Congratulations to Tech!

[DiamondM75]

Couch 'em we did a lot wrong and were among many that deserved the death penalty. Unfortunately, the NCAA only chose to make an example out of us.

That's just my point. Everyone was/IS cheating, but only we get punished. If nobody else is getting punished, how can it be called a violation of the rules? The death penalty is like throwing someone out of a bball game for traveling. Getting called for traveling is just part of basketball (well, unless its the NBA) and when it happens, you get your little slap on the wrist, and nobody is that mad about it. Its a normal event. By only punishing programs with slaps on the wrist, they were treating cheating programs like they were traveling. So we tried to travel a few times. We got caught. But we got thrown out of the game for it. Was it 'wrong'? Yes, clearly. Was it really that WRONG? I don't think so. We are no more a criminal than any other school, and less so than the NCAA itself.

We did not get the death penalty for cheating. We had already had our little slaps on the wrist for cheating. We got the death penalty because when we were caught cheating again (the third time), we snubbed the NCAA, told them they could not give us the death penalty and refused to cooperate with the investigation. It was our arrogance and above all others attitude that got us the death penalty.

Don't confuse cheating with cover ups and shear stupidity. Nixon did not resign the White House because of the break-in, it was the cover up that cost him. Just like it cost us.

[jtstang]

Don't confuse these sunshiners with facts.

[couch 'em]

Wow, I don't think I've ever been called a sunshiner before. That's funny.

[SoCal_Pony]

Well I happen to side more with couch’em on this one and I am hardly a sunshiner or one who lives in lala land…ok I do live in lala land but I am not a sunshiner.

Question to you JT, P88 and ES. Take the top 50 teams each year over the past 20 years; that will equal 1,000 unique teams. Of these 1,000 unique teams, how many do you believe in some way paid their athletes?

[EastStang]

As I said we deserved what we got. But, when UT had the chair of the NCAA disciplinary committee, the NCAA snoops only seemed to be looking at Arkansas, SMU, A&M, TCU, Houston and NOT UT. Jackie Sherrill had a huge number of teams that violated the rules from Pitt to Miss. State to A&M. A&M knew when they hired Sherrill what they were getting, A&M was second to SMU in violations. Fresno State got a wrist slap after the Jerry Tarkanian period. They knew going in, what Tarkanian was about. Now Lopes appears to have gotten them on the hot seat when they were already on probation. It will be interesting to see what the NCAA does with this one. My bet is that Fresno will get hit hard because they are NOT Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Auburn, or Georgia.

[jtstang]

Question to you JT, P88 and ES. Take the top 50 teams each year over the past 20 years; that will equal 1,000 unique teams. Of these 1,000 unique teams, how many do you believe in some way paid their athletes?

I have no idea, likely the majority of them.

[SoCal_Pony]

Well that might be part of the reason we disagree. I have no idea either, but I would place the number of cheaters at over 900.

Either way, I don’t feel comfortable enforcing laws that a majority of people break, especially when in my view 90%+ break.

[jtstang]

Well that might be part of the reason we disagree. I have no idea either, but I would place the number of cheaters at over 900.

Well that sounds like a majority, so its seems like we agree. But if you really have no idea, why hang a number on it?

Look, I don't know why other programs who appear to "deserve" the DP haven't gotten it. I only know that SMU deserved it and got it. The 90 times the NCAA misses on enforcement doesn't make the 10 times they nail someone deserving wrong--it just means they have a bad batting average.

[Stallion]

probably because we had that "one in a million" Chairman of the Board of Govenors. There is no example of lack of institutional control on a par with SMU no matter how many times you guys try to glide past that essential difference. Some of you 'lay-men" obviously are focusing on the wrong issue.

[jtstang]

I expect that has EVERYTHING to do with it.

[Hoop Fan]

there's form and then there's substance. Institutional Control was a concept trumped up by the NCAA (invented not so long ago really) that basically gave the NCAA broad discretion and latitude in punishing violaters. Institutional Control and all the subjectivity of it is how the NCAA punishes people differently and doesnt have to apologize for it.

