NCAA punishes OU

by **ALEX LIFESON** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:55 pm

jtstang said "That still doesn't mean SMU didn't deserve it."

Who said SMU didn't deserve it?

by **aus10fromhous10** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:57 am

how does a school already on probation get more probation? doesn't probation mean, "if you screw up again, you're getting your [deleted] handed to you?" Two scholarships isn't even a buttcrack.

DP isn't a good solution, we all know that, but why not 10-15 scholarships instead of 2? And each time another school gets caught doing stuff, ramp up the number of scholarships until everyone plays by the rules...

by **ponyte** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:18 am

The NCAA EXTENDED a current probation! Well that will teach OU. What happen to the good old days before the death penalty when the NCAA would deny schools post season bowls when caught? This isn't a penalty but more an acknowledgment of the conclusion of the NCAA's pathetic enforcement process.

Now one doubts that anyone on this Earth had any expectations of a penalty that actually punished OU for paying players through creative alumni schemes. This alleded penalty comes as no surprise. However, one will have to struggle mightily to contain the cynicism about the NCAA and the NCAA's enforcement policies.

by **jtstang** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:41 am

ALEX LIFESON wrote:jtstang said "That still doesn't mean SMU didn't deserve it."

Who said SMU didn't deserve it?

mr. pony

by **jtstang** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:42 am

ponyte wrote:The NCAA EXTENDED a current probation! Well that will teach OU. What happen to the good old days before the death penalty when the NCAA would deny schools post season bowls when caught?

That's a really good question.

by **mrydel** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:07 am

Where's the Paris Hilton Judge when you need him?

by **jtstang** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:57 am

BIGHORSE wrote:HEY JTStang, if academy had some cool s.m.u shirts
right now would that be a good thing,and would you buy one,
or would you complain about it?

I have never been in an Acadamy store so I wouldn't know or care one way or the other. I bought my SMU shirts at the bookstore which is very convenient and always has SMU shirts in stock. You should go there and check it out big'un.

by **EastStang** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:49 am

Hey I may have won the lottery. I predicted losing a couple of scholarships and three lashes with a wet noodle. Ooops I left out the really serious part of their punishment this time, the "don't do it again, or I'll cry and wet myself" punishment. I mean seriously, like a reformed hooker who starts going to church, you get really mad when you see other people going down the path that you once walked and NOT SEEING FIRE FROM HEAVEN CONSUME THEM, we SMU folks are really not happy that we got nailed but the rest of the whores get to go out and do what we did and when they get caught get a slap on the wrist and a pat on the rear and sent back out to keep on hooking.

by **35straight** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:00 am

The only proper punishment.

by **jtstang** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 am

EastStang wrote:Hey I may have won the lottery. I predicted losing a couple of scholarships and three lashes with a wet noodle. Ooops I left out the really serious part of their punishment this time, the "don't do it again, or I'll cry and wet myself" punishment. I mean seriously, like a reformed hooker who starts going to church, you get really mad when you see other people going down the path that you once walked and NOT SEEING FIRE FROM HEAVEN CONSUME THEM, we SMU folks are really not happy that we got nailed but the rest of the whores get to go out and do what we did and when they get caught get a slap on the wrist and a pat on the rear and sent back out to keep on hooking.

The only problem with your rant is the conclusion that did what we did. In fact, it was not even charged with lack of institutional control:

Miami Athletic Director Paul Dee, the chairman of the committee on infractions, said OU was cited for a "failure to monitor" rather than a lack of institutional control, which might have wrought more severe consequences.

"A lack of institutional control was neither charged by the enforcement division of the NCAA nor found by the committee," Dee said. "What was found by the committee was a failure to monitor, which is a lesser charge."

There is no evidence that the athletic department, the administration, and the governor of Oklahoma knew of, condoned and arranged the continued payments of these players, which distinguishes it from the case which got SMU the death penalty.

by **35straight** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:32 am

What about their compliance officer? When I was at SMU we had to turn in our employer names, pay rate, and any other benifits that we might recieve during employment. Also, if you can for one second believe that Stoops did not know where his starting quarterback was working you are crazy.

by **ponyte** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:33 am

This is a legal question. If there is no evidence that the athletic department, the administration, and the governor of Oklahoma knew of, condoned and arranged the continued payments of these players, then would that not indicate that the institution had no institutional control? It seems that one of the minor responsibilities of an institution is to have effective process to identify and correct any possible infraction. If the institution can simply say, "Hey, we didn't know about it" and get a free pass, then what is the worth of "institutional control" as a monitoring mechanism?

Is evidence of utter ignorance about an infraction also evidence of a lack of institutional control? How does anyone or any institution â€˜controlâ€™ anything if they have no clue what is going on?

by **jtstang** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:17 am

ponyte wrote:This is a legal question. If there is no evidence that the athletic department, the administration, and the governor of Oklahoma knew of, condoned and arranged the continued payments of these players, then would that not indicate that the institution had no institutional control? It seems that one of the minor responsibilities of an institution is to have effective process to identify and correct any possible infraction. If the institution can simply say, "Hey, we didn't know about it" and get a free pass, then what is the worth of "institutional control" as a monitoring mechanism?

Is evidence of utter ignorance about an infraction also evidence of a lack of institutional control? How does anyone or any institution â€˜controlâ€™ anything if they have no clue what is going on?

If you go to ncaa.org, and search their compliance page, you might be able to find "institutional control" and "failure to monitor" defined by the NCAA. I don't know what the standards applied by NCAA enforcement are that get you to one over the other. But I do know what the reported differences are between the OU case and the SMU case, which is what I was trying to point out.

by **jtstang** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:22 am

35straight wrote:What about their compliance officer? When I was at SMU we had to turn in our employer names, pay rate, and any other benifits that we might recieve during employment. Also, if you can for one second believe that Stoops did not know where his starting quarterback was working you are crazy.

I don't know what Stoops did or did not know, just what the NCAA reported. And I think the problem wasn't that he was working for that car dealer, it's that he WASN'T really working for that car dealer, just getting an exhorbitent "salary" from him.

by **George S. Patton** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:28 am

Think A&M was wishing 77-0 was 2005 and not 2003?

NCAA punishes OU

Who is online