PonyFans.com

Oklahoma officials are expected to tell the NCAA Committee on Infractions today in Park City, Utah, that adequate changes were made since it was discovered the men's basketball program made approximately 550 impermissible phone calls to recruits.

That was OU's public stance during the last year when it was announced that former coach Kelvin Sampson and his staff were under investigation.

That's also the tone OU officials used with NCAA investigators and committee members, according to documents obtained by The Dallas Morning News through open records requests.

The school has already imposed penalties by reducing scholarships and limiting the coaching staff's recruiting activities. David Swank, an OU law professor, said the committee will likely decide whether to impose more sanctions over the weekend.

"They'll make their decision while they are in Park City," said Swank, who served on the infractions committee for the maximum three terms during the 1990s. "Normally, they meet after the hearing and discussion the violations while it's still fresh in everybody's mind.

"It will be probably a month or two months before the report is out."

Sampson left OU for Indiana in late March, but he still must attend the meeting to defend his actions. He told investigators in August 2005 that he never thought making repeated phone calls to recruits "could be construed as cheating."

NCAA rules permit just one phone call to recruits during the week. The NCAA investigation revealed that Sampson and his staff made numerous calls to at least 17 recruits from April 2000 to September 2004.

Transcripts reveal that NCAA investigators and OU coaches had discussions over what constituted a permissible phone call. Sampson and OU assistant Bob Hoffman told investigators that they made multiple calls to some recruits because the player wasn't home or wasn't available.

"There's been times that we call and, you know, the little sister would answer the phone," Hoffman told investigators. "She said, ‘I'll go get Mom; he's not here.'"

Swank said the infractions committee could levy more penalties on Sampson even though he's now at another school. Indiana officials will dock Sampson's pay $100,000 this season if he is penalized, according to Sampson's IU contract.

In making its decision, the committee must weigh whether OU's self-imposed penalties werestrong enough. In a letter to committee members dated Sept. 22, 2005, OU president David Boren wrote: "We have imposed significant penalties, both institutional and individual, to take back any advantage gained by the violations and to send a strong message that the violations are unacceptable."

OU cut its scholarship total from 13 to 11 this past season. The team had just 10 scholarship players to begin with. OU also cut one scholarship for the 2006-07 season, giving the team a total of 12. The Sooners lost three seniors but signed five more players in November.

So from a scholarship standpoint, the team will feel no effects from those penalties.

What hurts new OU coach Jeff Capel, as the school sees it, is a reduction in recruiting opportunities. Capel is limited in the number of phone calls he can make and off-campus visits his staff can make to future recruits.

I would guess our self-imposed sanctions will be similar.

McClown27 wrote:I would guess our self-imposed sanctions will be similar.

You guys just don't get it. SMU has finished their investigation and turned their findings over to the NCAA. If they were going to punish themselves in hopes of impressing the NCAA, it would have been done at the completion of the investigation. Just more proof that burgers and cheer is all there is.

we haven't signed anyone for the remaining two 2006 scholarships-in fact we cancelled two scheduled recruiting visits. How do you know we haven't self-imposed scholarship reductions for 2006. BTW if the violations were serious enough it would be much better for SMU to chose this route than impose reductions next year. Of course, it might also be necessary to suspend membership in the McDonald's Big Kid's Klub if the Ham-Burgler stories are true.

How can you sign players without a coach? Better yet, what player worth signing would be interested in a school without a coach.

I certainly don't know if SMU has self-imposed scholarship reductions for 2006, but if they have and have'nt reported it, then it is more evidence of stupidity.

i'll agree with that, if they have self imposed sanctions, how would they not have announced it? That would be extremely unconventional it seems to me. Everybody announces their self imposed sanctions and throws themselves at the mercy of the ncaa.

....they haven't made the SMU report to the NCAA public-it could be in there. I gurantee you if there were violations that justified the dismissal of a head coach at a school with SMU's history of infractions then there will definitely be some sort of self-punishment.

Stallion wrote:....they haven't made the SMU report to the NCAA public

And the million dollar question is...... WHY THE HELL NOT!

And the million-dollar answer is: because the NCAA is still investigating. When it is satisfied that it has all available information, THEN it will release its findings. Until then, it would be irresponsible to release anything, if they later find evidence that contradicts any previous announcements.

Stallion wrote:....they haven't made the SMU report to the NCAA public-it could be in there. I gurantee you if there were violations that justified the dismissal of a head coach at a school with SMU's history of infractions then there will definitely be some sort of self-punishment.

But Stallion, in another thread you recently promised me that there WILL be no sanctions! So are you now changing your mind Inquiring minds want to know!

WildHorse wrote:And the million-dollar answer is: because the NCAA is still investigating. When it is satisfied that it has all available information, THEN it will release its findings. Until then, it would be irresponsible to release anything, if they later find evidence that contradicts any previous announcements.

I read that question to ask why SMU has not made its report to the NCAA public. And its a good question.

I never said there wasn't going to be any sanctions-just that if you self report, diligently investigate and self impose reasonable penalties the modern NCAA ain't going investigate much more than that. Self reporting and imposition of sanctions is part of the modern NCAA enforcement model. I expect SMU to self impose appropriate penalties.

Because we fired a coach over these violations, I will guarantee there will some kind of self-imposed sanctions. I would guess we will lose these two open scholarships for next year. Because of the timing of the new coach coming in here, they will be better used next year anyhow.

any chance Tubbs was let go because of violations at Oklahoma?

No. If SMU had concerns about what went on in Norman, he might not have been hired, but he wasn't canned over what might or might not have gone on north of the Red River.