OU Lineman "All I Did Was Take Cash"

[expony18]

In other words the Institution ceded control over the football program and allowed the persons involved in the violations to continue their scheme. Lack of Institutional Control. What easier case could there possibly be? In the case of the OU program that simply has not been proven. In fact, OU disassociated the booster and expelled the players who cheated and voluntarlity admitted the violations to the NCAA. That is the state of the facts as presently known and that's how the case will be decided unless one of you or someone else comes forth with proof that shows that the school's administration, board of trustees or at the very least the AD or Head Coach was involved with or condoned the violations. But claiming it and proving it are two different things.

OU has had a lack of institutional control since the fifties. You would either have had to been smoking something or had a bag over your head not to believe it!

or smoked, then put the bag over your head

[Stallion]

Tell it to the Judge-that kind of evidence won't get you too far. You know how stupid it looks for fans to see SMU complain about habitual cheaters?

[Treadway21]

I will conjecture OU has had more violations than SMU in the last 20 years. A lot more - football and basketball. So has OSU and a host of others. The fact is the NCAA does not care about enforcement anymore and most fans don't either - it is all pretext for making money.

[Stallion]

SMU is the all time cheater in the history of the world both in quantity and quality. We look stupid complaining about other cheaters.

[jtstang]

Stallion is correct. Nobody has approached the institutional subversion in place at SMU at all levels of the administration in the 1980s.

[expony18]

atleast we can claim we were the best at something!

[EastStang]

Agreed JT, the institution was corrupted at the highest levels. Which is not lack of institutional control, it is a corrupted institution.

[Nacho]

OU did the crime so they must do the time.

[mr. pony]

[quote="AusTxPony"]Stallion, you need to STOP with the tired refrain that SMU acted improperly in response to the violations. They did. But it is a new atmosphere in college athletics since the first application of this punishment and SMU would and has responded more responsibly to violations. However, if we want to stop the "cheating", and I for one do, then the NCAA will have to slap the "death penalty" on a large BCS state school for egregious violations and let the subsequent lawsuits play out. Then the cheaters will think twice about it knowing their status and the University's response no longer protects them, IMHO.[/quote]

AMEN! Glad to see a big school taking some heat.

But I thought those schools didn't have to cheat, right, Stallion? Wasn't that why we're not to look at UT?

It's a simple, undeniable fact: SMU got the DP because the NCAA knew they could get away with it. OU would sue the sh*t out of them before the words "death penalty" got out of their mouths.

A BCS school will never receive such a penalty.

[jtstang]

OU would sue the sh*t out of them before the words "death penalty" got out of their mouths.

OU would lose that suit too.

[Stallion]

the lack of comprehension on this board (especially Mr. Pony) of the simple legal issues involved in this case should be a reminder to any lawyer to be leary of what might happen in a jury trial no matter how simple the case appears to be. May have to rely on a directed verdict from the judge. Now I have to put up with Mr. Pony claiming that I said big school don't have to cheat. I pointed to specifically UT and stated it was unlikely they were involved in too many RECRUITING violations because their entire class is already committed before recruiting starts since 80% of their players commit at the first opportunity a year before signing date. They already got 20 commitments or so again. They're just about done.

[PlanoStang]

the lack of comprehension on this board (especially Mr. Pony) of the simple legal issues involved in this case should be a reminder to any lawyer to be leary of what might happen in a jury trial no matter how simple the case appears to be. May have to rely on a directed verdict from the judge. Now I have to put up with Mr. Pony claiming that I said big school don't have to cheat. I pointed to specifically UT and stated it was unlikely they were involved in too many RECRUITING violations because their entire class is already committed before recruiting starts since 80% of their players commit at the first opportunity a year before signing date. They already got 20 commitments or so again. They're just about done.

This really doesn't involve LEGAL issues. The ncaa makes its own
rules, and decides the outcome on INCOME ISSUES

[mr. pony]

[quote="Stallion"]the lack of comprehension on this board (especially Mr. Pony) of the simple legal issues involved in this case should be a reminder to any lawyer to be leary of what might happen in a jury trial no matter how simple the case appears to be. May have to rely on a directed verdict from the judge. Now I have to put up with Mr. Pony claiming that I said big school don't have to cheat. I pointed to specifically UT and stated it was unlikely they were involved in too many RECRUITING violations because their entire class is already committed before recruiting starts since 80% of their players commit at the first opportunity a year before signing date. They already got 20 commitments or so again. They're just about done.[/quote]

You said UT doesn't have to cheat, counselor.

[smupony94]

OU did the crime so they must do the time.

If the glove don't fit, you must aquit

[EastStang]

OU has already won one anti-trust suit against the NCAA over television rights. It would be interesting what an anti-trust suit involving a school hit with the death penalty looks like. I guess theoretically, it could be brought by the OU football players against the NCAA and NFL for conspiring to keep them from making a living playing football and that the NCAA was an unlawful conspiracy denying them a living. Alternatively, since the courts already ruled that OU owned it tv rights to football games, OU could sue the NCAA entering into a conspiracy to injure its television rights by denying OU the right to compete on the field, and thus the "death penalty" is anti-competitive. I even said that without laughing, so it passes my tort professor's well known legal test, the laugh test. Can you make a legal argument with a straight face.