Gutless -- Typical SMU

[gostangs]

i don't think it can, but the ones rationalizing laying over on the post season ban think it could be worse. I think our admin is pumping that also to try to provide more cover. They would never do that. Our worst case was denial post tournament.

[mrydel]

Worst case is losing a year of recruiting during the appeal and then another year of recruiting if the ban is delayed until the next year.

Good BB players do not redshirt. They expect to play right away and want to get all the perks they can right now.

[Hoop Fan]

No way they would add to the punishment. If we are scared of that, then we truly are afraid of our own shadow.

[Rebel10]

Worst case is losing a year of recruiting during the appeal and then another year of recruiting if the ban is delayed until the next year.

Good BB players do not redshirt. They expect to play right away and want to get all the perks they can right now.

Are you saying basketball players can't redshirt? Because they can. So I guess in worse case scenario where the golf team lost a year of recruiting and then another year of the ban if delayed is no problem? Actually the only loss would be the 2016 class, delaying the ban would not affect the 2017 class.

[Rebel10]

only part of the many reasons going into this Business Decision-several others reasons too. But it would be a factor that should be considered

I think it was more about money ie Business Decision imo.

[mrydel]

Worst case is losing a year of recruiting during the appeal and then another year of recruiting if the ban is delayed until the next year.

Good BB players do not redshirt. They expect to play right away and want to get all the perks they can right now.

Are you saying basketball players can't redshirt? Because they can. So I guess in worse case scenario where the golf team lost a year of recruiting and then another year of the ban if delayed is no problem? Actually the only loss would be the 2016 class, delaying the ban would not affect the 2017 class.

I have learned a little about college sports in my years. Of course they can redshirt. But if you are recruiting at the level that we wish to recruit, whether they redshirt or not they are intending to play right away. And I can assure you that playing time and exposure mean a whole lot more to a new recruit than a school sacrificing that recruits future play for players that will be gone when they set foot on campus.

And from what I understand golf had no level one infractions so the post season ban is not automatic. Golf!has justification for appeal because they stand a good chance of getting it overturned. BB, under the current guidelines has no justification to overturn the ban unless they can prove there was no academic fraud which has already be determined there was.

[Rebel10]

My point is suppose the golf team loses the appeal then would your same theory apply?

[mrydel]

If they lose their appeal, yes, the same would and does now apply. But I think they have a very good chance of getting it overturned. If BB had that kind of chance I would want and believe we would appeal. But read the guidelines for the level one infractions, of which we have 4. No way we get all 4 overturned. The only reason to appeal the ban would be to delay the ban for a year and that hurts the future of the program. Not appealing hurts Nic, Markus, and Jordan and that makes me ill. But I want the progress we have made to be sustained and by not appealing the ban it gives us the best chance to do so.

[Rebel10]

The 2016 recruits will get immediate playing time whether the ban is delayed or not. And we still have the TV contract so they will still get exposure.

[mrydel]

But you do not get quality recruits if there is the cloud of continuing NCAA rulings out there.

I am done. This vicious circle of life is making my head hurt.

[Rebel10]

Okay, glad we agree that they will get playing time and TV exposure regardless of the appeal. I guess we will get quality recruits now even though as another poster put it that we are only recruiting at about 50% as of now. We'll see.

[EastStang]

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.

Again, not fruitless if you can at least delay the ban until next year. Man they got this info to you pretty quickly to try to support their position. Turner said himself that it would be February before the NCAA could even hear anything at the PC. Turner has your check ready for you tomorrow.

Here is what I stated in an earlier post
"Level I - Severe. A severe breach of conduct is one or more bylaw violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.

Violations that may constitute a severe breach of conduct include:

Lack of institutional control
Academic fraud
Failure to cooperate in an NCAA investigation
Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether underlying violations are Level I
Head coach responsibility violation resulting from a Level I violation within the program
Benefit provided intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a PSA
3rd party involvement in recruitment where officials knew or should have known of involvement
Intentional violations or reckless indifference to NCAA bylaws
Collective Level II and/or Level III violations.

Okay, let's parse this. Was this single isolated event one that would seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA? First, this assumes that the NCAA has integrity. That is not a given. But even then, I am not sure it reaches that level. Further did the conduct give SMU an impermissible advantage? KF was already eligible, he didn't need this course to get admitted to a Division I school. So, this is a question of fact.

Second of all academic fraud MAY constitute a Level I offense. The rule does not say that Academic fraud IS ALWAYS a Level I offense. Again, isolated, self-reported, action, is not systemic academic fraud (like UNC for example) of the variety that threatens the integrity of the NCAA. So, it goes back to whether this really was a Level I offense. As to whether this will hang over the head of the program for two years, it may. But we are already looking at 9 scholarships hanging over the head of the program for the next three years. I say appeal."

As I stated in other posts, many of the 4 violations are either the same violations couched under a different rule or are factually flawed (like Larry Browns "lie").

As you can see there are a lot of ways of attacking the initial finding that there was in fact a level one violation and that the ban is automatic. The Bylaws trump any rules the committee may throw in there. They are the contract between SMU and the rest of the schools in the NCAA.

[couch 'em]

You could also argue whether an unneeded class is a substantial advantage

[Rebel10]

When interviewed during the investigation, the former head men's golf coach provided false
information. The panel concludes that the unethical conduct violation was Level I.

[Rebel10]

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.

Again, not fruitless if you can at least delay the ban until next year. Man they got this info to you pretty quickly to try to support their position. Turner said himself that it would be February before the NCAA could even hear anything at the PC. Turner has your check ready for you tomorrow.

Here is what I stated in an earlier post
"Level I - Severe. A severe breach of conduct is one or more bylaw violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.

Violations that may constitute a severe breach of conduct include:

Lack of institutional control
Academic fraud
Failure to cooperate in an NCAA investigation
Individual unethical or dishonest conduct, regardless of whether underlying violations are Level I
Head coach responsibility violation resulting from a Level I violation within the program
Benefit provided intended to secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of a PSA
3rd party involvement in recruitment where officials knew or should have known of involvement
Intentional violations or reckless indifference to NCAA bylaws
Collective Level II and/or Level III violations.

Okay, let's parse this. Was this single isolated event one that would seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA? First, this assumes that the NCAA has integrity. That is not a given. But even then, I am not sure it reaches that level. Further did the conduct give SMU an impermissible advantage? KF was already eligible, he didn't need this course to get admitted to a Division I school. So, this is a question of fact.

Second of all academic fraud MAY constitute a Level I offense. The rule does not say that Academic fraud IS ALWAYS a Level I offense. Again, isolated, self-reported, action, is not systemic academic fraud (like UNC for example) of the variety that threatens the integrity of the NCAA. So, it goes back to whether this really was a Level I offense. As to whether this will hang over the head of the program for two years, it may. But we are already looking at 9 scholarships hanging over the head of the program for the next three years. I say appeal."

As I stated in other posts, many of the 4 violations are either the same violations couched under a different rule or are factually flawed (like Larry Browns "lie").

As you can see there are a lot of ways of attacking the initial finding that there was in fact a level one violation and that the ban is automatic. The Bylaws trump any rules the committee may throw in there. They are the contract between SMU and the rest of the schools in the NCAA.

Good points.