SMU has full wins column despite adults' empty promises

[Harry0569]

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basket ... arry-brown

College coaches call their players “kids” all the time, so let’s stipulate for the time being that they are just that. Kids. It’s not that much of a stretch for the NCAA men’s basketball player, given that he is not in control of much other than the school he attends.

Perhaps he gets to choose his own academic major. Perhaps he decides what classes to take, although consideration must be given in that regard to his team’s playing and practice schedule. He does not decide how to prepare, what position he’ll play or how much time he’ll get in games.

MORE: Looking back on Larry Brown's tumultuous career

So, yeah, in a lot of ways he is a kid. Like the players at SMU.

They are 60 percent of the way toward completing a season that will end on Sunday afternoon, March 6, no matter what they accomplish between now and then. They will play a final game against Cincinnati at the Myrl H. Shoemaker Center, and then the Mustangs will be done — even though they have won all of their first 18 games.

They have been let down by the adults in the room at every possible juncture.

1. Adults were responsible for the violations the NCAA infractions committee determined to have occurred within the SMU basketball program.

Although the university has a long history of traffic through the infractions committee's hearing room, their 10 major cases standing as more than any other school, the NCAA said a former men’s basketball staff member completed coursework for a prospective student athlete — known to be guard Keith Frazier — to help the player meet freshman eligibility requirements.

The NCAA said the credit for that course that was fraudulent and the player competed while ineligible during his freshman year.

The NCAA asserted head coach Larry Brown was unaware of this circumstance but did not immediately report it and was “not initially truthful,” according to infractions committee member Michael Adams of Pepperdine, about the violation during an interview with NCAA enforcement. That led to him being suspended for nine games of the 2015-16 season.

2. Adults were responsible for adjudicating this case and determining the appropriate punishment – and decided to impose a one-year postseason ban against the SMU basketball program.

On the face of it, given the nature of the infractions, it seems reasonable. Only the members of the NCAA infractions committee decided to impose this punishment last September 30, and made it effective for the current school year.

Which meant that every player who enrolled at SMU a month prior was stuck. None had the option to transfer, even the seniors who, by rule, would have been able to move to another school and compete immediately because of the postseason sanction.

MORE: Ranking college basketball's best rivalries

The members of the infractions committee looked at the case, looked at their punishment options and simply said, “Tough cookies, kids.”

Believe me, that quote would have been more cogent than the response presented by Pepperdine chancellor Michael Adams, a member of the infractions committee, when asked by ESPN’s Andy Katz if the committee had the latitude to remove specific actors from the postseason rather than punish an entire team of players who were not involved in any offenses.

“We have latitude, as you saw, in our prohibiting the coach to participate in 30 percent of the season,” Adams said, citing Brown’s nine-game suspension.

“I think there’s a general thought, in the cases that I’ve looked at, where one does inevitably look at the entire team, and there clearly is a number of members of the team who suffer personally by not being able to participate. And yet, the NCAA is made up of teams of member institutions, and most of our responses are, I think, properly involving teams. You always regret when any student-athlete is unable to participate. But in this case we thought both institutional team and individual season were appropriate.”

MORE: Postseason ban punishment is guilt by association

Not a word of that makes any sense whatsoever. It is an absolute linguistic nightmare. And presuming it includes some defense of the decision to impose an immediate postseason ban, it is an indefensible position, as well.

3. Adults were responsible for examining the penalties handed to SMU and determining whether or not an appeal would be justified — an appeal that, perhaps, would ask the NCAA to defer the postseason ban to the 2016-17 season so that the athletes being blindsided (including senior guard Nic Moore and senior center Markus Kennedy) — would have the opportunity to compete this March.

The athletes released an impressive statement in the wake of the sanctions noting they “had no voice in this case and believe we were denied our due process. We ask that the NCAA reconsider the sanctions that unfairly target and disproportionately affect the innocent.”

And what did SMU say?

Tough cookies, kids.

“We understand and share the men's basketball student-athletes' disappointment over the NCAA sanctions, however, the severity of the violations that SMU acknowledges occurred mandates at minimum a one-year post-season ban … and, after careful consideration, we decided not to appeal the NCAA post-season ban.”

