PonyFans.com

Ponydawg sent this to me and asked me to post it. No clue if this is correct, but if it is, it says enough:

Have we finally banned ponydawg from posting?

mrydel wrote:Have we finally banned ponydawg from posting?

No, it was emailed to him, so he needed some technical assistance on getting it posted to the board.

rats

So if I read the graft correctly, we just have to increase spending on athletes by $141,000+ a year over our previous budget and we can be on level with USC as well? IS that correct?

ponyte wrote:So if I read the graft correctly, we just have to increase spending on athletes by $141,000+ a year over our previous budget and we can be on level with USC as well? IS that correct?

Yes, SMU needs to be better at graft

Remember that SMU's president during that era came from USC. He probably taught our guys how they cheat. They've just refined the model.

mrydel wrote:Have we finally banned ponydawg from posting?

One of the mod's said something to me about double secret probation....
You post one picture of a dude in a spiderman thong and suddenly "the man" is watching......

ponydawg wrote:

mrydel wrote:Have we finally banned ponydawg from posting?

One of the mod's said something to me about double secret probation....
You post one picture of a dude in a spiderman thong and suddenly "the man" is watching......

Yeah, but even though I post under my real name I have always said I did not want my picture posted and you did anyway.

Of course, USC's PROVEN CHEATING under NCAA rules is essentially ZERO because there has been no proof that the money was funded by a authorized representative of the university while in SMU's case the decision made by the Chairman and members of the Board of Govenors leaves no doubt. Hate to actually throw cold water on such a layman's theory but actually a university is entitled to some due process even under NCAA rules. No university should be held responsible for a rouge agent with no connection to the school. Your burden is to prove he was an authorized representative of the USC-very well might be-just as Sherwood Blout was a rouge agent AND representative of SMU at the same time-but most on here are simply assuming the essential link in the case with no real demonstrated proof.

Stallion wrote:Of course, USC's PROVEN CHEATING under NCAA rules is essentially ZERO because there has been no proof that the money was funded by a authorized representative of the university while in SMU's case the decision made by the Chairman and members of the Board of Govenors leaves no doubt. Hate to actually throw cold water on such a layman's theory but actually a university is entitled to some due process even under NCAA rules. No university should be held responsible for a rouge agent with no connection to the school. Your burden is to prove he was an authorized representative of the USC-very well might be-just as Sherwood Blout was a rouge agent AND representative of SMU at the same time-but most on here are simply assuming the essential link in the case with no real demonstrated proof.

As devil's advocate, however, if it is a continuing and ongoing thing with agents and players (I do not know that to be the case but stories keep popping up), then a case for "lack of institutional control" could be made.

Hansen is on Galloway (ESPN 103.3) right now talking about the Pats getting off with a wristslap, and SMU came up.

Galloway said if it had been the Bengals or Browns videotaping opponents, Goodell would have hammered them, sort of like what happened to SMU.

Hansen agreed, saying if you go to one of the "big" schools today, like USC, you can get away with just about anything.

[deleted] the BCS

Can we have a separate bar for Chris Webber?

He received $280k over 17 years ago.

Webber and three others on that Michigan team received over $600k.

$600k compounded at 5% over 17 years is $1.34M.

FrogieFever wrote:[deleted] the BCS

Well, at least we can all agree on that.