The Farce Known As The NCAA Committe on Infractions

[Stallion]

In fact, SMU did not get punished for self reporting a violation. It got punished for FAILING TO SELF-REPORT a violation:

With regard telephone call between Maligi, Frazier and administrative assistant in which the administrative assistant "divulged that she had completed the student-athlete' cousework in the on-line class", the NCAA found that "at no time after the phone conversation did the former assistant men's basketball coach REPORT a potential rules violation for what he learned on that phone call to the head men's basketball coach, the institution or the NCAA". Report, p. 15. Larry Brown later discovered the violation and also failed to self report the violation which resulted in his 9 game suspension. The specific finding was "between July 25 and September 9, 2014, the head men's basketball coach failed to REPORT violations in his program after he learned that the student athlete did not complete the online coursework for his class". Report, p. 36. If you ignore NCAA self reporting obligations you will get hung out to dry by the NCAA

[JasonB]

The two things I take issue with on the report are that it said that they took our past infractions from 30 years ago into consideration when determining the judgment, and they didn't inform the school about some of the charges, so the school didn't have the opportunity to counter some of the arguments made.

[CalallenStang]

Let's all beat a dead horse instead of talking about the program in the future

[RGV Pony]

Anyone else think we got screwed out of the #1 ranking and a legit natty after beating Pitt?

[CalallenStang]

Anyone else think we got screwed out of the #1 ranking and a legit natty after beating Pitt?

Yes

[Grant Carter]

I have hated penn state ever since.

[RGV Pony]

Oh for pfs to have existed then

[PlanoStang]

In fact, SMU did not get punished for self reporting a violation. It got punished for FAILING TO SELF-REPORT a violation:

With regard telephone call between Maligi, Frazier and administrative assistant in which the administrative assistant "divulged that she had completed the student-athlete' cousework in the on-line class", the NCAA found that "at no time after the phone conversation did the former assistant men's basketball coach REPORT a potential rules violation for what he learned on that phone call to the head men's basketball coach, the institution or the NCAA". Report, p. 15. Larry Brown later discovered the violation and also failed to self report the violation which resulted in his 9 game suspension. The specific finding was "between July 25 and September 9, 2014, the head men's basketball coach failed to REPORT violations in his program after he learned that the student athlete did not complete the online coursework for his class". Report, p. 36. If you ignore NCAA self reporting obligations you will get hung out to dry by the NCAA

Brown did self report, but it was a month + a little bit later after he learned about it.

from the NCAA:

"While the university noted the head basketball coach received rules education, the panel
noted it did not see a record of steps the he took to establish and ensure a culture of
compliance within his program. Although the head basketball coach did not have direct
knowledge or involvement in the misconduct, he did not follow up on the completion of
coursework.

Upon learning of the misconduct in 2014, the head basketball coach did not report it to the compliance staff, conference office or enforcement staff for more than a month.

When asked by the NCAA enforcement staff about the potential violations, the head basketball
coach initially denied having any information about the conversations with the former
administrative assistant and student-athlete."

In the last sentence the NCAA almost deceitfully gives no statement of the period of time that Brown initially denied, and later recalled the conversations which was a matter of minutes or seconds.

[Smulaw90]

The real purpose of this post was to illustrate the following (not defend, or argue for SMU):

1. In a fairly recent investigation, the COI considered evidence that was outside the record (which it cannot and should not ever use or consider );

2. The COI used evidence outside the record (which influenced their decision) and that evidence was not shared with any of the parties, including lawyers. Therefore, the parties could not defend themselves from statements/articles/opinions contained in that evidence;

3. The COI were lobbied and influenced my members who were not part of the COI;

4. The COI permitted members of the NCAA (who were not part of the COI) to speak and voice their concerns at the hearing on infractions which clearly violated the adopted rules and processes.

Each of these things violate the spirit and letter of the rules and processes which form the very backbone of the investigation.

Whether the rules, processes and punishment have really changed is not determinitive of anything as it relates to these points. If the process was tainted for the USC investigation, even to the point that its own staff questioned the investigation, how can SMU or any other member school have confidence in past, current or future investigations.

Someone asked whether I thought the Asst. Coach was guilty of wrong doing or knew of the improper benefits. I have no idea of that. All I know is that reading the opinion from the Court, the underlying investigation was botched, the process was tainted and the adjudicative body was influenced by outside parties. If these things are true, the findings themselves go out the window and therefore, a public record accusing someone of wrongdoing is defamatory. That is why I believe the case will get settled. The NCAA cannot win this case.

