Appeal looks less likely

by **EastStang** » Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:51 pm

Dawg, I agree. That's why we have to appeal so that if they uphold the hard sanctions on us and then give a reach around to UNC and Louisville, we will have exhausted our administrative remedies and can then go to Court for breach of contract on behalf of ourselves and the AAC and claim anti-trust and go for the jugular.

by **One Trick Pony** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:05 pm

When are they coming out with Keith snitched t-shirts ? No one's discussing that angle at all which is fairly surprising

by **Stallion** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:03 pm

he was given immunity-should we have told him to lie

didn't really matter anyway. NCAA had access to private computer which showed Larry's assistant logged in using his password and completed all assignments for him.

by **EastStang** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:22 pm

We self reported. Keith didn't run to NCAA and say look what happened. He was told, tell us the truth and we'll be fair with you (and then proceeded to declare him ineligible - lying SOB's). If some other schools ever get caught, you know those that had murders in their program or say a living death penalty in the past, and haven't self-reported, you'll see a hammer on them just to appease the burnt orange Buddha.

by **One Trick Pony** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:34 pm

Sounds like somebody in the last layoffs at SMU decided to get some - didn't have to lie just pretend like you don't know anything to both sides. Everyone lies to some extent -----

a snitch rarely runs to the authorities they almost always are caught doing something â˜† and are given immunity / a deal to inform.

So he thinks he saves himself - hangs the coach and all the guys that are better than him that were smart enough to keep themselves clean or at least appear that way. Naa on the Street that's the unforgivable sin.

by **Balatro Diabolus Ex** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:58 pm

EastStang wrote:We self reported. Keith didn't run to NCAA and say look what happened. He was told, tell us the truth and we'll be fair with you (and then proceeded to declare him ineligible - lying SOB's).

Ketih was ineligible in January because of his grades, he didnt speak to the NCAA until after he already had to sit out a semester.

by **One Trick Pony** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:59 am

We should have signed a prenuptial with him. He burned down the house and is still shopping with an SMU credit card.

Do you think he stays eligible the rest of his days?

by **Charleston Pony** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:41 pm

One Trick Pony wrote:We should have signed a prenuptial with him. He burned down the house and is still shopping with an SMU credit card.

Do you think he stays eligible the rest of his days?

I certainly hope so. If he improves as much from Soph to JR season as he did from FR to Soph, he's going to be a handful for opponents

by **EastStang** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:44 pm

If he was ineligible only for grades why did we have to forfeit games due to his "ineligibility". No, they retroactively declared him ineligible after saying they would be fair to him.

by **Charleston Pony** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:46 pm

EastStang wrote:If he was ineligible only for grades why did we have to forfeit games due to his "ineligibility". No, they retroactively declared him ineligible after saying they would be fair to him.

I thought the forfeited games are part of what we are appealing

by **Stallion** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:16 pm

we had to forfeit games because we didn't rule Keith immediately ineligible when we found out about the violation related to the +1 course. I remember getting on ponyfans and stating the suspension had to be related to his grades at mid-semester because otherwise SMU should have ruled him ineligible immediately and filed a request to reinstate like Auburn did and A&M did with Johnny Manziel. I was kinda wrong and kinda right. I thought we were talking about Kimball not the +1 Course

by **Puckhead48E** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:31 pm

Don't agree. If this were the case, all games he played would have been forfeited. Their statement was that he was eligible but cheated. That is covered by the post season and scholarships. This is why they are appealing the 13-14 forfeited games ruling...because their own report makes it baseless.

Harumph.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

by **CalallenStang** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:49 pm

We aren't forfeiting any games. We would vacate them. Rather than showing up as a loss, it would show up as a never-played. Dumbest NCAA concept ever.

by **Stallion** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:50 pm

what date did we finally disclose a problem with the +1 Course?

Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Re: Appeal looks less likely

Who is online