PonyFans.com

Its onlt an infraction if you are a small private school.

I figure OU will get three lashes with a wet noodle and lose three scholarships because of their exemplary record of compliance and their wonderful treatment of native americans.

Fact is OU found the violation, turned it in independently and dismissed the players voluntarily. Exactly the opposite of SMU.

Actually they only found the violation after the NCAA started to look into Adrian Peterson's new Lexus and how it was acquired. Consequently, they found Bomar and the OLineman working there and getting money for the hours they didn't work.

Yes.. OU did turn themselves in.. but only after they saw they were about to get caught.

Stallion wrote:Fact is OU found the violation, turned it in independently and dismissed the players voluntarily. Exactly the opposite of SMU.

is that an affirmative defense? you would know better then me but how would that hold up in court? yes i shot and killed the person, but I turned myself in voluntarily?


***edit*** i robbed the bank, gave the money back, and voluntarily turned myself in

expony18 wrote:

Stallion wrote:Fact is OU found the violation, turned it in independently and dismissed the players voluntarily. Exactly the opposite of SMU.

is that an affirmative defense? you would know better then me but how would that hold up in court? yes i shot and killed the person, but I turned myself in voluntarily?


***edit*** i robbed the bank, gave the money back, and voluntarily turned myself in

I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine in the first example you give, it would keep you from getting the death penalty which in "not as serious" terms is exactly the point that is being made.

The NCAA has made it crystal clear that cooperation of a university is a relevant factor consider in assessing punishment during the punishment phase. Its not an affirmative defense to the truth of the allegation.

OU isn't afraid of anything...I especially loved the ad for purchasing my "OU tailgaiting kit" below the article...

i agree 100% with that, and i also agree that SMU did not help their case... but past instances of violations should also be taken in when determining a suitable punishment... and im really not saying OU should get the death penalty, and i really dont want to start up another 10 page thread about how all the BCS teams get away with it and we didnt... we got what we desrved

Stallion, you need to STOP with the tired refrain that SMU acted improperly in response to the violations. They did. But it is a new atmosphere in college athletics since the first application of this punishment and SMU would and has responded more responsibly to violations. However, if we want to stop the "cheating", and I for one do, then the NCAA will have to slap the "death penalty" on a large BCS state school for egregious violations and let the subsequent lawsuits play out. Then the cheaters will think twice about it knowing their status and the University's response no longer protects them, IMHO.

you are talking theory-I'm talking the NCAA rule book on eligibility for Death Penalty sanctions. SMU case could not have been easier to legally prove for the NCAA. Any lawyer would foam at the mouth to have a case to prove corporate responsibility for sanctions like the SMU case-it is a classic lack of institutional control scenario-the proverbial "smoking gun". OU's situation does not meet the standard to be applied. "What they ought to do" is an entirely different discussion.

Yeah, they punished the athletes involved and disassociated themselves from the booster (for now). But prior to the act, they lacked institutional control because the athletes were receiving payola. SMU the problem wasn't lack of institutional control it was that the graft was indemic to the institution. The boosters were the Board of Governors of the University. They ran the institution.

In other words the Institution ceded control over the football program and allowed the persons involved in the violations to continue their scheme. Lack of Institutional Control. What easier case could there possibly be? In the case of the OU program that simply has not been proven. In fact, OU disassociated the booster and expelled the players who cheated and voluntarlity admitted the violations to the NCAA. That is the state of the facts as presently known and that's how the case will be decided unless one of you or someone else comes forth with proof that shows that the school's administration, board of trustees or at the very least the AD or Head Coach was involved with or condoned the violations. But claiming it and proving it are two different things.

Stallion wrote:In other words the Institution ceded control over the football program and allowed the persons involved in the violations to continue their scheme. Lack of Institutional Control. What easier case could there possibly be? In the case of the OU program that simply has not been proven. In fact, OU disassociated the booster and expelled the players who cheated and voluntarlity admitted the violations to the NCAA. That is the state of the facts as presently known and that's how the case will be decided unless one of you or someone else comes forth with proof that shows that the school's administration, board of trustees or at the very least the AD or Head Coach was involved with or condoned the violations. But claiming it and proving it are two different things.

OU has had a lack of institutional control since the fifties. You would either have had to been smoking something or had a bag over your head not to believe it!