PonyFans.com

"The NCAA Committee on Infractions on Wednesday announced further sanctions against the University of Oklahoma – including the loss of two scholarships for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic years – stemming from a 2006 scandal in which three football players were paid for work they did not perform at a Norman car dealership.

That limits Oklahoma to 83 total football scholarships for those two years.

Oklahoma must also vacate the eight victories it gained in the 2005 season and cannot recognize those wins in record books, media guides or in anything else chronicling OU's football history." They will also be on probation until 2010.

If this doesn't show the disparity of treatment between the small private school and large state school, I don't know what will! I remember when I was at SMU in 1974 and we had to go without TV AND Bowl games for my junior and senior years (1975 and 1976)! This essentially killed the SMU football program for both years and ABSOLUTELY devastated the programs recruiting for both years and several years thereafter. These clowns (OU) get caught with essentially the same or worse violations and only lose 3 scholarships and have to vacate their wins from the history books for 1 year, which will have ABSOLUTELY zero, ZERO impact on their recruiting for the next two years! The NCAA selectively enforces their rules because they are scared to death of the larger schools. They are WEAK and PATHETIC!

Isn't this the same or similar punishment we got for the Malin incident? I forget, what did Malin do exactly?

Does that mean they went 0-12 for that year (0-11, whatever it is), or that they went 0-4 and the victories just magically vanished?

smu diamond m wrote:Does that mean they went 0-12 for that year (0-11, whatever it is), or that they went 0-4 and the victories just magically vanished?

The 'official' record will be 0-4 according to the story on AP and the official news release from OU. The losses should vanish, too. Why count losses if you're not counting wins and the ENTIRE season is forfeit?

The NCAA can no longer control TV contracts. That control mechanism was taken from the NCAA in the 80s (I believe the schools had to go to court for recognition that the school, not the NCAA controlled TV rights). Of course the attorneys on this board may be able to further clarify and/or correct that explanation. The NCAA could impose no post season bowl eligibility but one wonders if the schools would sue over that as well. The bottom line is that the NCAA has become a very weak and ineffective organization. Until significant enforcement of the rules occurs, schools have little to fear from the NCAA. And the money to be made at this point far outweighs the consequences of rules violations.

I think they can control the bowl appearances (seems like they banned Alabama a couple of years ago), but that hurts the other "innocent' (ha, ha) teams in the Big XII and since the bowl slots will still go to teams in the conference, OU pretty much gets the same money either way. But each school together with their conference controls their TV revenue. In fact OU was the school that sued and got that right. But you can't televise games if no one plays you. That's what the death penalty is supposed to be there for. And it isn't used. I suppose they could offer OU a plea bargain. Look, we can't tell you to stay off TV, but we can hit you with the death penalty which will pretty much accomplish the same thing. Now are you willing to forfeit your TV revenue for the next two years or do you want us to hit you with the DP for two years. Take your pick.

Can someone recap or confirm what was said above about the Malin incident?

I live in Los Angeles so SMU gets very little press here, but the LA Times had a story today about the OU penalty, and they said the same thing happened to the 1998 SMU football team. I thought they had made an error and I was going to write in for the paper to print a correction, but maybe I was the one who is mistaken?

South Bay Mustang wrote:Can someone recap or confirm what was said above about the Malin incident?

I live in Los Angeles so SMU gets very little press here, but the LA Times had a story today about the OU penalty, and they said the same thing happened to the 1998 SMU football team. I thought they had made an error and I was going to write in for the paper to print a correction, but maybe I was the one who is mistaken?

We played an ineligible player in 1998 and 10 of our 12 games had to be vacated, so officially we only went 1-1 that year.

perunapower wrote:

South Bay Mustang wrote:Can someone recap or confirm what was said above about the Malin incident?

I live in Los Angeles so SMU gets very little press here, but the LA Times had a story today about the OU penalty, and they said the same thing happened to the 1998 SMU football team. I thought they had made an error and I was going to write in for the paper to print a correction, but maybe I was the one who is mistaken?

We played an ineligible player in 1998 and 10 of our 12 games had to be vacated, so officially we only went 1-1 that year.

Great. We have to have most of the season vacated just to have one of the best years since the DP.

Just as a point of clarification. OU does not forfeit their 2005 games, i.e., the other teams still lost those games...the games are vacated on OU's records and the official records will not show OU having played or won those games. Thus for 2005, OU was 0 and 4.

ponyte wrote:The NCAA can no longer control TV contracts. That control mechanism was taken from the NCAA in the 80s (I believe the schools had to go to court for recognition that the school, not the NCAA controlled TV rights). Of course the attorneys on this board may be able to further clarify and/or correct that explanation. The NCAA could impose no post season bowl eligibility but one wonders if the schools would sue over that as well. The bottom line is that the NCAA has become a very weak and ineffective organization. Until significant enforcement of the rules occurs, schools have little to fear from the NCAA. And the money to be made at this point far outweighs the consequences of rules violations.

They could still ban you from a bowl game

ponyte wrote:The NCAA can no longer control TV contracts. That control mechanism The NCAA could impose no post season bowl eligibility .....

but the ncaa can declare players ineligible?!

I predict that the next school to get A) players declared ineligible, B) ineligible for post season play, and C) both A & B will be SMU or a Division II school.

I predict the next BSC school to get caught with an infraction such as OU's will receive A) the loss of one scholarship a year for one year and B) super secret double probation until 12:01 EST the next business day after the penalty is imposed. That'll teach 'em.

(sarcasm off)

I do realize that the NCAA has the potential to impose significant penalties. I just don't believe the NCAA will ever impose significant penalties on all schools equally. Call me a Cynic.

I now declare TCU's victory over Oklahoma in 2005 null and void....the game either did not count or was a forfeit....

Froggies are no longer to claim this game as a win on Ponyfans.com and it may not be used as ammunition for any smack talk or argument