Gutless -- Typical SMU

by **Mestengo** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:22 am

Nedward wrote:Try to keep the derogatory "insider MC club" comments to a minimum. The people on those boards are fiercely loyal fans just like many on this website. This situation well and truly sucks...but attacking Allen and the MC doesn't accomplish anything.

We can all agree to disagree but at least try to debate the facts instead of stream of consciousness hypotheticals.

I love jacking with Allen.

by **ponyinNC** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:01 am

You guys assume an apr ban isn't in our future. You guys assume LB stays or Jank is the real deal. You guys assume this thing doesn't derail like every other athletic success at SMU.

I don't buy it. I've been an SMU fan too long and have seen Peruna's Law play out too many times.

We should've appealed. Period.

Watch my friends at UNC - they will get off easier than we did. And will certainly appeal if not. Because they have BALLS

by **JasonB** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:06 am

First, I want to say thank you to secondand long for the transparency. As has been pointed out elsewhere with the "circling the wagons" comment, that has been pretty rare at SMU in the past. So that you for sharing your knowledge of the process with the rest of us.

Second, I would like to encourage further transparency. Call a special meeting at Moody for the members of the Mustang Club, and share the SMU strategy with them. Share what happened and allow for an open discussion of why we didn't appeal the post-season ban. Why it was important to focus on the future than the present. Wht type of reduction in the other penalties do we expect? Keep us in the loop and you will keep more of us as fans so that we don't go back to the "1500".

Third, to the rest of you... Stallion has always been critical of the Mustang Club in the past as well as the SMU administration. I find the fact that he seems to back the decision to not appeal the post season ban very telling. It moves it beyond the "typical SMU bending over" discussion. Appeals aren't filed to change the rules. Appeals are filed to disagree with punishment levied against the stated rules.

by **gostangs** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:31 am

Agree with you jason, but I think you are making my point for me. We should appeal because the penalty did not fit the crime, and those that say it is black and white and can't be altered in an appeal do not understand how the NCAA works through their various committes. We chose not to appeal because the embarrassment of this (to some) outweighed what they saw as the benefit.

by **hoopmanx** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:20 am

ponyinNC wrote:You guys assume an apr ban isn't in our future. You guys assume LB stays or Jank is the real deal. You guys assume this thing doesn't derail like every other athletic success at SMU.

I don't buy it. I've been an SMU fan too long and have seen Peruna's Law play out too many times.

We should've appealed. Period.

Watch my friends at UNC - they will get off easier than we did. And will certainly appeal if not. Because they have BALLS

I don't think anyone is assuming anything. Many just recognize that our success is the result of the commitment we've shown, not necessarily the name players. There are no other Larry Browns out there, but there are plenty of coaches we can attract, who can keep us relevant, so long as we give them the resources Larry has had. IF we want to be good, we can be good, but it starts w/commitment.

by **Hoop Fan** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:10 am

If Larry truly wanted to take the punishment now and not risk delay, I defer to him. but is that his true opinion or the party line? Hard to know unless you are his wife, haha. I just think once you are appealing, you should appeal the totality of the sanctions. Beg for mercy. Not this partial appeal. The other thing is when are we ever going to get Michigan and gonzaga type top teams back to moody??? We have rendered those games virtually meaningless by not appealing postseason. Also let the unc situation play out more which will put pressure on the committee.

by **Hoop Fan** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:22 am

One more thing. Whose to say the ncaa would not have ruled on the appeal before selection Sunday? It would be better to play the whole season with hope and then get nixed last minute than to play a whole season with no hope and little to play for. Think about that. Getting denied last minute would be no different than the snub two years ago or the call last year. Not program killers either one. I just think you roll the dice not roll over.

by **mrydel** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:46 am

And how do you recruit for next year when those recruiting against you are telling the kids that there is a chance the sanction could be delayed until they are in school? We appealed the others because they were not level one infractions. We did not appeal the ban because it would hinder recruiting, and most likely, under the new guidelines not be dropped, and under the new guidelines could be increased from a one year ban to a 2 year ban.

Based on what I have seen and read (and I will admit it is not in depth) I do not think we had much option if we wish to continue a strong program. Yes we might have been able to salvage a tourney possibility for Nic, Markus, and Jordan, but it would have set us backwards by a few years to a point of not being able to sustain what has been begun. Those needing immediate gratification will not find it here. We screwed up, got caught, have to pay for it. And we owe just as much to the young men that have committed to us as those who will be leaving either during or after this year.

by **ponyscott** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:51 am

mrydel wrote:And how do you recruit for next year when those recruiting against you are telling the kids that there is a chance the sanction could be delayed until they are in school? We appealed the others because they were not level one infractions. We did not appeal the ban because it would hinder recruiting, and most likely, under the new guidelines not be dropped, and under the new guidelines could be increased from a one year ban to a 2 year ban.

Based on what I have seen and read (and I will admit it is not in depth) I do not think we had much option if we wish to continue a strong program. Yes we might have been able to salvage a tourney possibility for Nic, Markus, and Jordan, but it would have set us backwards by a few years to a point of not being able to sustain what has been begun. Those needing immediate gratification will not find it here. We screwed up, got caught, have to pay for it. And we owe just as much to the young men that have committed to us as those who will be leaving either during or after this year.

As much as I hate to say it, I have to agree with this assessment mrydel. I have read all the posts on all the blogs and have come to the same conclusion. Get some scoli's, the official visits, the unofficial visits back and get on with it.

by **Hoop Fan** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:25 pm

No instant gratification in being an SMU fan. As for recruiting, I feel like you can find 2 or 3 good men. It's not like football. You might have to go for the Aussies one of which has a sister at SMU. Also have to watch apr. I feel like brown can find a few good players.

by **mrydel** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:30 pm

Have you noticed how we have struck out on every recruit in the past 6 months or so? Get close on all but unable to close. You would think we could get one by accident. We need the cloud removed.

I will say again as I did somewhere earlier. If we could appeal and get an answer in 30 days with no chance of a worse penalty I would be all over it. But dragging this out for a year with little chance of winning and a slight chance of it being worse, I just do not see the logic.

I have also heard if an athlete transfers and is in good standing, it does not affect your APR. we just need to be sure everyone stays in class and that should not be an issue. If they want to transfer you just let them know you will cooperate if they keep their classes in order.

by **Hoop Fan** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:41 pm

Dashawn McDowell committed in September. All of this is very debatable but could also make the case that we have not replaced maligi as some have said above so we are not recruiting at full capacity. The cloud hurt. The sanctions hurt. It's all just a matter of approach. Hard to imagine lots of other schools wouldn't appeal in same situation. I'd bet at least half would, so no way this is clear cut.

by **gostangs** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:44 pm

You get this team to the tournament no matter what. I maintain our recruiting drop off is more due to personnel than any NCAA black cloud. Guess we will find out soon. If we start landing big names again i was wrong.

by **Stallion** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:06 pm

On what basis are some of you suggesting that the penalty can be increased by the appellate panel? That's very unusual. Might even be a violation of due process to have an appellate panel increase penalty. Of course, if any school does not fully disclose then an investigation can be reopened but that would go back to the investigative staff

by **mrydel** » Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:09 pm

Stallion wrote:On what basis are some of you suggesting that the penalty can be increased by the appellate panel? That's very unusual. Might even be a violation of due process to have an appellate panel increase penalty. Of course, if any school does not fully disclose then an investigation can be reopened but that would go back to the investigative staff

I read it somewhere in one of the statements made Seemed unusual to me also and may well not be true but I did see it somewhere.