So here is SMU now, 18-0, ranked in the top 10 and playing toward an empty March. Adults at every step had the opportunity to obey the rules, enforce them prudently or object to injustice. They all proved to be indefensibly imperfect.

Only the Mustangs can claim to be otherwise.

[RGV Pony]

I didn't think Keith competed while ineligible. Is that statement correct? Somehow it seems vacated wins would've been something I remember

[SMUstangs22]

We are starting to get a lot of publicity and traction

[smusic 00]

I didn't think Keith competed while ineligible. Is that statement correct? Somehow it seems vacated wins would've been something I remember

Yes, we are required to vacate wins, and it is something we are appealing.

[RGV Pony]

So much for my stellar memory.

On the flipside, how serendipitous is it that we can now use the counterpoint "I guess you could say 'we' or someone cheated but... The dude that is at issue isn't even on the team or on campus during the toughest part of our schedule.. And (hopefully we could then say).. And we still ran the table"

[Stallion]

he did play some games from the date that Larry Brown found out about the violation until the end or rather start of 2nd semester classes which would require declaring Frazier ineligible. I remember stating at the time that Frazier's problems had to be with SMU academics rather than NCAA because SMU would have had to rule Frazier immediately ineligible and request a waiver by the NCAA like Johnny Manziel and Cam Newton. I was both correct and wrong. SMU didn't rule him ineligible so I assumed wrong in stating that Frazier's problems probably weren't related to the NCAA.

[EastStang]

I agree with the sentiment of the article. SMU failing to appeal was a decision whether to take the hit now or later and ultimately the players were on-board with giving Shake, Semi, Froling and Company a clean slate in the future. However, I thought the punishment was heavy handed at the time and disproportionate (even if under the new rules). I want us to go undefeated to stick up a big finger at the NCAA and to the ultimate champion who will forever have an asterisk next to their championship. Keeping our fingers crossed.

[JoeKidd]

Another good well reasoned article...I just wish more of these reports would dig a little deeper and point out that the course Keith was helped with ultimately did not even count towards his eligibility....if you wanted to take this further Keith and most kids at DISD are let down by that school district and the "adults" that run it.

[CalallenStang]

he did play some games from the date that Larry Brown found out about the violation until the end or rather start of 2nd semester classes which would require declaring Frazier ineligible. I remember stating at the time that Frazier's problems had to be with SMU academics rather than NCAA because SMU would have had to rule Frazier immediately ineligible and request a waiver by the NCAA like Johnny Manziel and Cam Newton. I was both correct and wrong. SMU didn't rule him ineligible so I assumed wrong in stating that Frazier's problems probably weren't related to the NCAA.

The games that NCAA says Frazier was ineligible were not those games in 2014-2015 that you are referring to but rather in the 2013-2014 season. This is in the infractions report.

[sadderbudweiser]

If the course wasn't ever needed or used for admission that would indicate that Keith got admitted and was eligible.
So how the heck can they vacate wins? How was he "ineligible?"

[smusic 00]

SMU taking the class for his credit for the class gave us an unfair advantage for his signing over other schools, therefore he was not eligible.

[Pony64]

SMU taking the class for his credit for the class gave us an unfair advantage for his signing over other schools, therefore he was not eligible.

Totally crap. Somone has to take this corrupt group to Federal Court.

[smusic 00]

Well NCAA determined we gained an unfair advantage by taking the class for him and we agreed to abide by NCAA bylaws. Ask stallion how that works out.

[Pony64]

Well NCAA determined we gained an unfair advantage by taking the class for him and we agreed to abide by NCAA bylaws. Ask stallion how that works out.

Understand, but at some point you have to defend yourself against this kind of thing.

[PoconoPony]

SMU taking the class for his credit for the class gave us an unfair advantage for his signing over other schools, therefore he was not eligible.

As I understand, the class was not submitted as part of his transcript and was ultimately not needed for admission. It was ultimately an illegal backup plan should KF neeed it for admission and eligibility.