Appeal looks less likely

[SoCal_Pony]

Had this happen last week. Atty said "it's throwing good money after bad but it's your money"

Haven't been reading all these threads, so maybe it has already been posted, but if SMU does nothing and accepts the punishment don't they have to go back to the season ticket holders and offer them some sort of refund? Seems to me that if they don't, given our litigious society, someone will file a claim against SMU, which would be terrible from a PR perspective and one the national media would love to tell.

And to be honest, I can understand why people might want refunds. On the other hand, making some sort of appeal gesture seems to mitigate those claims.

[hoopmanx]

Had this happen last week. Atty said "it's throwing good money after bad but it's your money"

Haven't been reading all these threads, so maybe it has already been posted, but if SMU does nothing and accepts the punishment don't they have to go back to the season ticket holders and offer them some sort of refund? Seems to me that if they don't, given our litigious society, someone will file a claim against SMU, which would be terrible from a PR perspective and one the national media would love to tell.

And to be honest, I can understand why people might want refunds. On the other hand, making some sort of appeal gesture seems to mitigate those claims.

If no one were to transfer, what would ticket holders sue over? Same team, same home schedule

[SoCal_Pony]

Had this happen last week. Atty said "it's throwing good money after bad but it's your money"

Haven't been reading all these threads, so maybe it has already been posted, but if SMU does nothing and accepts the punishment don't they have to go back to the season ticket holders and offer them some sort of refund? Seems to me that if they don't, given our litigious society, someone will file a claim against SMU, which would be terrible from a PR perspective and one the national media would love to tell.

And to be honest, I can understand why people might want refunds. On the other hand, making some sort of appeal gesture seems to mitigate those claims.

If no one were to transfer, what would ticket holders sue over? Same team, same home schedule

It's like purchasing season tickets to the Cowboys this year, with all their buzz, only to find out they are barred from postseason play. I'm sorry, but the value of those season tickets goes down the moment fans learn of the ban.

Let me understand this.

We self-reported.
We will not appeal because punishment is so cut-and-dry, or in the words of RGV, 'why throw good money after bad'.
We withheld this info while asking for not only season ticket renewals, but price increases to boot.

Seems like grounds for litigation IMO. Not by diehards on this board, but by others.

[Grant Carter]

The investigation was public knowledge when people renewed season tickets and none of the home games have changed in any way. You bought tickets for regular season home games not postseason games. I am not saying no one would sue but I cannot see a case.

[SoCal_Pony]

The investigation was public knowledge when people renewed season tickets and none of the home games have changed in any way. You bought tickets for regular season home games not postseason games. I am not saying no one would sue but I cannot see a case.

You are insinuating that the average ticket holder had as much knowledge as SMU, I would dispute that.

I only bring this up within the context of should SMU appeal or not. If their position is there is no reason, we are guilty and why throw good money after bad...within that context I suspect they are opening themselves up to a greater likelihood of some accommodation with disgruntled individuals.

PR hit could be a disaster if not managed properly. I question if we have managed this properly so far.

[SoCal_Pony]

Had this happen last week. Atty said "it's throwing good money after bad but it's your money"

Haven't been reading all these threads, so maybe it has already been posted, but if SMU does nothing and accepts the punishment don't they have to go back to the season ticket holders and offer them some sort of refund? Seems to me that if they don't, given our litigious society, someone will file a claim against SMU, which would be terrible from a PR perspective and one the national media would love to tell.

And to be honest, I can understand why people might want refunds. On the other hand, making some sort of appeal gesture seems to mitigate those claims.

If no one were to transfer, what would ticket holders sue over? Same team, same home schedule

Hoopmanx, 2 simple questions.

As President of this university would you have self-reported this infraction?

What % of Top 40 programs do you think break NCAA rules regarding eligibility & grades?

[smusic 00]

If you gave that much money and didn't ask the questions you'd be a fool. Now if you asked the questions and got a certain 'assurance,' well...

But grant is correct, you bought seats to home games, not post season tournaments.

[SoCal_Pony]

If you gave that much money and didn't ask the questions you'd be a fool. Now if you asked the questions and got a certain 'assurance,' well...

But grant is correct, you bought seats to home games, not post season tournaments.

I think we can all agree that if posters on this board litigated, SMU would have deeper issues.

