A Few Truths...

[RyanSMU98]

In the meantime, we will assess our options while continuing to work harder each day to make SMU students, faculty and fans proud of us and our basketball program. We are proud to play for them as they make Moody Coliseum the best arena in college basketball.

Interesting last couple of sentences. Does this mean the team itself is exploring a way to challenge the ban? Not sure how that would work exactly.

[Puckhead48E]

Louisville is going to be tough to prove, but UNC is going to raise some serious issues if the ncaa doesn't come down hard.

You realize the talking heads have already started spreading the narrative, and you know it has inside support, that UNC is an academic scandal that should be handled by the accrediting authorities, not the NCAA. Unless UNC loses their regional accreditation, thus forcing the NCAA to take action, I don't see much impact on current students. Impact will likely be loss of wins from prior seasons...which we know means nothing when you are a big program because no one considers those punishments binding.

Fun part is...while it seems the actions took place before the 1 August 2014 NCAA rule change date, they may have been attempting to cover this up after the fact, making it punishable under the new rules just as our situation was.

[EastStang]

If we committed academic fraud to keep a student eligible who would have been eligible anyway and that was a level 1 violation, then UNC had hundreds of level one violations. Louisville, you've got ex-players and recruits who went to other schools ratting them out.

[bsturman]

Penn State hide a rapist and the sanctions were quietly lifted, the rules that apply to us dont apply to the blue blood money making programs. Pointless to appeal as nothing would happen and somehow UNC will slip through the cracks...

[Puckhead48E]

If we committed academic fraud to keep a student eligible who would have been eligible anyway and that was a level 1 violation, then UNC had hundreds of level one violations. Louisville, you've got ex-players and recruits who went to other schools ratting them out.

I am a bit confused by this. If the NCAA stated themselves in their report that he was always eligible and the course wasn't required, then how did it rise to the level of offense requiring punishment as a level one violation? His HS transcript was never officially determined to be invalid so that didn't impact it. They determined and still contend that he was eligible the entire time until his grades dropped and he lost his eligibility in December of 2014 post-first semester. They determined he was involved in a class where grades were achieved fraudulently at an online school for HS credits that was not associated in any official or unofficial way with SMU. The only link that was stated as evidence in the report involved the secretary and assistant coach at varying levels. So....it was after he committed and while he was eligible but not while he was a student and at another institution for a class at a grade level that he had already graduated from. Punishment is deserved for the cheating...but I am confused as to why this is a level 1 violation. Anyone help here?!?

[Stallion]

simply the rule says that if you have a violation that produces or INTENDED to produce a competitive advantage then its a Level 1 violation

doesn't actually have to produce an competitive advatage

[RGV Pony]

simply the rule says that if you have a violation that produces or INTENDED to produce a competitive advantage then its a Level 1 violation

doesn't actually have to produce an competitive advatage

Doesn't the rule say substantial and some other superlative advantage

[Stallion]

yeah I think- I just didn't want to search for our long discussion on this the other day. The point is that it is the intention not necessarily the fact of a competitive advantage

[RGV Pony]

If the drafters included superlatives why include them unless they are prerequisite to the offense.

[Stallion]

substantial does have meaning

Pony94 intending to offer a beer on the Boulevard to a recruit would be minor. Intending to commit academic fraud to get KF qualified would be substantial

[smupony94]

substantial does have meaning

Pony94 intending to offer a beer on the Boulevard to a recruit would be minor. Intending to commit academic fraud to get KF qualified would be substantial

Hot volleyball player recruit? 18 year old of course

[Stallion]

harmless violation

[Mestengo]

[PonyPride]

Post season ban I assume that means we cannot play in the AAC Tournament this year. Right?

Correct.