Gutless -- Typical SMU

[PonyPride]

No checks here, I'm afraid, but feel free to send me one.

Nobody gave me anything. I just read (parts of) the report and tried to decipher it ... which is why I also acknowledged that I might be interpreting it incorrectly and asked for input from the rest of you.

[Topper]

If Turner had been an SMU fan since the days of Ira Terrell he would understand that the reason we get targeted by the NCAA and why they pile it on deep is because we don't challenge them. We let them bully us and they know that we will take it. One more miserable set of sanctions that will set us back until the next time we show a little bit of success when they will zap us again.

[Rebel10]

This point in appealing this is not to try to win it but push the decision on the appeal back far enough to delay the sanction so that the seniors can play in this years tournament. I guess the RGT spin crews are out in force trying to turn it into a we can win situation instead of a we can hold things off (delay) and at least fight for the seniors to try to play in the NCAA Tournament.

[redpony]

turner and casper are spinless pos's and need to leave asap. turner has never had the back of athletics at SMU and this just highlights his lack of commitment to our sports programs.

Please, please if any of you have contributed to his second century campaign please withdraw your funding promise immediately. He will only understand $ and there is a need to show him that athletics count in this university.

[gostangs]

He is not anti athletics, he just doesn't ever want to do anything which puts him out of sync with the various presidents organizations, which of course have zero effect on anything so they are a complete waste of time.

[couch 'em]

The lawyers on here can interpret this better than I can, I expect, so feedback is welcome and appreciated.

In the NCAA report (which can be found here: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files ... cision.pdf ), it says that "Collectively, the panel classifies the head coach's violations as Level I – Aggravated."

The NCAA penalty structure (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Figure19-1.pdf ) dictates that the "Competition Penalties: Postseason Ban" for a Level I - Aggravated violation is 1-2 years.

So in my non-lawyer interpretation, wouldn't an appeal of the postseason ban be fruitless? The rules being what they are, the academic violation automatically brings a ban of either one or two years, and in this case, the NCAA chose to give one. Couldn't the decision to appeal other parts of the sanctions be presented (weakly) as some kind of a compromise?

A couple of years ago, a football player could be kicked out of a game for targeting an opponent's head. The calls were reviewed, and if the officials overturned the decision, the ejection could be rescinded but the penalty yards stood, which was ridiculous (either it was a penalty or it wasn't). But those were the rules at the time, and were enforced as such. In the offseason, the rule was changed so that if the officials determined a penalty had been called incorrectly, the yards would be rescinded along with the ejection. Am I crazy to think this is a similar deal — the rule is insane, but has to be changed instead of challenged?

OK, that's the end of my effort to sound like a lawyer. Feel free to tell me what I'm missing.

I thought you didn't work directly for SMU anymore?

[redpony]

and that jerk turner can smile while UNC and L'ville will walk away virtually scott free. Time for him to retire.

[smupony94]

I'm going to now call you the miserable's

[TidePony]

Markus Kennedy just tweeted: Speechless

[Rebel10]

Markus Kennedy just tweeted: Speechless

That says it all. I imagine the other seniors feel the same way.

[Mustangsabu]

Personally I think you appeal the whole thing, even if you know you won't win on a particular issue. It sends the wrong message in my opinion.

I haven't had time to examine the rules in sufficient detail but I suspect what pony pride says is correct. If that is the case, they need to take the sanction now so next years recruits are not affected. The long term view is best.

None of this makes SMU less spineless and incompetent. The university handled this wrong from day one. And whenever they could get it more wrong they did so.

The great Irish phrase "couldn't run a pissup in a brewery" springs to mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Topper]

Personally I think you appeal the whole thing, even if you know you won't win on a particular issue. It sends the wrong message in my opinion.

I haven't had time to examine the rules in sufficient detail but I suspect what pony pride says is correct. If that is the case, they need to take the sanction now so next years recruits are not affected. The long term view is best.

None of this makes SMU less spineless and incompetent. The university handled this wrong from day one. And whenever they could get it more wrong they did so.

The great Irish phrase "couldn't run a pissup in a brewery" springs to mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes and it sends the wrong message to the players. Message: We don't have your back. Just showing the players that you are willing to fight for them, win or lose, will garner loyalty from not only the current line up but from potential recruits.

[Rebel10]

If that is the case, they need to take the sanction now so next years recruits are not affected. The long term view is best.

So are saying we are going to have a really recruiter class in 2016?

[RGV Pony]

The lawyers on here can interpret this better than I can, I expect, so feedback is welcome and appreciated.

In the NCAA report (which can be found here: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files ... cision.pdf ), it says that "Collectively, the panel classifies the head coach's violations as Level I – Aggravated."

The NCAA penalty structure (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Figure19-1.pdf ) dictates that the "Competition Penalties: Postseason Ban" for a Level I - Aggravated violation is 1-2 years.

So in my non-lawyer interpretation, wouldn't an appeal of the postseason ban be fruitless? The rules being what they are, the academic violation automatically brings a ban of either one or two years, and in this case, the NCAA chose to give one. Couldn't the decision to appeal other parts of the sanctions be presented (weakly) as some kind of a compromise?

A couple of years ago, a football player could be kicked out of a game for targeting an opponent's head. The calls were reviewed, and if the officials overturned the decision, the ejection could be rescinded but the penalty yards stood, which was ridiculous (either it was a penalty or it wasn't). But those were the rules at the time, and were enforced as such. In the offseason, the rule was changed so that if the officials determined a penalty had been called incorrectly, the yards would be rescinded along with the ejection. Am I crazy to think this is a similar deal — the rule is insane, but has to be changed instead of challenged?

OK, that's the end of my effort to sound like a lawyer. Feel free to tell me what I'm missing.

One, see the back and forth between Stallion and another attorney (by proxy) which took place on the board yesterday.

Two, appeal or not, I'm off put that a) if the reason given for not appealing postseason (ie twas academic fraud and that's banned automatically) is in fact the case, b) hasn't that been known all along? The schedule of infractions and penalties has been known since 2013. We've known it was academic fraud or at least solidly on the table since at least a month after it happened. So, all this speculation and wondering and for [deleted] sake MK came back to school instead if cashing checks in Tel Aviv or whatever. If I'm a sth who had questions and ponied up a lot of new cash after being assured or even being told we don't know, or if I'm one of those seniors I'm pissed.

[KWhiz77]

When do we know if we get to play AAC Tourn?