DMN and NCAA calls us cheaters

[LonghornFan68]

While at UT, Vince Young drove a '76 Gremlin with manual door locks and a spiffy AM radio, which he paid for by sacking groceries at the HEB.

I know, that thing was so gangsta.

[DickerJames]

OU looks into Peterson's car: Oklahoma compliance officials spent five months examining whether star running back Adrian Peterson received special treatment while test driving a Lexus from a Norman-area car dealership.
After several weeks, Peterson returned the car and followed the guidelines laid out by the dealership.

You gotta admit that is some creative cheating and much cleaner than the old "my mamma got the loan for me and the title is in her name" charade. I wonder how many non Adrian Pettersen black men without jobs could test drive a lexus in Norman for several weeks.

[mr. pony]

from NCAA.org

Why does it appear that NCAA investigations take so long?

There are a number of reasons for this. The standard of proof is high for NCAA infractions cases and there must be a reasonable expectation of a finding by the Committee on Infractions in order for the enforcement staff to proceed with an allegation of NCAA rules violations. As a result, the enforcement staff must take the time to obtain complete information from not only individual(s) directly involved in the rules violation (or who have direct knowledge), but sources which can corroborate the information as well. Additionally, much time and effort is spent in evaluating both sides of a case, in order to determine which side is the most credible. The time to take to process a case is often lengthened by the fact the schedules of involved individuals (and sometimes their attorneys) must be accommodated in order for the enforcement staff to conduct an interview. Moreover, it occasionally takes a great deal of time to locate such individuals. Further, in order to properly evaluate information, it is sometimes necessary to interview individuals in a particular order. If there is a delay in interviewing a particular person, this may have a "ripple effect" and result in delaying the interviews of others. In many instances, information is developed during a case which leads to the discovery of additional possible infractions, which broadens the scope of an investigation, necessitating more time to fully explore these additional issues. Finally, institutions frequently lengthen the process by requesting additional time to respond to allegations of NCAA violations made by the enforcement staff.

[jtstang]

from NCAA.org

Why does it appear that NCAA investigations take so long?

There are a number of reasons for this. The standard of proof is high for NCAA infractions cases and there must be a reasonable expectation of a finding by the Committee on Infractions in order for the enforcement staff to proceed with an allegation of NCAA rules violations. As a result, the enforcement staff must take the time to obtain complete information from not only individual(s) directly involved in the rules violation (or who have direct knowledge), but sources which can corroborate the information as well. Additionally, much time and effort is spent in evaluating both sides of a case, in order to determine which side is the most credible. The time to take to process a case is often lengthened by the fact the schedules of involved individuals (and sometimes their attorneys) must be accommodated in order for the enforcement staff to conduct an interview. Moreover, it occasionally takes a great deal of time to locate such individuals. Further, in order to properly evaluate information, it is sometimes necessary to interview individuals in a particular order. If there is a delay in interviewing a particular person, this may have a "ripple effect" and result in delaying the interviews of others. In many instances, information is developed during a case which leads to the discovery of additional possible infractions, which broadens the scope of an investigation, necessitating more time to fully explore these additional issues. Finally, institutions frequently lengthen the process by requesting additional time to respond to allegations of NCAA violations made by the enforcement staff.

Thanks, mr. pony. This really makes me wonder how you and your buddies can justify Tubbs' firing on the basis of "NCAA violations" since the NCAA has not yet found any such violations and apparently won't for a long time. I wonder if SMU's quick trigger will hamper the NCAA's ability to "obtain complete information from ... individual(s) directly involved in the rules violation..."

[PK]

jt, does this statement not mean anything to you..."there must be a reasonable expectation of a finding by the Committee on Infractions in order for the enforcement staff to proceed with an allegation of NCAA rules violations." They have proceeded with an investigation, therefore it would seem that they believe there is a reasonable expectaton of a finding...right?

[jtstang]

jt, does this statement not mean anything to you..."there must be a reasonable expectation of a finding by the Committee on Infractions in order for the enforcement staff to proceed with an allegation of NCAA rules violations." They have proceeded with an investigation, therefore it would seem that they believe there is a reasonable expectaton of a finding...right?

Well SMU says they fired Tubbs for NCAA violations. Are you suggesting now that SMU really fired him for a "reasonable expectation of a finding" PK? And as I read it, SMU does not get to make findings of NCAA violations in any event. Bottom line: either make the reasons known at the time of firing OR hold off in firing until you can. In other words, avoid this appearance of idiocy that has been created. Oops, too late now...

[EastStang]

Actually, we self-reported the violations after an internal investigation, so I suspect that there is a "reasonable expectation of finding a violation" since we just gave them a roadmap. Although I hear they're all UT grads, so they probably don't know how to read it.

[Stallion]

PK your argument is weak. If you fire someone with an enforceable contract and he sues you for breach of contract you damn well better have a reasonable basis to support the stated grounds for the dismissal-jtstang and others simply want to know the reasonable basis for dismissal and at least a general statement of the areas of concern. I as an SMU fan that has been through this for about 30 years now want to know EXACTLY how this happened for about the 8th time. In the law its called a pretext to firing-and juries are known to really punish an employer when they find the stated reasons pretextual or unreasonable. Not to mention it borders on defamation if untrue. Any trial attorney would foam at the mouth at the prospect of getting Turner/Copeland on the witness stand based on the facts presently known about the Ham-burgler episodes.

[The PonyGrad]

What happened for the 8th time? What are you talking about?

[mr. pony]

jt,

go back and read the Copeland story. The NCAA HAS found violations. They were sitting RIGHT THERE during SMU's inquiry. They KNOW what we know, and Copeland said SMU was getting a feeling from the NCAA at the time how they felt about what they were hearing.

[couch 'em]

I've yet to hear a good answer as to why they admit these minor violations but have not released any major ones. If you do not want to tell the whole story, why tell part of it? Only Copeland could have bungled something this badly.

[SMU Football Blog]

I've yet to hear a good answer as to why they admit these minor violations but have not released any major ones. If you do not want to tell the whole story, why tell part of it? Only Copeland could have bungled something this badly.

The argument would be the disclosed violations were not disclosed by SMU, but by Tubbs himself. And I am not sure they have "admitted" these minor violations.

[Buddha]

We've gone way beyond beating this dead horse -- it's in the glue factory. The NCAA's findings will be made public when its investigation is complete. There undoubtedly will be a big outcry one way or the other then, but in the meantime, it's time to move on .... like, to who the next coach will be.
I'm on board with Coach Doherty.

[Stallion]

....beating a dead horse-an unfortunate choice of words.

[PK]

jt, does this statement not mean anything to you..."there must be a reasonable expectation of a finding by the Committee on Infractions in order for the enforcement staff to proceed with an allegation of NCAA rules violations." They have proceeded with an investigation, therefore it would seem that they believe there is a reasonable expectaton of a finding...right?

Well SMU says they fired Tubbs for NCAA violations. Are you suggesting now that SMU really fired him for a "reasonable expectation of a finding" PK? And as I read it, SMU does not get to make findings of NCAA violations in any event. Bottom line: either make the reasons known at the time of firing OR hold off in firing until you can. In other words, avoid this appearance of idiocy that has been created. Oops, too late now...

Come on jt, you know what is meant when they said NCAA violations...as opposed to UP violations or Dallas County violations. It is merely a reference to what set of rules were violated...not that NCAA has agreed with the allegations necessarily...and no, I don't know whether or not there were any violations. Bottom line...we are looking for a new coach. The rest will work it's self out one way or another.