Congratulations to Tech!

[jtstang]

Kid is recruited out of ghetto high school, his dad is MIA, his mother has raised him and his four siblings, and he shows up on campus driving an brand new Beamer and then in his sophomore year moves into a $1000/mo. apartment. Now if you are on the board of trustees of that school, or the athletic director, or the dean of students, do you suspect there might be a problem? By ignoring the obvious, aren't you just as guilty as the guy writing the checks. Try this: The RA on the football floor in the athletic dorm calls the Dean of Students and the head coach. It seems there are hookers visiting recruits staying as guests over night and someone just threw an empty keg out of a dorm window. Head coach tells Dean of Students to ignore it, boys will be boys you know. Dean of Students, not sure what to do, tells University President. He ignores it. Isn't he complicit? RA of course tells his frat buddies about the incident, and soon everyone on Campus has heard about it except that instead of hookers its up to Playboy bunnies.

Is this a real case? I think this would rise to willful blindness, but not aware the NCAA has investivated such a case. First scenario reminds me of track star Roy Martin at SMU, except it was a 300ZX with his nickname "ROBOT" on the vanities.

[OldPony]

Some of the youger guys won't remember Paul Hardin as SMU President. Rumors flew arond NJ when he quit SMU and went to Drew U in NJ. Sound like a likely career move? Rumors said that he left because he heard what was going on and was going to report it. The Big Boosters (read Bill C and friends) promised him that he would never work again if he did. This is lack of institutional control. SMU got what we deserved and it is time to quit making excuses. Maybe a big State U wouldn't have but the NCAA had us dead to rights and they have caught no one else as red handed.

[EastStang]

I have never disagreed with the premise that we got what we deserved. I have only stated the obvious, that there are a ton of institutions where there is no institutional control at all over boosters. Colorado ought to be severely punished, but you watch, they won't be. Minnesota had athletic department members writing papers for the athletes with the knowledge of a ton of people. It took a professor leaking it to the press to get it out in the open. Wrist slap. Even though that went to the heart of the academic integrity of NCAA institutions. I guess this SMU fan, like a reformed smoker (or prostitute) feel that tough justice should be meted out on those smokers and prostitutes still out there.

[jtstang]

I have never disagreed with the premise that we got what we deserved. I have only stated the obvious, that there are a ton of institutions where there is no institutional control at all over boosters.

I think the test is institutional control over the program, not the boosters. The difference is while SMU boosters did the funding, the athletic department doled out the money, with the trustees' approval. I'm not aware of any other school doing this, state or private.

[No Cal Pony]

I believe this is a topic that cannot have a happy ending for SMU. I've never said we didn't have a lack of institutional control in our penalty. I think that anyone knowing of the situations would recognize this fact. That being said, I think that there have been many cases that have gone on that MAYBE were not quite as "arrogant." As EastStang moted, there have been a couple of recent events at other schools that could qualify as being close to ours. What has gone on at 'bama comes close, except that everyone hung the booster out to dry. (Even though, from what I've heard, this wasn't the first time some booster hasn't "acted" on behalf of 'bama.

Yes, SMU got what they deserve, but did we really? I think this is the heart of the discussion. Reality is that crap goes on all the time, and will continue to do so until the money wants it to stop. Reality is that no large institution will be handled like SMU was. ncaa won't interfere with the revenue flow. Now the bcs will further protect its interests. It is a shame to SMU, but now we need to move on, and away from it all, especially the cuffs that Pye and Co. all put on the school and the mindset.

What we all need to do is move on and support SMU now. The school and admin, trustees all need to decide to aid the athletics such that SMU can compete at a resonable level.

Here is to some winning and havin' fun again!

Go Ponies!

[jtstang]

An interessting quote from the NCAA's public report on Alabama in 2001:


B. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS.



The Committee on Infractions agreed with and adopted the actions taken by the university.



Because the university is a two-time repeat violator with prior infractions cases in 1995 and 1999, because the recruiting violations set forth in this report were some of the most serious in recent memory and because the university bears some responsibility for the special status athletics representatives A and C enjoyed within the athletics program, the committee very seriously considered imposing repeat-violator penalties pursuant to Bylaw 19.6.2.3.2-(a) and, in particular, prohibiting outside competition (the so called “death penalty”) in the sport of football. Although the committee ultimately declined to impose a prohibition on outside competition, the committee emphasizes that this was a very close question greatly influenced by the particular circumstances of this case and of the university’s infractions history. On the one occasion in which the "death penalty" was imposed, the penalized institution also had a series of major infractions cases. In that instance however, there was a demonstrated blatant disregard for NCAA rules that permeated through out the entire university and its governance structure. In this case, by contrast, university officials cooperated fully with the enforcement staff, often at great personal criticism, in a diligent effort to develop complete information regarding the violations. Had this candor and cooperation been lacking, the death penalty (as well as substantial penalties in addition to those imposed in this case) would have been imposed.

[EastStang]

Here is what they actually wrote when they penalized us.
"The committee's penalties in this case are severe, and they are designed to compensate for the great competitive advantage that Southern Methodist University has gained through long-term abuses and a pattern of purposeful violations of NCAA regulations. The penalties also have deterrent value for others who [Page 7] might be tempted to follow the example set by Southern Methodist University; "

If the purpose of us getting the death penalty was to deter others who might be tempted, it really didn't work did it?

"however, the penalties also are intended to achieve a long-term rehabilitative objective. The present administration of the university has expressed its hope for a new beginning in athletics, and canceling the football season in 1987 will afford an opportunity for the university to start a new football program based on integrity and fair play rather than on wrongdoing and deception. "


If the purpose was to make us utterly noncompetitive, it worked.