PonyFans.com

Man I hate poor people. Being poor is like a foot fungus, it's just plain gross....I digress.

So days continue to pass and still silence from our great AD Rick Hart.....who gets less impressive each passing day.

Are we going to appeal this horrendous heavy-handed punishment and grow a pair for those seniors that helped turn this program around? You have already stuck your neck out for LB, but what about Markus, Nic, Semi, and all the rest of our players? Are you going to put your own job security ahead of these kids? If LB knew more than he led on, Turner and puppet-Hart look incompetent at best. What is downside to appeal? Not much unless it means more messy details get divulged that make mgmt look bad. And by the way, where is upside in protecting an aging coach that has few coaching years left who the NCAA hated. Great strategy Hart.

It's almost as if we had no decision-tree analysis and contemplated strategy with respect to potential outcomes, but we were quick to hold a press conference and support LB? LB has been great, but he believes he has moral high ground against the NCAA, and while maybe true, can't be acted on in practice if it means jeopardizing the program.

Nobody likes the NCAA, they are weak and the biggest hypocrites on the planet. We need to go after them with both barrels. We won't appeal though and we will put self-interest ahead of these seniors who could have a magical season and give the long-standing loyal fans a season they too deserve.

Grow a pair, but you won't,

-Rich Alum

It serves SMU best to wait and file on the very last day, at the absolute latest time. Because the timeline is very specific, a day here or there could determine whether the NCAA has sufficient time to reach a conclusion before the announcement of the NCAA field. Filing the appeal will stay the sanctions, but a conclusion before the NCAA Tournament would most likely be fatal.

the down side it can postpone a final decision another year. then it is 2 years of recruits being told SMU's future is uncertain.

Maybe the downside is we appeal and get an injunction making us eligible for the postseason this season, but in the meantime key seniors transfer away so we are not good enough to make the post season even though we are eligible. Then we lose the appeal and end up being banned for the next postseason. That is on top of any impact the extended ban and uncertainty could have on recruiting, future transfers, etc.

Did you consider that as a reason to not appeal?

I know this isn't an AD level decision-I'm not even sure its a President level decision. I feel fairly sure a decision to file a lawsuit against NCAA would be a Board level decision.

Good points, Grant.

We will know who is transferring be the start off classes on January at the latest. If a bunch of people transfer and the team is decimated then SMU could always withdraw the appeal at that time and take the post season ban.

SMU 86 wrote:We will know who is transferring be the start off classes on January at the latest. If a bunch of people transfer and the team is decimated then SMU could always withdraw the appeal at that time and take the post season ban.

Are you sure?

Autoimpose it like Syracuse did.

I feel calling Rick a muppet AD is a bit harsh. First, SMU let their feelings be known about the sanctions when the report came out. Second, SMU is going to take all 15 days of the option period. Third, SMU chirping to the media will only decrease our chances of getting any sanctions removed. If you haven't seen, the overwhelming majority of national and local media is calling for LB's head.

I do not have a problem with the way SMU has handled this so far. In fact, I am impressed with RGT and company for not backing down. I imagine we will appeal, but if we don't I trust there is a damn good reason we didn't.

Per the infractions appeal committee:

In order to change a ruling, the school or individual must prove one of the following to the appellate committee:
1 the ruling by the committee on infractions was clearly contrary to the evidence;
2 the individual or school did not actually break NCAA rules;
3 there was a procedural error that caused the committee on infractions to find a violation of NCAA rules; or
4 the penalty was excessive.

I certainly feel the penalty was excessive, especially when compared to the Syracuse ruling; however, I will point out that the Syracuse ruling was under the old infractions committee guidelines which are no longer in effect. The SMU [basketball] violation was (unfortunately) outlined in the New Violation Structure, detail of which you can find here:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med ... -structure

Level I includes Head coach responsibility violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program.
Level I penalty includes post-season ban.

Further, the appellate committee (Vandie, Texas, GW, Miami Ohio, and a Detroit lawyer) aren't exactly a bunch of friendlies.

Appeal away, but there is no concrete basis for [basketball] appeal under the new infractions structure. This may likely drag out the inevitable casting a shadow over our program for several years hampering recruiting for 4-5 years instead of just 3.

I am certain that Hart, Dr. Turner, and the school's legal counsel will continue to diligently assess the situation behind closed doors. I hope they don't rush out a judgment but make an informed decision within the appeal period.

Yeah

Thanks 94

Unlike your brother I say nice things about you

lol