PonyFans.com

New rules went into effect August 1, 2013

didn't the +1 summer correspondence issue take place in summer of 2013

there might be an easy answer to this-regulation may state it can be applied retroactively but there might be an argument that Larry Brown wasn't on notice of potential sanctions against him at time of violation. I don't have ready access to the statutory history or an evidence timeline

Just scattershooting but that is somewhat similar to the argument in the NFL Tom Brady case

What do you mean by "+1 Summer correspondence?"

I've talked about this before. You used to be able to cleanse a poor transcript with multiple post graduation summer school classes that would cleanse the transcript of the bad core courses and replace them with higher core grades in order to get a qualifying core GPA. But a few years ago the NCAA said you only cleanse 1 course after your graduation date which is referred to as +1 course. It was Keith Frazier taking (or the SMU assistant taking) one of these +1 summer correspondence which got SMU into trouble

Stallion wrote:I've talked about this before. You used to be able to cleanse a poor transcript with multiple post graduation summer school classes that would cleanse the transcript of the bad core courses and replace them with higher core grades in order to get a qualifying core GPA. But a few years ago the NCAA said you only cleanse 1 course after your graduation date which is referred to as +1 course. It was Keith Frazier taking (or the SMU assistant taking) one of these +1 summer correspondence which got SMU into trouble

So, the question then is when the course ended. If the last day of the class was August 1, then it occurred under the new guidelines.

The fact that this course occurred before enrollment at SMU (correct me if I'm wrong on that) in an online format at another school, and that it wasn't actually required for his eligibility, makes this even more insane.

Puckhead48E wrote:

Stallion wrote:I've talked about this before. You used to be able to cleanse a poor transcript with multiple post graduation summer school classes that would cleanse the transcript of the bad core courses and replace them with higher core grades in order to get a qualifying core GPA. But a few years ago the NCAA said you only cleanse 1 course after your graduation date which is referred to as +1 course. It was Keith Frazier taking (or the SMU assistant taking) one of these +1 summer correspondence which got SMU into trouble

So, the question then is when the course ended. If the last day of the class was August 1, then it occurred under the new guidelines.

The fact that this course occurred before enrollment at SMU (correct me if I'm wrong on that) in an online format at another school, and that it wasn't actually required for his eligibility, makes this even more insane.

Course was completed on July 3, 2013.

What school was this course taken?

a correspondence course school called I believe from memory National Correspondence or something

exact name is in the facts section of NCAA Report which I left at office

So this might explain the note on page 32 referencing the fact that the course was not required to attain eligibility. I can see this playing a role in countering the loss of all games Keith played in 13-14 if they wanted to try that avenue. I really think they are going to try and hammer on the obfuscation that occurred after that date, and use that for the hit on LB.

I'll repeat it...I think we take the 13-14 games and the 30% suspension for LB
We push for a reduction in lost scholarships to 4-5 over the next 3 years, removing or reducing the recruiting limitations, and the post-season ban.

With the number of issues that have been raised in the first days reading of this, the NCAA must have wanted to make a show and go big, knowing they would take the appeal and reduce post season. I also believe this is why they took so long; they knew they really didn't have much so they wanted the threat of this hanging over our head and being used against us by other programs with recruits to punish the upcoming class. I really think they view this as some confrontation where they are Boss Hogg just milking the weak to help the strong.

Stallion wrote:a correspondence course school called I believe from memory National Correspondence or something

exact name is in the facts section of NCAA Report which I left at office

Thanks - the next question is .. Who ratted this out? What specific thing called in the goon squad?

actually I double checked. Report just said it was a private on-line correspondence course. This actually is significant because as discussed on ponyfans about a year ago the NCAA got a basketball "facilitator" "street agent" to about 20 schools to rat out those schools and assist the NCAA in building cases against them. Several of us were concerned SMU could be one of those schools. The story appeared on a major national sports investigative TV show-can't remember which one. Maybe Bryant Gumbel's HBO show. Anyway the modus operandi was exactly the same. Someone would apply for the correspondence course and obtain the recruit's online log-in information

So, here is a thought.

Street agent paid our admin to take the test for Keith. Keith is completely clueless about what is going on. When he figures out things aren't right, he acts responsibly and gets a 3 way call with him, the admin and his recruiter Ulrich.

Keith can't bust the street agent, he doesn't know who it is. Never met. Admin can't report - she probably was paid in cash and didn't report it on taxes. Ulrich probably is aware of the game, because of his connections, but has no direct involvement of the incident, so his hands are clean. LB has no clue of what is going on.

Turner spoke of other schools. Perhaps they are all involved directly with this street agent thing. Everyone gets hammered. At least we fired our admin and the assistant coach. We see all of the other schools findings come out one by one over the next few months.

The NCAA is going to make punishments excessive to try and stop the street agent business and eliminate it. Try to get people to rat the agents out and stop the business by throwing down harsh penalties. In the mean time, there is going to be a sequence of investigations and appeals. All of the appeals will take quite a while because there are a lot of first time hearings coming down the pike. So, nothing is enforceable this season except for the coaching bans. And by the time everything rolls through, the NCAA will change its mind and cut back on the scholarships lost for each school and eliminate the post season bands.

So, how about instead of the "NCAA is out to get SMU" theory, we try the "Everyone else on the list did worse, so the NCAA is making them wet their pants and rat out the bad eggs" theory?

This [deleted] would have been a lot easier if I'd just taken the online class for Keith. I wouldn't have told a soul

Statler wrote:What school was this course taken?

National University Virtual High School

CalallenStang wrote:

Puckhead48E wrote:

Stallion wrote:I've talked about this before. You used to be able to cleanse a poor transcript with multiple post graduation summer school classes that would cleanse the transcript of the bad core courses and replace them with higher core grades in order to get a qualifying core GPA. But a few years ago the NCAA said you only cleanse 1 course after your graduation date which is referred to as +1 course. It was Keith Frazier taking (or the SMU assistant taking) one of these +1 summer correspondence which got SMU into trouble

So, the question then is when the course ended. If the last day of the class was August 1, then it occurred under the new guidelines.

The fact that this course occurred before enrollment at SMU (correct me if I'm wrong on that) in an online format at another school, and that it wasn't actually required for his eligibility, makes this even more insane.

Course was completed on July 3, 2013.

If so then it looks like the NCAA made another mistake.

Rebel10 wrote:
If so then it looks like the NCAA made another mistake.

Really think they are going for what they view as the cover-up here...potentially setting a precedent that any obfuscation or lies told to investigators will hurt more than the original crime would have.