state of SMU basketball

[ponyboy]

SMU has a history of hiding the facts and letting them be found or be missed. It is like a child closing his eyes so you can not see him. Coming clean has been the only justification, right or wrong, for leniency that I have seen in the past 35 years of investigations.

Presumably SMU HAS come clean to the NCAA. From the AP story in April:

"Copeland said the school turned itself in to the NCAA for alleged violations in February. That led to an investigation by the school, the NCAA and an independent firm. 'SMU's investigation to date has revealed NCAA violations in a number of areas in the program,' Copeland said."

And to respond to jt's very good question, I don't know if there has been a recent firing due to NCAA violations where the transgressions were not announced simultaneously. But assuming there is an investigation -- and I'm still operating on that assumption until someone reasonably shows here otherwise -- we will be finding out soon enough whether Copeland's statement above holds water.

As for the botched PR job, it wasn't botched for me. But then again I'm a naive cheerleader and tend to trust those in authority.

[jtstang]

The NCAA can take up to a year to conclude an investigation. The interviews on campus by the NCAA took at least 6 weeks this spring.

Just fyi, the investigation which resulted inthe death penalty was instituted by the NCAA on October 21, 1986 and the final report issued on February 25, 1987.

I'm just quoting from the NCAA website.

Actually, so was I. From the report on the major infraction database. I may have to go back to see the lengths of the invetigations in the other seven SMU major infraction cases, but intuitively I would think the DP would have been the longest. I guess my point is this Tubbs investigation is a long one comparatively.

[jtstang]

[Presumably SMU HAS come clean to the NCAA. From the AP story in April:

"Copeland said the school turned itself in to the NCAA for alleged violations in February. That led to an investigation by the school, the NCAA and an independent firm. 'SMU's investigation to date has revealed NCAA violations in a number of areas in the program,' Copeland said."

And to respond to jt's very good question, I don't know if there has been a recent firing due to NCAA violations where the transgressions were not announced simultaneously. But assuming there is an investigation -- and I'm still operating on that assumption until someone reasonably shows here otherwise -- we will be finding out soon enough whether Copeland's statement above holds water.

As for the botched PR job, it wasn't botched for me. But then again I'm a naive cheerleader and tend to trust those in authority.

Tell me this ponyboy, assuming that Copeland's statement doesn't hold water, what will be your take on this? At that point you'll know that your AD lied to the public both affirmatively and by omission. Would you still not think it a botched PR job? Or would you still just say well we're better off with Doherty anyway and just go on with your naive cheerleader status as you put it?

And since you cannot recall any firings where the reasons were not made concurrently, why does that not constitute a botched dismissal in any event??

Look, right now it appears this stuff was drummed up just so SMU could fire Tubbs because they did not like his record after two years, but not LOOK like they'd fire a coach after only two years. If they had the rep for the latter, you think Doherty, or any decent coach for that matter, would have come here? If there's fire with this smoke, it's past time to see it.

[ponyboy]

Tell me this ponyboy, assuming that Copeland's statement doesn't hold water, what will be your take on this? At that point you'll know that your AD lied to the public both affirmatively and by omission. Would you still not think it a botched PR job?

Absolutely. And I will congratulate you for being right all along.

And since you cannot recall any firings where the reasons were not made concurrently, why does that not constitute a botched dismissal in any event??

Again, I don't know whether violations are normally announced concurrently with the firing and I secretly believe that no one else here does either. But if I'm wrong and that really is the case, I'm not sure I care. I got enough from Copeland's phrase "NCAA violations in a number of areas of the program." We will find out the gooey details eventually when the NCAA announces its findings.

Look, right now it appears this stuff was drummed up just so SMU could fire Tubbs because they did not like his record after two years, but not LOOK like they'd fire a coach after only two years. If they had the rep for the latter, you think Doherty, or any decent coach for that matter, would have come here? If there's fire with this smoke, it's past time to see it.

That theory seems a stretch.

[jtstang]

That theory seems a stretch.

I do not mean to suggest that is what happened. Only that is what it looks like could have happened, when you allude to "major violations" and then don't say anything for months after "you're fired."

[friarwolf]

Back to my question, how many of you legal guys would as lead counsel for SMU advise them in advance of the release of the NCAA findings to release any and all information regarding this sordid little issue?

[ponyboy]

Agreed, it would seem to make more sense to keep one's powder dry, but if that's how everyone does it, that's how everyone does it.

[Stallion]

SMU was advised by lawyers prior to the DP to stonewall and to take an adversarial approach to the NCAA which is the MAJOR reason the NCAA unloaded on SMU. The NCAA has made it perfectly clear this not an adverary situation and that open and honest disclosure is grounds for mitigation. A university with "institutional control" is a part of the investigation process and not an obstacle to the truth. Any newspaper in Texas could request and obtain official reports made to and by the NCAA by a state institution. There are a multiple examples of Texas newspapers suing for release of such information and the newspapers have as far as I know always won.. There is simply No REASON whatsoever SMU could not release a synopsis of the allegations and findings of its own investigation. Get it out there and move along. Its old news from then forward. If I was corporate counsel the last thing I would do is to take an adversary approach to the NCAA. And as for the details not disclosed by Dale Hansen during the WFAA investigation the Chairman of the Board of Govenors completely let the cat out of the bag-on inaguration day in 1987 once he was safely reelected as Govenor.

[jtstang]

There is simply No REASON whatsoever SMU could not release a synopsis of the allegations and findings of its own investigation. Get it out there and move along. Its old news from then forward.

That nails it-- the thing I've been trying to understand. Why not? When you wait six months, you end up rehashing bad news yourself.

[McClown27]

There is simply No REASON whatsoever SMU could not release a synopsis of the allegations and findings of its own investigation. Get it out there and move along. Its old news from then forward. If I was corporate counsel the last thing I would do is to take an adversary approach to the NCAA.

I think they waited because of the fundraising drive for the practice facility. I have gotten two solicitations about it. I do think it is weird they are not releasing it now though.

There was a big stink about the Tubbs buyout within the administration. I heard whispers that the Provost supposedly left because he was so pissed about it.

[LA_Mustang]

McClown, why were you so certain back in April that we would be on probation this year?

[McClown27]

I didn't say that. I said self-imposed sanctions. Logically, I think it follows if you fire your coach, you would place yourself under some kind of sanctions. I always said I thought it would be two scholarships for one year. Of course, this is SMU, so our good Lord only knows what the "strategy" is in this decision.

[McClown27]

But, if this is just a trade of Tubbs for Doherty, I will criticize SMU for this action. They should have been honest.

[jtstang]

I didn't say that. I said self-imposed sanctions.

Well, yes you did. LA did his homework on this one, finding your quote, which I reproduce here from his post on the previous page for you to retract:

"We will be on probation next year. In other posts, you don't seem to understand the concept, so I will not elaborate the fact again. Tubbs cheating has definitely hurt the program."
Sat. 4/22 at 10:28am in a thread called Orsini=Awesome

[McClown27]

I had in mind self-imposed sanctions, and conflated the terms. Please revel in my apology, as this is becoming ridiculous with the lack of disclosure. But, we simply do not know for some reason.

I still believe that Tubbs hurt the program. I would only ask the adminstration for honesty in telling us reasons and in the treatment of its coaches. But, I would have fired Tubbs.