PonyFans.com

Found this on Grantland. Quote is down in the middle of a long article...

After SMU was given the death penalty is 1987, the conventional wisdom was that this sanction would never be employed again, simply because the penalty was so severe that no program would be able to rebuild after the total annihilation of the program. Yet SMU has done so; it took more than 20 years, but they'll probably win Conference USA this season. So — if a program can get the death penalty AND eventually recover over time — does that (perhaps) justify the severity of the penalty? In the case of SMU, one could argue that the death penalty served its purpose perfectly.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-trian ... s-answered

live_pony wrote:Found this on Grantland. Quote is down in the middle of a long article...

After SMU was given the death penalty is 1987, the conventional wisdom was that this sanction would never be employed again, simply because the penalty was so severe that no program would be able to rebuild after the total annihilation of the program. Yet SMU has done so; it took more than 20 years, but they'll probably win Conference USA this season. So — if a program can get the death penalty AND eventually recover over time — does that (perhaps) justify the severity of the penalty? In the case of SMU, one could argue that the death penalty served its purpose perfectly.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-trian ... s-answered

" In the case of SMU, one could argue that the death penalty served its purpose perfectly."

Are you kidding me. More than 22 years of being out wandering in the desert is "perfect"? In SMU's case, which I acknowledged deserved a big penalty, how can one argue that the penalty was fair.

As a result, NCAA is now afraid to use it again and penalties thereafter, to subsequent offenders, have been minimal in comparison to shutting a program down and waiting 22 years to be competitive again.

Remember, the DP happens only if a repeat violation occurs in a five year period. Basically, every program gets a free pass at unlimited cheating every 5 years.

Say a big name supper rich in tradition and winning college program gets the DP. In five years, they could rebuild their program in one recruiting season with unlimited cheating. NO DP (after the time frame) and sure they get penalties, but they rebuild and it is sure less time than it took a near honest SMU.

The DP is flawed in so many ways. Because it destroyed us (mainly because we acted like crazed Iranians during Ramadan and flayed our flesh raw by our own hand) doesn’t mean other programs would take as long to rebuild. Clever boasters and coaches would figure a way to buy a winning program and get back to their rich traditions and winning.

Why can't we buy just one great recruiting class to boost us up? We could be a solid, legal BCS level team after that with that kind of momentum.

couch 'em, you can't buy happiness. But you can buy a better team. Auburn proved that.

Water Pony wrote:" In the case of SMU, one could argue that the death penalty served its purpose perfectly."

Are you kidding me. More than 22 years of being out wandering in the desert is "perfect"? In SMU's case, which I acknowledged deserved a big penalty, how can one argue that the penalty was fair.

Surely you jest. Only about five years, at a maximum, of that desert wandering could reasonably be attributed to the NCAA sanction. The rest falls squarely at the feet of SMU. IF anybody was unfair, it was SMU to itself.

jtstang wrote:

Water Pony wrote:" In the case of SMU, one could argue that the death penalty served its purpose perfectly."

Are you kidding me. More than 22 years of being out wandering in the desert is "perfect"? In SMU's case, which I acknowledged deserved a big penalty, how can one argue that the penalty was fair.

Surely you jest. Only about five years, at a maximum, of that desert wandering could reasonably be attributed to the NCAA sanction. The rest falls squarely at the feet of SMU. IF anybody was unfair, it was SMU to itself.

Yes and no. We certainly contributed to extending our pain, but that was in reaction to the events. Yes, we over compensated with restrictions and rules, but that reflected past administration's goal to cleanse and prevent a future recurrence. Terrible, but not unexpected response. You could say we have run the cleanest program for 25 years. The consequences flowed from the DP, whether imposed or self-inflicted.

Water Pony wrote:

jtstang wrote:

Water Pony wrote:" In the case of SMU, one could argue that the death penalty served its purpose perfectly."

Are you kidding me. More than 22 years of being out wandering in the desert is "perfect"? In SMU's case, which I acknowledged deserved a big penalty, how can one argue that the penalty was fair.

Surely you jest. Only about five years, at a maximum, of that desert wandering could reasonably be attributed to the NCAA sanction. The rest falls squarely at the feet of SMU. IF anybody was unfair, it was SMU to itself.

Yes and no. We certainly contributed to extending our pain, but that was in reaction to the events. Yes, we over compensated with restrictions and rules, but that reflected past administration's goal to cleanse and prevent a future recurrence. Terrible, but not unexpected response. You could say we have run the cleanest program for 25 years. The consequences flowed from the DP, whether imposed or self-inflicted.

Except you forgot to mention that the DP resulted from SMU's conduct, so we're back to SMU being responsible again. The legacy of cheating that led to the DP was unprecedented and resulted in an unprecedented penalty that should have fairly hampered SMu for 4-5 years tops. Everything else was the result of self-imposed sanctions. Remember, but for the cheating, Don Shields would not have gone and Ken Pye would not have come in, and I disagree the reponse was not expected and not warranted and cost SMU much more time and pain than the DP ever did..

klosterman is a hack

he rides the coat tails of bill simmons and has nothing thought provoking to offer

yawn