Effective Date of New NCAA Rules Holding Coaches Accountable

[Stallion]

the problem is that the NCAA proved that the correspondence course was taken on the personal computer of an SMU employee based on metadata

[CalallenStang]

the problem is that the NCAA proved that the correspondence course was taken on the personal computer of an SMU employee based on metadata

Right but that concluded July 3, 2013

[Dutch]

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

the problem with that is, they would have asked Keith about it. a room full of litigators/interrogators and a 20 year old kid, who as we all know has the mental makeup of a kid in Junior High. they'd get it out of him he didn't take that class. that's how they always poke holes in these cases. then they use that to catch other people slipping up (ask LB).

[Dutch]

the problem is that the NCAA proved that the correspondence course was taken on the personal computer of an SMU employee based on metadata

Right but that concluded July 3, 2013

still would have been a violation of the 5 year probation we were on from Doh. i believe that's the NCAA's argument on that. they're using the September 1, 2013 date as their defense in the 'Cuse case saying that they only considered events AFTER that date when determining the punishment as to why ours are similar in future scope (ignoring the forfeited games and fines they had to pay for the decade prior). loopholes, loopholes and more loopholes to create ambiguity so as to have complete discretion when administering sanctions to different institutions.

[CalallenStang]

the problem is that the NCAA proved that the correspondence course was taken on the personal computer of an SMU employee based on metadata

Right but that concluded July 3, 2013

still would have been a violation of the 5 year probation we were on from Doh. i believe that's the NCAA's argument on that. they're using the September 1, 2013 date as their defense in the 'Cuse case saying that they only considered events AFTER that date when determining the punishment as to why ours are similar in future scope (ignoring the forfeited games and fines they had to pay for the decade prior). loopholes, loopholes and more loopholes to create ambiguity so as to have complete discretion when administering sanctions to different institutions.

The NCAA stated that SMU did not violate the terms of the probation which ended March 2013

[Junior]

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.

I'd be ok with this.