But you telling me if a few weeks before the start of this season, the Cowboys were banned from post-season play, that it wouldn't have an impact on the value of those season tickets? Stub Hub may disagree with you on that one.

[smusic 00]

Sure the value changed but you can't really successfully sue the guy who sold you your house and then the crackheads moved in next door.

The resale on my tickets is way less but the face value hasn't changed and the games will still all be played.

[SoCal_Pony]

Sure the value changed but you can't really successfully sue the guy who sold you your house and then the crackheads moved in next door.

The resale on my tickets is way less but the face value hasn't changed and the games will still all be played.

You can sue them (and maybe win) if they knew crackheads were moving in and they didn't tell you.

Which leads me back to my appeal question. If SMU accepts this without fighting it, its akin to saying they knew the crackheads were coming and there was nothing SMU could do about it. Now if they appeal it, the message is 'we were as surprised as you were at the punishment, which we feel is unfair given the facts'.

I just don't think SMU can reasonably have it both ways.

[OhioBrownFan]

I'd rather appeal the recruiting restrictions than the scholarships. When was the last time that we used our full compliment of scholarships? We haven't in the past couple of years.

That's not a smart approach. Most teams don't use all of their scholarships. You have an 8 man rotation in most cases, so the other 5 sit idle. And when you have a full bench, players transfer. Recruiting will be much easier with a decent run in the tourney, not by sitting out and hoping that SMU lands the talent it has on roster again in the next 4-5 years. Let's be honest, it's not like the shelf is getting restocked in the next few years right now. 3*s as a foundation aren't going to any final fours or leading to top 5 rankings in the country. And recruiting will only be tougher when LB is gone and we're looking at "SMU basketball" with no-name head coach. Just being real.

SMU basketball looks better if the team is top 20 and going to a Sweet 16 this year.

You said that it's not a smart approach and then said exactly the same thing that I said.

lol, my b. Read your post wrong. Reading comprehension apparently was taking a leave of absence. Carry on.

[2ndandlong]

If you gave that much money and didn't ask the questions you'd be a fool. Now if you asked the questions and got a certain 'assurance,' well...

But grant is correct, you bought seats to home games, not post season tournaments.

They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.

[2ndandlong]

Sure the value changed but you can't really successfully sue the guy who sold you your house and then the crackheads moved in next door.

The resale on my tickets is way less but the face value hasn't changed and the games will still all be played.

You can sue them (and maybe win) if they knew crackheads were moving in and they didn't tell you.

Which leads me back to my appeal question. If SMU accepts this without fighting it, its akin to saying they knew the crackheads were coming and there was nothing SMU could do about it. Now if they appeal it, the message is 'we were as surprised as you were at the punishment, which we feel is unfair given the facts'.

I just don't think SMU can reasonably have it both ways.

That's just not how the appeal system works anymore. The NCAA has disbanded their former infractions and appeal programs and SMU is the first school under this new infractions committee.

ICYMI
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.

[PerunasHoof]

If people are so concerned about spending $500 on basketball tickets (or gasp, even $2,000) and desperately need a refund, they probably can't afford to sue. Just stop complaining. The school doesn't owe you a refund and you aren't going to sue.

[EastStang]

First, I am not sure anyone has sued the NCAA for breach of its own constitution, using an arbitrary and capricious methodology. By agreeing that sanctions would be "reasonable", to me that means proportionally reasonable. Thus, when you have a Maurice Clarett situation or "U" shoe store party and they get little punishment (despite multiple violations), and then for what amounts to one violation, that was self-reported, and the wrong-doers punished, it seems to be that the punishment was arbitrary and capricious and that the entire system of punishments is arbitrary and capricious. Why do you think the Federal Courts and many states came up with sentencing guidelines? Because judges varied in meting out punishments for like offenses. (From probation to suspended sentences to hard time). Those types of examples could be used to bolster an arbitrary and capricious argument. Why not have set guidelines for each school for each type of violation? And thus the lack of them is evidence of arbitrariness.

The NCAA has gone to a violation structure as suggested and this penalty falls in line with that structure unfortunately. I posted a link to guidelines in another thread.

According to their Constitution, penalties must be reasonable. If we are penalized to this degree while UNC or Louisville gets a hand slap or even the same penalty, that if the definition of arbitrary and capricious.