DMN and NCAA calls us cheaters

by PK » Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:52 pm

Stallion wrote: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.

$600,000 says he isn't going to sue...which begs the question, if the allegations are not true why accept the "hush your mouth" payment when suing would have paid you much more. My only point to jt was that the NCAA does not go to the trouble of investigating an allegation unless there is a "reasonable expectation of a finding" of violations. Once again to refer to them as NCAA violations is a matter of defining what set of rules were believed to be violated.

by **Blunt Pony** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:59 pm

jtstang wrote:
PK wrote: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...

Look, they fired the guy because of poor performance on the court. The violations only gave them an easy out. If he had not committed any violations we would be 6 months away from watching another pathetic basketball season begin. He is gone and SMU will be better for it. For someone who constantly harps on the fact that no one really cares about what goes on at SMU you sure seem to think this will be damaging to the program. I don't think anyone will remember this in a couple of weeks when the new hire is made.

by **jtstang** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:29 pm

PK wrote: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.

And I hate to think you, a well known SMU supporter, are satisfied with that.

by **jtstang** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:31 pm

Blunt Pony wrote:Look, they fired the guy because of poor performance on the court.

Well, why the hell didn't they say that?

by **jtstang** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:33 pm

mr. pony wrote: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.

Well then please explain the point of your NCAA regulation non-sequitor about how long it takes them to investigate, etc.

by **Buckethead** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:15 pm

I got this off of the CUSA board. This is pretty funny. The OSU people are having alot of fun with the dealership that provided the car for Pettrerson.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OKstate fans definately know how to entertain themselves during the offseason.

http://oklahomastate.rivals.com/showmsg ... d=&style=2

by **MFFL02** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:16 pm

Good stuff. We should start giving prospective players cars to entice them to come to SMU. Is it cheating if everyone else is doing it?

by **abezontar** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:56 pm

ONly if there is a box of detergent in the trunk

by **tmustangp** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:57 pm

newest news from the dallas morning news....again we buy detergent OU does this...

Oklahoma officials are expected to tell the NCAA Committee on Infractions today in Park City, Utah, that adequate changes were made since it was discovered the men's basketball program made approximately 550 impermissible phone calls to recruits.
That was OU's public stance during the last year when it was announced that former coach Kelvin Sampson and his staff were under investigation.

shocking that this is on the dmn... who wants to bet that belo is a little biased against smu and OU

by PK » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:18 am

jtstang wrote:
PK wrote: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.

And I hate to think you, a well known SMU supporter, are satisfied with that.

I don't know about you jt, but they can can my [deleted] any time they want to where I work. Granted, I'm not under contract, but the fact is no one on this board knows what Tubb's contract said...so, if Tubbs was fired without justification he should have sued as Stallion suggested. Since he did not, it would seem that just perhaps there was indeed cause. You can say the $600,000 was a payoff to be quiet about it, but I would think a big juicy law suit would be worth a lot more. I think Tubbs was a good guy, but I also think he was in over his head. His DISD buds helped him get the job, but did not help him keep it. I would be a lot more disturbed if they booted him out without paying off his contract. The NCAA will finish their investigation and make their report at which time everyone on this board can throw whatever stones they want at whomever they deem deserving. What you are doing now is no better than what you accuse SMU of doing. You are making accusations of unfair treatment, etc. with no more evidence than your opinion and what you have read in the newspaper...hardly what you could call hard evidence. You guys need to calm down and let the process work as intended and then, when the final report is in, get your panties in a wad if warranted.

by **jtstang** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:07 am

PK wrote:I would be a lot more disturbed if they booted him out without paying off his contract. The NCAA will finish their investigation and make their report at which time everyone on this board can throw whatever stones they want at whomever they deem deserving. What you are doing now is no better than what you accuse SMU of doing. You are making accusations of unfair treatment, etc. with no more evidence than your opinion and what you have read in the newspaper...hardly what you could call hard evidence. You guys need to calm down and let the process work as intended and then, when the final report is in, get your panties in a wad if warranted.

The lack of "hard evidence" is SMU's creation. The facts on which my opinion are based are that Tubbs was fired, and the only explanation in the public domain, other than a vague reference to undisclosed "violations" offered by a lame duck AD, are burgers and Cheer. Those are the facts known as of today, three weeks after his firing.

Since you are fine with the way SMU handled this, I'll ask you the same question your buddies have been unable to answer. Please tell me the last time a d-1 coach was fired where the reasons for his firing were not released to the public concurrently. I think SMU's botch job is a first.

by **McClown27** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:38 am

PK wrote:I don't know about you jt, but they can can my [deleted] any time they want to where I work. Granted, I'm not under contract, but the fact is no one on this board knows what Tubb's contract said...so, if Tubbs was fired without justification he should have sued as Stallion suggested. Since he did not, it would seem that just perhaps there was indeed cause. You can say the $600,000 was a payoff to be quiet about it, but I would think a big juicy law suit would be worth a lot more. I think Tubbs was a good guy, but I also think he was in over his head. His DISD buds helped him get the job, but did not help him keep it. I would be a lot more disturbed if they booted him out without paying off his contract. The NCAA will finish their investigation and make their report at which time everyone on this board can throw whatever stones they want at whomever they deem deserving. What you are doing now is no better than what you accuse SMU of doing. You are making accusations of unfair treatment, etc. with no more evidence than your opinion and what you have read in the newspaper...hardly what you could call hard evidence. You guys need to calm down and let the process work as intended and then, when the final report is in, get your panties in a wad if warranted.

Great post, couldn't agree with you more.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:48 am

I fail to see the legal theory here. What would Tubbs sue for? Breach of contract? He is getting paid; he has no damages. You don't get punitives for breach of contract.

Defamation? What disparaging comment has any SMU official actually made?

I am just one lawyer and I don't have a copy of Texas Causes of Action handy. I am sure the other lawyers can enlighten me.

by **jtstang** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:55 am

SMU Football Blog wrote:Well of course he's not gonna sue, unless he can put together some kind of discrimination claim, which would fail but at least be fun to watch SMU squirm under the spotlight. Too bad he doesn't try to sue Max Williams for tortious interference or something, but he'd have a tough time with that as well, having accepted that burger money. SMU should ban Max from all activities regardless, but SMU is also a gutless wonder and nothing will happen to him.

My question still stands: can anybody confirm that SMU is not the first school ever to fire a coach with a press release and everything and NOT disclose the full reasons for the firing??

No, firing with only a press release has been done before, although I can't name a specific example off the top of my head.

My question is, as an alumnus and a fan, why would it be "fun to watch SMU squirm"? Hasn't the school done enough of that?

Personally, I think it would be a lot more fun to make bowl reservations, see the new basketball facility, watch the soccer teams win national championships after playing in the new and improved facility, see swim coaches Steve Collins and Eddie Sinnott destroy the competition when they're able to recruit in their new first-class natatorium, etc.

by **ponyboy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:57 am

Stallion wrote: 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.

There's no breach of contract if you pay the man. The contract was for the money not the work.

DMN and NCAA calls us cheaters

Who is online