My initial point was, U of M has consistently 'hired' thugs to play football for them. While, SMU may have been guilty of getting caught 'hiring' good players, generally, my impression is they were pretty good guys as well. U O M has demonstrated a pattern of bad behavior on and off the field for years and now will have to leave a few guys home for the Duke game. Oh, woe is them!
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:51 amby The PonyGrad
Well I am sure DS does not want to hurt the players self esteem.
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:51 amby jtstang
smudad wrote:My initial point was, U of M has consistently 'hired' thugs to play football for them. While, SMU may have been guilty of getting caught 'hiring' good players, generally, my impression is they were pretty good guys as well. U O M has demonstrated a pattern of bad behavior on and off the field for years and now will have to leave a few guys home for the Duke game. Oh, woe is them!
I don' care about Miami. SMU deserved the death penalty and got it.
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:53 amby Treadway21
SHould anyone else have ever gotten it?
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:54 amby jtstang
Treadway21 wrote:SHould anyone else have ever gotten it?
I don't know enough about "anybody else" to answer that question.
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:02 amby Charleston Pony
several prominent schools have been "eligible" for the death penalty under the rules as written, but lesser penalties have been handed down citing the cooperation of the administrations of thoise schools with the investigations. Most recently, Alabama was eligible. Since SMU was busted, I seem to recall A$M, Virginia, Clemson and several others technically qualified for the penalty
I will never say SMU didn't deserve what we got, but I'm very confident in a source that told me David Berst, then director of enforcement for the NCAA, indicated in the aftermath of SMU's penalty that the NCAA had misjudged the effect of this penalty (our enrollment and donations hit a modern era low) and that we would not likely see that penalty ever used again.
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:11 amby jtstang
Again, not caring what others have done, here is a key excerpt from the NCAA's report on SMU's death penalty sanction:
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.
And the link, in keeping with the webbie's new edict:
https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/LSDBi/LS ... Division=1
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:12 amby Stallion
they'd use it again if they found some one as dumb as Bill Clements running the show and under the exact same scenario of 4 probations (or was it 5-damn there were so many) in 11 years.
Lack of institutional control
Posted:
Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:06 pmby SMUBob
There is a big difference between lack of institutional control and having the leaders of the institution in on the wrongdoing up to their necks.
I agree that Shalala is mismanaging this thing and all the good work that Butch Davis did to clean up Miami has gone out the window in the last two years while Shalala worries about the civil rights of her thugs.
But it's still not the same as having Clements, Cox, Shields, Hitch, Collins (and oh yeah, who are we kidding, Meyer) actively involved in the thing.
We gave the NCAA no choice. I think the NCAA should find a way to throw the book at Miami, but the DP is obviously never again going to be on the table, unless you have university leadership intentionally and personally involved in leading the rule-breaking.