Whats worse, Michigan blantantly looking the other way while Chris Webber got $600,000 or a situation in which a school repeatedly gives players $1000 here and there and doesnt apologize for it? I dont know, there is no right answer especially in the world of "institutional control". If Michigan pays someone alot of money, form seems to be most important, if other people do it I'm sure "substance" would matter more.

Whether you accept SMUs fate or not, that doesnt take away from the NCAA being a broken, dysfuntional combination of cop, judge and jury. Everybody knows it. The better question is why do some schools get investigated and others don't? The NCAA could find major crap any time it wants, anywhere it wants in the BCS and beyond. They dont look unless theres a snitch or an event. Selective enforcement and punishment is the beef, not SMU's death penalty in itself. It makes no sense that there is a punishment that only one offender qualifies for. SMU didnt operate in a vacuum.

[Hoop Fan]

Couch 'em we did a lot wrong and were among many that deserved the death penalty. Unfortunately, the NCAA only chose to make an example out of us.

That's just my point. Everyone was/IS cheating, but only we get punished. If nobody else is getting punished, how can it be called a violation of the rules? The death penalty is like throwing someone out of a bball game for traveling. Getting called for traveling is just part of basketball (well, unless its the NBA) and when it happens, you get your little slap on the wrist, and nobody is that mad about it. Its a normal event. By only punishing programs with slaps on the wrist, they were treating cheating programs like they were traveling. So we tried to travel a few times. We got caught. But we got thrown out of the game for it. Was it 'wrong'? Yes, clearly. Was it really that WRONG? I don't think so. We are no more a criminal than any other school, and less so than the NCAA itself.

We did not get the death penalty for cheating. We had already had our little slaps on the wrist for cheating. We got the death penalty because when we were caught cheating again (the third time), we snubbed the NCAA, told them they could not give us the death penalty and refused to cooperate with the investigation. It was our arrogance and above all others attitude that got us the death penalty.

Don't confuse cheating with cover ups and shear stupidity. Nixon did not resign the White House because of the break-in, it was the cover up that cost him. Just like it cost us.

Likewise, dont confuse the court of public opinion and making an example of someone as necessarily being accompanied by fair and appropriate punishment. Take another example, Clinton getting impeached by the House was more a reflection of public opinion as it was rule of law. This stuff aint black and white and anyone can validly disagree with the degree of the Death Penalty punishment especially when rule breaking is rampant in the environment and not an isolated event like Nixon or Clinton or somesuch.

[jtstang]

Selective enforcement and punishment is the beef, not SMU's death penalty in itself.

Well, those are not the terms in which it was couch'emed (pun intended) here. The argument was simply that SMU did not do anything wrong enough to deserve the death penalty--he compared what we were doing to travelling in a basketball game for godsake. I happen to think we got what we deserved given the circumstances and people involved.

Can a selective enforcement argument be made? Yes, an irrefutable one--when you've had the rule on the books forever and its only been applied once, that's pretty damn selective. But if lack of institution control really IS the standard, contrived or not, then the argument CANNOT be sustained that SMU did nothing to deserve the punishment meted out.

[Stallion]

when all else fails-argue "taint fair"! The "taint fair" defense and the finding of "lack of institutional control" issues are completely separate issues at least in this case. Nobody can justifiably deny that the "lack of institutional control" finding was based on overwhelming evidence. SMU never challenged the NCAA finding by arguing "taint fair" or selective enforcement so its really irrelevant. SMU had no basis for arguing that the lack of institutional control issue was selective enforcement because no school has ever had a Board of Govenors which was stupid enough to actually agree to continue "meeting a payroll" after being put on probation. Sure coaches and alumni have continued to cheat but the NCAA is looking for Institutional Control (ie. the schools officers and governing board enforcing recognized procedures to prevent cheating in the future.)

[RedRiverPony]

I'm more concerned with whether Hopkins does, in fact, go pro, and who might fill his scholarship if he does.