The Definition of Lack Of Institutional Control

[expony18]

nobody can show that kind of egregious conduct happened with any other school.

"Yeah that's going to be a problem. It's gonna be a problem for them. This a clear violation of your rights as a consumer. It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous. "
[/img]

[EastStang]

Most teams do come to Jesus, but many teams that are death penalty eligible dodge the chair. Alabama was death penalty eligible and cleaned up their act for now. After they're off probation, they'll do something else. Minnesota was death penalty eligible, but fired the tutor who was doing all the work for the students and thus they were let off the hook. OU may yet get into the griddle. They were on probation, had seven previous violations and yet the car dealer was paying players for not working there.

[jtstang]

Does the name Alabama mean anything to anybody?

Yes, but they fell short of SMU, in particular with respect to the involvement of the governing body of the school. From the NCAA's most recent report on Alabama dated Feb 2002:

Because the university is a two-time repeat violator with prior infractions cases in 1995 and 1999, because the recruiting violations set forth in this report were some of the most serious in recent memory and because the university bears some responsibility for the special status athletics representatives A and C enjoyed within the athletics program, the committee very seriously considered imposing repeat-violator penalties pursuant to Bylaw 19.6.2.3.2-(a) and, in particular, prohibiting outside competition (the so called “death penalty”) in the sport of football. Although the committee ultimately declined to impose a prohibition on outside competition, the committee emphasizes that this was a very close question greatly influenced by the particular circumstances of this case and of the university’s infractions history. On the one occasion in which the "death penalty" was imposed, the penalized institution also had a series of major infractions cases. In that instance however, there was a demonstrated blatant disregard for NCAA rules that permeated through out the entire university and its governance structure. In this case, by contrast, university officials cooperated fully with the enforcement staff, often at great personal criticism, in a diligent effort to develop complete information regarding the violations. Had this candor and cooperation been lacking, the death penalty (as well as substantial penalties in addition to those imposed in this case) would have been imposed.

[PK]

Yada, Yada, Yada...Is that the way it works in the criminal justice system? I've seen people who were too stupid to even know what they were doing get jail time because ignorance is no excuse. So the secret is to fain igorance and cooperate and get your hand slapped. The problem with the DP is that the innocent get hurt more than the guilty. At SMU, the players involved got to transfer somewhere else and keep playing. The coaches went on to other jobs. Ahhhh, but the jt's of SMU got to go to a soccer game for home coming. So jt, you are in agreement with the NCAA on their Alabama decision?

[abezontar]

Were those stupid persons rich or poor?

[Stallion]

yes that is the way it is supposed to work in the legal justice system. The Jury is given a charge and instructions and asked to answer questions based on the evidence and the legal standards the jury is instructed on. That's the problem-many of you guys are making judgment based on your own thoughts of what is right or wrong and the relative weight and severity of the accusations instead of focusing on the proper legal standard which must be found to impose the Death Penalty ie whether SMU was found to have a lack of institutional control. The evidence is overwhelming and in fact uncontradicted that SMU exhibited a lack of institutional control. I don't see ANY evidence even remotely similar in the Alabama case re lack of institutional control. In fact, in the Alabama case they specifically found that there was cooperation from the Alabama administration. Why is this so hard to get through your thick skulls.

[PK]

Were those stupid persons rich or poor?

A rhetorical question no doubt.

[PK]

yes that is the way it is supposed to work in the legal justice system. The Jury is given a charge and instructions and asked to answer questions based on the evidence and the legal standards the jury is instructed on. That's the problem-many of you guys are making judgment based on your own thoughts of what is right or wrong and the relative weight and severity of the accusations instead of focusing on the proper legal standard which must be found to impose the Death Penalty ie whether SMU was found to have a lack of institutional control. The evidence is overwhelming and in fact uncontradicted that SMU exhibited a lack of institutional control. I don't see ANY evidence even remotely similar in the Alabama case re lack of institutional control. In fact, in the Alabama case they specifically found that there was cooperation from the Alabama administration. Why is this so hard to get through your thick skulls.

You still don't read too well which is unusual for an attorney. The point I was making was that all the administration has to do is fain ignorance and "cooperate" with the NCAA and they get a hand slap. Do you really think these sneaky coaches and alums are so good at what they do that the administration of Alabama doesn't know how they are getting these great recruits...or is it that they just don't want to know? There is no argument of whether or not SMU deserved what it got, but whether or not others may have deserved it at some point as well. If the "institutional control" issue is the only determining factor, then every one now knows how to get out of jail free...pretend you didn't know (ignorance) and cooperate. What kind of institutional control is ignorance?

[PlanoStang]

Does the name Alabama mean anything to anybody?

