"Lack of Institutional Control"

by **Treadway21** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:41 pm

That judgment was made absolutely clear in the recently adopted legislation and provides that serious repeat violators are to receive heavy penalties.

That is a joke. Many repeat violators did not receive heavy penalties, especially if they make the NCAA lots of money. There is an undeniable inequity on how the NCAA deals with its institutions e.g. Florida State being allowed to use the Seminole mascot and North Dakota not being able to use the fighting souix nickname (no mascot), though UND has the support of the Souix tribe.

by **smudad** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:04 pm

Almost by definition, SMU did not deserve the DP if others have been eligible and not received it. You cannot have a rule (a fair one at least) that applies to only one school. And, U of M may be worse. Their off-field misbeahvior carries over to the field and is winked at - by all the school officials. Public, sanctioned criminal behavior. What could be worse?

by **WildBillPony** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:29 pm

JT/Stallion .....your name David Berst by any chance?

by **Stallion** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:26 pm

No but we are lawyers that understand how to apply obvious facts to a legal standard. We've explained about a zillion times why SMU's actions easily met the NCAA standard for the Death Penalty and why others have not. You just don't want to accept the distinguishing facts. No one has ever shown ANY facts showing a school under probation (much less 4 in 11 years) for lack of institutional control which had its President or Board Of Govenors repudiate the NCAA and authorize the continuance of payments to players to its Payroll.

by **mrydel** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:29 pm

Stallion wrote:No but we are lawyers that understand how to apply obvious facts to a legal standard. We've explained about a zillion times why SMU's actions easily met the NCAA standard for the Death Penalty and why others have not. You just don't want to accept the distinguishing facts. No one has ever shown ANY facts showing a school under probation (much less 4 in 11 years) for lack of institutional control which had its President or Board Of Govenors repudiate the NCAA and authorize the continuance of payments to players to its Payroll.

If someone could make this a sticky maybe we could quit having this argument monthly.

by **WildBillPony** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:09 pm

First you have to look at an instutution to establish distinguishing facts. If you don't look you don't see. Selective inofrcement. Of course it is now 22 years later and it is a whole knew ball game. 31 years ago if the NCAA had continued to look at other programs like it did SMU's what would they have found? That is the whole point Stallion. It was easy to go after SMU. The big guys got by with it 22 years ago and continue to do so today because the NCAA does not have the balls or the encentive to enforce their rules. BCS is incharge, not teh NCAA. I believe it got this way because the NCAA lost control 31 years ago.

by **Stallion** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:13 pm

Evidence supporting the Taint Fair Defense and the Everyone Else is Doing It Defense are not admissible. Its irrelevant. The issue is whther the evidence supports the finding of a lack of institutional control at SMU. It did. That simply can't be disputed by rational analysis. SMU deserved what it got. No President or Board of Govenors has repeated that blunder.

by **WildBillPony** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:16 pm

All is fair in love and war right Stallion? Does not make it right. If you want to talk the truth, don't talk about it in the court of law. That is not where you will find it. That aside, I knew the answer to this at one time but have forgotten. The NCCA infractions committee follows the something similar to the FRCRP, FRCVP? It seems to me that what ever it is that they do follow fairness should always be paramount. However, Stallion if you don't agree, please explain.

by **Stallion** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:41 pm

you really don't know what you are talking about if you believe the due process allowed by the NCAA requires them to consider evidentiary irrelevant facts to the legal issue which is being considered.

by **WildBillPony** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:43 pm

Did you really answer the question? I really don't think you can given the stance you have taken.

by **Stallion** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm

the NCAA is governed by principles of due process which would not allow the defenses you are talking about. I answered it-your argument is irrelevant.

by **WildBillPony** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:08 pm

O.K I know I am belaboring the point...but how is fairness irrelavant? Seems to me it is always relevant...a least it should be.

by **Stallion** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:05 pm

If You are arrested by the DPD for killing MrExcitement1968 because he wouldn't stop ringing a Cowbell in your ear at the SMU/Sam Houston State Monument game do you think a Court would allow you defend yourself with evidence that someone else killed Big10PonyFan because he annoyed you with constant babbling about Woody Hayes in a separate offense but the police didn't catch him. Your defense would be irrelevant to the crime of lilling MrEcitement1968. You and I would cry Taint Fair but the evidence wouldn't be admissible.

by **MrMustang1965** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:01 pm

Stallion wrote:If You are arrested by the DPD for killing MrExcitement1968 because he wouldn't stop ringing a Cowbell in your ear at the SMU/Sam Houston State Monument game do you think a Court would allow you defend yourself with evidence that someone else killed Big10PonyFan because he annoyed you with constant babbling about Woody Hayes in a separate offense but the police didn't catch him. Your defense would be irrelevant to the crime of lilling MrEcitement1968. You and I would cry Taint Fair but the evidence wouldn't be admissible.

Of all the people on pf.com, what's your reason for picking me as an example...especially in a murder? :shock:

by **WildBillPony** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:29 am

Stallion wrote:If You are arrested by the DPD for killing MrExcitement1968 because he wouldn't stop ringing a Cowbell in your ear at the SMU/Sam Houston State Monument game do you think a Court would allow you defend yourself with evidence that someone else killed Big10PonyFan because he annoyed you with constant babbling about Woody Hayes in a separate offense but the police didn't catch him. Your defense would be irrelevant to the crime of lilling MrEcitement1968. You and I would cry Taint Fair but the evidence wouldn't be admissible.

So, if a professor is giving a test and the entire class is cheating, one student fails becuase he cheats. But wait, the professor knew of others cheating but did nothing about it or even bothered to look at the others while the cheating was happening. I would say that the professor owes some accountability to the other cheaters. That is how I see the NCAAA. It owed accountablility to all members of the organization when it was looking at the improprities of SMU. Look at the context in which they took place.

"Lack of Institutional Control"

Who is online