To me, these are not lawyerly points. This is direct evidence of a committee that seeks to justify its predetermined conclusion. That's exactly what the appeal court said and I agree.

[ponyte]

The real purpose of this post was to illustrate the following (not defend, or argue for SMU):

1. In a fairly recent investigation, the COI considered evidence that was outside the record (which it cannot and should not ever use or consider );

2. The COI used evidence outside the record (which influenced their decision) and that evidence was not shared with any of the parties, including lawyers. Therefore, the parties could not defend themselves from statements/articles/opinions contained in that evidence;

3. The COI were lobbied and influenced my members who were not part of the COI;

4. The COI permitted members of the NCAA (who were not part of the COI) to speak and voice their concerns at the hearing on infractions which clearly violated the adopted rules and processes.

Each of these things violate the spirit and letter of the rules and processes which form the very backbone of the investigation.

Whether the rules, processes and punishment have really changed is not determinitive of anything as it relates to these points. If the process was tainted for the USC investigation, even to the point that its own staff questioned the investigation, how can SMU or any other member school have confidence in past, current or future investigations.

Someone asked whether I thought the Asst. Coach was guilty of wrong doing or knew of the improper benefits. I have no idea of that. All I know is that reading the opinion from the Court, the underlying investigation was botched, the process was tainted and the adjudicative body was influenced by outside parties. If these things are true, the findings themselves go out the window and therefore, a public record accusing someone of wrongdoing is defamatory. That is why I believe the case will get settled. The NCAA cannot win this case.

To me, these are not lawyerly points. This is direct evidence of a committee that seeks to justify its predetermined conclusion. That's exactly what the appeal court said and I agree.

OK, you convinced me that the NCAA botched this one investigation. But as others have noted on this board have noted time and time again, The NCAA has been dead on perfect in its investigations of SMU since the beginning of time. Just cause the NCAA got caught screwing up the USC investigation and actually had a court rule against them in the Tarkanian case, doesn't for a second mean they screwed up even one SMU investigation. The only pattern established by the NCAA is one of impeccable investigations with just two minor flaws probably made by rookies (like that Rookie we all know, David Berst).

[EastStang]

First, I note that Boeheim appealed so that he could get Larry Brown's punishment and did (despite more violations). Second, in one respect, the University was a victim as much as the NCAA. Maligi set up this on-line course to get Frazier eligible (not under NCAA rules) but under SMU rules. So, in essence SMU admitted an NCAA qualified athlete that it might not have otherwise admitted. We self-reported, but did so late.

I agree the NCAA COI is corrupt and always have. Who represents the UT athletes that get arrested and who pays for them? Don't know? What rate are they charged compared to other clients of those attorneys? UT has had almost a permanent seat on the COI. In 30 for 30 Eric Dickerson talked about inducements offered by UT, when we were investigated why wasn't UT? That is why with these allegations against UNC, the women's sailing team at UNC should be very worried as should the men's football team at North Carolina A&T. ESPN headline "North Carolina A&T football punished by NCAA."

[StallionsModelT]

Miami.

The defense rests.

[Stallion]

First, I note that Boeheim appealed so that he could get Larry Brown's punishment and did (despite more violations). Second, in one respect, the University was a victim as much as the NCAA. Maligi set up this on-line course to get Frazier eligible (not under NCAA rules) but under SMU rules. So, in essence SMU admitted an NCAA qualified athlete that it might not have otherwise admitted. We self-reported, but did so late.

I agree the NCAA COI is corrupt and always have. Who represents the UT athletes that get arrested and who pays for them? Don't know? What rate are they charged compared to other clients of those attorneys? UT has had almost a permanent seat on the COI. In 30 for 30 Eric Dickerson talked about inducements offered by UT, when we were investigated why wasn't UT? That is why with these allegations against UNC, the women's sailing team at UNC should be very worried as should the men's football team at North Carolina A&T. ESPN headline "North Carolina A&T football punished by NCAA."

Dickerson never said Texas offered him anything. He inferred Texas A&M did

[Puckhead48E]

Loud [deleted] noises!

[ontheedgeofmyseat]

As always, thanks for the clarity and reality check, Stallion. Appreciate your perspectives. We hired Johnny Wadd Holmes to house sit the girls......guess what?!?