Yes, but they fell short of SMU, in particular with respect to the involvement of the governing body of the school. From the NCAA's most recent report on Alabama dated Feb 2002:

Because the university is a two-time repeat violator with prior infractions cases in 1995 and 1999, because the recruiting violations set forth in this report were some of the most serious in recent memory and because the university bears some responsibility for the special status athletics representatives A and C enjoyed within the athletics program, the committee very seriously considered imposing repeat-violator penalties pursuant to Bylaw 19.6.2.3.2-(a) and, in particular, prohibiting outside competition (the so called “death penalty”) in the sport of football. Although the committee ultimately declined to impose a prohibition on outside competition, the committee emphasizes that this was a very close question greatly influenced by the particular circumstances of this case and of the university’s infractions history. On the one occasion in which the "death penalty" was imposed, the penalized institution also had a series of major infractions cases. In that instance however, there was a demonstrated blatant disregard for NCAA rules that permeated through out the entire university and its governance structure. In this case, by contrast, university officials cooperated fully with the enforcement staff, often at great personal criticism, in a diligent effort to develop complete information regarding the violations. Had this candor and cooperation been lacking, the death penalty (as well as substantial penalties in addition to those imposed in this case) would have been imposed.

That's the going excuse, and procedure nowdays It's for both the
ncaa, and the governing body of the school.

When the ncaa hints you're gonna get investigated, BARE ALL, plead
ignorance, and above all repentence

[Stallion]

I really don't give a damn what point you were making PK because your point is irrelevant, immaterial and hearsay and your speculation wouldn't be admitted as evidence unless you have ANY evidence that the Alabama Board of Trustees, the President of the university or other responsible officer in the administration played any role in the cheating scandal or in failing to investigate or cooperate with the NCAA. So why don't you tell us the evidence on which you make the conclusory statements:____________________________________. Until one of you geniuses can fill in that blank then you have presented what is called "no evidence" and any legal tribunnal would be required to find there was "no evidence" to support any finding of lack of institutional control.

[FordtoTolbert]

Stallion...were the the kid everybody beat the [deleted] out of in 5th. grade??

[PK]

I really don't give a damn what point you were making PK because your point is irrelevant, immaterial and hearsay and your speculation wouldn't be admitted as evidence unless you have ANY evidence that the Alabama Board of Trustees, the President of the university or other responsible officer in the administration played any role in the cheating scandal or in failing to investigate or cooperate with the NCAA. So why don't you tell us the evidence on which you make the conclusory statements:____________________________________. Until one of you geniuses can fill in that blank then you have presented what is called "no evidence" and any legal tribunnal would be required to find there was "no evidence" to support any finding of lack of institutional control.

Gee counselor...where is your evidence they didn't do those things. Where is your evidence that their "investigation" was thorough and complete. Basically...you can cheat all you want as long as when you are caught you beat yourself like Basil Fawlty, conduct an "investigation" and then "cooperate" with the NCAA. If Alabama would have had institutional control then there should have been no violation. It is a semantics game played to protect the big boys and you f...ing know it. BTW, counselor, do they execute you a different way if you confess to the murder than if you don't?

[jtstang]

I guess the opposite of feigning ignorance as PK puts it is to be too arrogant or stupid or both to feign ignorance, which is apparently the standard for getting the death penalty. In fact, SMU did the opposite of feigning ignorance, the trustees in question, including Clements, fully admitted the wrongdoing for which SMU had been probated numerous times before not only continued, but was blessed by the heirarchy of the athletic department and the entire university. Lack of institutional control by definition.

PK, if you are suggesting that you can avoid a finding of lack of institutional control by feigning ignorance and cooperating with the NCAA, then SMU still loses under that standard.

[expony18]

I really don't give a damn what point you were making PK because your point is irrelevant, immaterial and hearsay and your speculation wouldn't be admitted as evidence unless you have ANY evidence that the Alabama Board of Trustees, the President of the university or other responsible officer in the administration played any role in the cheating scandal or in failing to investigate or cooperate with the NCAA. So why don't you tell us the evidence on which you make the conclusory statements:____________________________________. Until one of you geniuses can fill in that blank then you have presented what is called "no evidence" and any legal tribunnal would be required to find there was "no evidence" to support any finding of lack of institutional control.

haha i'm really enjoying this... i'm guessing you do a good job in the court room

[PK]

I guess the opposite of feigning ignorance as PK puts it is to be too arrogant or stupid or both to feign ignorance, which is apparently the standard for getting the death penalty. In fact, SMU did the opposite of feigning ignorance, the trustees in question, including Clements, fully admitted the wrongdoing for which SMU had been probated numerous times before not only continued, but was blessed by the heirarchy of the athletic department and the entire university. Lack of institutional control by definition.

PK, if you are suggesting that you can avoid a finding of lack of institutional control by feigning ignorance and cooperating with the NCAA, then SMU still loses under that standard.

Thanks for the spelling lesson (fain /feign). I am not by any means suggesting that SMU did not deserve a harsh punishment, although the NCAA may have gone a little bit over board. What I am suggesting is that there have been instances of cheating by other schools since that point in time warranting similarly harsh treatment, but since they are among the elite programs they can easily avoid it by going through the charade of "we didn't know, but we are going to investigate and cooperate with the NCAA." The cheating has not stopped and the level is certainly as great as was SMU's. I stand by my position, that a school under institutional control does not commit violations. To say after the fact that we are going to investigate and cooperate with the NCAA is NOT institutional control...it is damage control.