PonyFans.com

Watching Jank’s press conference after the UC game I learned that we had the most scholarships lost due to NCAA - ever.
I need help here- why?
UNC ran a 2 decade academic fraud - nada
Murders have occurred -
FBI stings .....

Seriously, why did we get whacked so bad. Not interested in the “we are SMU and we get picked on argument “

Was there something else going on that would warrant the most scholarships lost ever?

There’s the official part from the NCAA that was part
Of their findings and what I consider to be, the backstory.

The NCAA hammered SMU because they felt Larry Brown was less than forthcoming during their interview. At one point Brown asked to stop and called his attorney and returned with a different answer. Whether the answer was in fact different or a proper clarification depends on which side of the fence you are on. To me, words mean everything. If you use a loose, imprecise word you leave too much to interpretation. The NCAA felt this was LB yanking their chain.
Now the backstory: even if LB was yanking their chain, the punishment was extreme. Although the NCAA could not consider LB’s past, many believe he skipped town from Kansas and UCLA to avoid real punishment and left the institutions to suffer the punishment. With SMU, they finally had a chance to get him.

I’ve read the transcript and the evidence and in my opinion,the NCAA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Nevertheless, unlike Penn State, SMU chose not to appeal the 1 year ban, for the most part accepted the evidentiary findings, and made a limited appeal. I’ve been told, it was best to let sleeping dogs lie.

SMU did appeal the scholarship reductions

I think the answer lies in the new definition in about 2015 of a Level 1 and Level 2 violation and the fact the NCAA found that SMU was involved in academic fraud which is a Level 1 violation. That finding of academic fraud from a legal perspective was most certainly NOT arbitrary or capricious. There was certainly sufficient evidence to support that finding which mandates a Level 1 sanction. SMU was the first school to be adjudicated under the heightened sanctions for Level 1 violations since the violations occurred months after the new provisions went into effect while several other recent NCAA cases involve violations which occurred before new sanction regime went into affect.

PonyLaw90 wrote:There’s the official part from the NCAA that was part
Of their findings and what I consider to be, the backstory.

The NCAA hammered SMU because they felt Larry Brown was less than forthcoming during their interview. At one point Brown asked to stop and called his attorney and returned with a different answer. Whether the answer was in fact different or a proper clarification depends on which side of the fence you are on. To me, words mean everything. If you use a loose, imprecise word you leave too much to interpretation. The NCAA felt this was LB yanking their chain.
Now the backstory: even if LB was yanking their chain, the punishment was extreme. Although the NCAA could not consider LB’s past, many believe he skipped town from Kansas and UCLA to avoid real punishment and left the institutions to suffer the punishment. With SMU, they finally had a chance to get him.

I’ve read the transcript and the evidence and in my opinion,the NCAA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Nevertheless, unlike Penn State, SMU chose not to appeal the 1 year ban, for the most part accepted the evidentiary findings, and made a limited appeal. I’ve been told, it was best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Payback is hell..... which occurs when you are a school- and there are many others- that doesn’t bring a lot of money into the NCAA cash register.....

Here is the NCAA's discussion of the new NCAA framework for Levels 1-4 violations/sanctions which went into affect in 2013-not 2015 which I guesstimated above.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med ... -structure


Among the sanctions available for a Level 1 violation is the reduction of scholarships of 25-50%. I believe the appeal dealt with whether that % applied to a single season or to each year of the entire term of the probation since its really not too clear-and obviously there wasn't any prior precedent under the new sanctions framework. This is where SMU had an arbitrary and capricious argument. In any event, 25%-50% of a 13 man scholarship limit would be a maximum scholarship reduction of 3.25 scholarships to 6.5 scholarships. (NOTE-these percentages apply to numerous sports with different scholarship limits so they don't use exact numbers). The NCAA obviously rounded down the lower sanction range but held in a holding of first impression that it could apply the sanctions during each year of the entire probation term. So 3 scholarships for each of the 3 years of probation = 9 scholarships spread over 3 years

Quite simply Larry Brown has always been two things: 1) a great coach; and 2) a terrible politician. We got a dose of both during his time here at SMU. That's what happened.

The worst thing is that Keith Frazier wasn’t worth all of this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

!@#$ the NCAA. Bastards.

A few questions on this subject:

1. Didn't some of the Louisville hooker scandal post-date the new penalty structure? How in the heck is Louisville eligible for this year's NCAA tournament?

2. Why were Syracuse scholarships reduced? They also managed to take a self imposed NCAA ban when they were like 10-14 and obviously not making the tournament to ease their own sanctions.

3. All of the schools involved in the FBI sting (OK State, Oregon, Arizona, USC, Auburn, Lou, etc) are up for the harsher treatment by the NCAA now? They are all going to get the Jim Adler treatment now? Will the Pac 12 even be able to have a post season tournament when all of their programs are on probation?

PonyTime wrote:3. All of the schools involved in the FBI sting (OK State, Oregon, Arizona, USC, Auburn, Lou, etc) are up for the harsher treatment by the NCAA now? They are all going to get the Jim Adler treatment now? Will the Pac 12 even be able to have a post season tournament when all of their programs are on probation?

Where did you read that Oregon was involved?

Even exaggerated, two out of 12 hardly constitutes "everyone".

CA Mustang wrote:

PonyTime wrote:3. All of the schools involved in the FBI sting (OK State, Oregon, Arizona, USC, Auburn, Lou, etc) are up for the harsher treatment by the NCAA now? They are all going to get the Jim Adler treatment now? Will the Pac 12 even be able to have a post season tournament when all of their programs are on probation?

Where did you read that Oregon was involved?

Even exaggerated, two out of 12 hardly constitutes "everyone".

My bad for adding Oregon in there - it is a different investigation at Oregon- Level II violations, indicating “a significant breach of conduct.” whatever that means. Probably no big deal at all...

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/21841145/oregon-disagrees-level-infraction-assigned-ncaa-some-violations

Am sure Oregon runs their program "By the Book".

Speaking of - if only Jank would have fired off an email to himself to remind himself that Larry Brown had a meeting telling the entire staff to obey all NCAA laws and run everything "By the Book" - - we would be in the clear on all of these issues.

SMU Section F wrote:Quite simply Larry Brown has always been two things: 1) a great coach; and 2) a terrible politician. We got a dose of both during his time here at SMU. That's what happened.

Well, you might say that he's been three things: 1) a great coach; 2) a terrible politician, and 3) a repeat violator of NCAA rules. But we knew that when we talked him into coming here, so what else is new.

geno wrote:

SMU Section F wrote:Quite simply Larry Brown has always been two things: 1) a great coach; and 2) a terrible politician. We got a dose of both during his time here at SMU. That's what happened.

Well, you might say that he's been three things: 1) a great coach; 2) a terrible politician, and 3) a repeat violator of NCAA rules. But we knew that when we talked him into coming here, so what else is new.

Very true, but if he was a better politician, #3 is much less relevant.

Oh my gosh, guys. Stallion answered the question. Can we stop with the speculation?

We got exactly what we deserved under the NCAA's new rules.

The same mandated .25%-.50% Level 1 sanction applied to a football program over 3 years would be catastrophic

Lower End;
Consider: 85 x .25% = 21.25 scholarships per year = 63.75 per 3 year probation

High End;
85 x .50% =42.5 scholarships per year= 127.5 per 3 year probation

It brings home how severe these probation sanctions are and how its considered by the NCAA to be a major probation. Let's see if any football/basketball program gets the same .25%/50% sanction. BTW there are some available mitigation factors that may be considered I believe that can for example reduce those percentages something like 10 or 15%