PonyFans.com

Stating the logical conclusion to Cam Newton and the Pony Excess.
http://www2.morganton.com/sports/2010/dec/16/column-ncaa-still-corrupt-ever-ar-624197/

I wish we could give the ncaa the Death Penalty!!!

Wheeeww - nice article!

It will never change.

I finally watched Pony Excess last night and now really understand why we didn't stop the payments to athletes. We had a legal contractual obligation to meet. If we had stopped, then the university would be liable and I am sure there would have been lawsuits sueing for breach of contract. We put ourselves in a bad position from which there was no escape. The other thing I did not realize is how out of control it got after Ron Meyer left. He was the genius behind the program. He kept a small tight group of boosters that knew how to skirt the NCAA. When he left, the athletic department let it get out of control. That was the fatal mistake.

A court won't enforce such an illegal, immoral or unethical contract. SMU would have zero liability for offers made by third parties

Stallion wrote:A court won't enforce such an illegal, immoral or unethical contract. SMU would have zero liability for offers made by third parties

The "contracts" such that they were, are overstated. I think some people assume that meant they were written down; not sure they really were, but they might have been. If they were in writing, then people were dumber than I thought.

I will note that I am not sure such an agreement is per se "illegal, immoral or unethical;" it might violate NCAA rules, but that doesn't make it any of those three. Whitford makes this point better than I in "Payroll to Meet." I think, if it actually did rise to the level of a contract, it might be enforceable. That being said, I think the statement in Pony Excess being referred to is the kind of bad legal argument often made by non-lawyers to justify doing what they want to do, which was continue making payments to athletes to prevent them from also going to the NCAA.

I guess the best thing to do would be to give a "lump sum" distribution to all the players on payroll and then stop the payments. You've met your "legal" obligation and have "cleaned up" the program. Of course this doesn't stop the players from going to the NCAA, but at least you have an argument and can show the program is now "clean". You would get sanctions, but the DP would be given to someone else, not SMU.

I had some correspondence with David Berst in the early 80's in regard to some Texas violations. When I brought up SMU, his distain was very obvious. He had a strong hatred for our program from the previous activities before the true Pony Express days were in full gear.

mrydel wrote:I had some correspondence with David Berst in the early 80's in regard to some Texas violations. When I brought up SMU, his distain was very obvious. He had a strong hatred for our program from the previous activities before the true Pony Express days were in full gear.

Isn't Berst a UT alum?

Do not know. Didn't he pass away recently or did I just imagine that?

Dooby wrote:

Stallion wrote:A court won't enforce such an illegal, immoral or unethical contract. SMU would have zero liability for offers made by third parties

The "contracts" such that they were, are overstated. I think some people assume that meant they were written down; not sure they really were, but they might have been. If they were in writing, then people were dumber than I thought.

I will note that I am not sure such an agreement is per se "illegal, immoral or unethical;" it might violate NCAA rules, but that doesn't make it any of those three. Whitford makes this point better than I in "Payroll to Meet." I think, if it actually did rise to the level of a contract, it might be enforceable. That being said, I think the statement in Pony Excess being referred to is the kind of bad legal argument often made by non-lawyers to justify doing what they want to do, which was continue making payments to athletes to prevent them from also going to the NCAA.

I have put some feelers out for more material. Will ask about a contract.

Even if there was a contract it would likely NOT be a contract entered into by SMU. It would likely be between the Booster and the recruit. Then you have an issue about whether the Booster was an authorized, disclosed agent or officer of a non-profit corporate entity. Everybody involved in any such "contract" would be beaten over the head with proof that the alleged agent's actions were ultra vires or outside the scope of his authorized agency(even if it was Bill Clements himself). There would be all kinds of NCAA Codes of Conduct and Letters of Intent disclosing to the recruit that by signing the Letter of Intent they agree to abide by NCAA rules. If a Recruit breaks NCAA rules then he has essentially breached at least the scholarship "contract". A Court would simply leave the parties as they stood and refuse to enforce the "Contract" at least with respect to SMU's liability. Summary Judgment. In fact, if I were representing SMU I would file a Motion to recover attorney's fees for a "bad faith" filing and the right judge just might assess those sanctions to a university that was in good faith trying to clean up the mess.

The article is spot on. I know that the "selective enforcement" argument we made was going nowhere because our boosters really were out of control. But it is mind boggling that the NCAA is so ineffective and seemingly disinterested in the cheating that has been going on in plain view for so many years.

Bottom Line: If you make the NCAA money of licensed gear you are in good standing. You may be slapped on the hand but Mommy and Daddy still love you so go back outside and play nice.

There are so many other universities that have done worse and the DP will never be used again.

Can not believe Cam got the award and Auburn is allowed to play for title.

Fight to good fight - "Mustang Militia"