|
|
Congratulations to Tech!Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
52 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Hopkins ain't going pro, at least in the contiguous 48, Alaska and Hawaii. Seriously, your thoughts on the merits of the death penalty?
Exactly. When SMU got caught cheating on the SAT, the investigation revealed that the controls were in place and were breached by an assistant coach. That is why our punishment was a slap on the wrist with the loss of a few scholarships. Just send 'da money.
It's like this. Cheating was rampant at the time, almost everywhere. To say "everyone was doing it" probably wasn't that far off. But since we are a smaller school with a relatively smaller fan base (compared to some of the big behemoth state schools) and the way we basically gave the NCAA the one-finger salute after their wristslaps for previous violations, that's what made them decide to pick us as their figurative whipping boys. Had we, as a school, admitted we'd messed up and spewed a bunch of "it'll never happen again" rhetoric, we probably would have lost a couple of scholarships and been put on double secret probation for the umpteenth time. I've always heard that our attitude about the rules cost us as much as the violations of the rules.
Sounds like you and I are in agreement. We got what we were asking for. Although with the Board of Trustees authorizing the violations, I'm not sure all the apologetic rhetoric in the world would've gotten our @sses outta that sling.
I see your point JT, but I don’t buy the ‘lack of institutional control’ argument as an excuse for the DP. That argument works if 10% of schools are cheating, not 90%+ (assumption on my part, I know).
These Boards of Trustees simply don’t want to know what is really going on at their schools. They can’t handle the truth. Its called plausible deniability, but in my opinion does not absolve them or make us so much more guilty as to be deserving of the DP. Does Colorado University have institutional control?
I think you are so right So Cal. The Prez. and Trustees know, or if they do not, it is only because they are deny any knowledge, just as an Ebbers or Lay try to claim they didn't know what was happening in their companies. We got what we got because we were easy. Until we have the $$ to battle back, we will always be in a corner. The other fact is that we were eated by our own partners at the time, something any other conference of similar size wouldn't have allowed. Oh yes, there is some bad, bad blood, but never like what was witnessed as the SWC crumbled.
In the meatime... Go Ponies!
Like they would ever REALLY try Stallion, please.
Go Ponies!
I refuse to believe that there are more than a handful of roque officials who have risen to the level of an executive committe of a Board of Govenors of a major Division 1A university that would be stupid enough to rubber-stamp the continued payment of illegal funds to players AFTER the NCAA had caught the school twice within a few years. Coaches yes but you won't find many Trustees/Govenors who are that STUPID-we just got lucky I guess. I've never heard anything other than conjecture or speculation about any other university and of course, even the NCAA couldn't admit such weak evidence against a school.
Okay, but in order to understand why SMU got it and the others didn't, you've got to be able to discern the difference between a governing body's willful blindness to what's happening, and active participation in what's happening. SMU was guilty of the latter, and that's what pushed the NCAA over the edge, it seems to me. I commend to your reading the NCAA's report on SMU's death penalty. It's accessible in the major infractions database at NCAA.org.
jt, just what is the difference between the two, except for a very fine line. Couldn't it be thought also that by knowing and turning one's head equate to a "rubberstamp" or inactive particapation by alowing infractions to occur? How about leaders of an institution that allow events to occur knowing that while MAYBE considered okay, could easily be twisted a la the events surrounding alabama?? or wisconsin??
Go Ponies!
you got to remember that the NCAA is a quasi-judicial organization which provides procedures designed to offer due process. There has to be some proof not speculation or conjecture. Jtstang used the word WILLFUL blindness. I don't think there has even ever been any proof of WILLFUL blindness by an Division 1A University President or Board of Govenors/Trustees concerning a decision to mock two NCAA probations in 2-3 years and continue to make payments in direct contravention of a NCAA ruling. Again, the proof would have to be WILLFUL blindness by a Board, or President or at the very least an AD I would think. Name a case where that type of evidence has been established. Now WILLFUL blindness might include the failure to reprimand, discipline or fire employees or representatives who repeatedly break rules-but that is standard procedure these days.
If I'm right, and I don't know about that, then it is the fine line between getting the death penalty as opposed to some lessor sanction. But as Stallion points out, willful blindness requires evidence that an administration ignored what should have been obvious violations, thereby allowing them to continue. Such evidence would support an inference of actual knowledge. But I'm not aware of any investigation where the NCAA has ever had such a finding--keep in mind we're talking about the governing bodies of an institution rather than just an athletic department. In SMU's case, they did not need to infer knowledge on the part of the Trustees, they had evidence of the Trustees' endorsement of the payments even after the imposition of several successive lesser sanctions.
Kid is recruited out of ghetto high school, his dad is MIA, his mother has raised him and his four siblings, and he shows up on campus driving an brand new Beamer and then in his sophomore year moves into a $1000/mo. apartment. Now if you are on the board of trustees of that school, or the athletic director, or the dean of students, do you suspect there might be a problem? By ignoring the obvious, aren't you just as guilty as the guy writing the checks. Try this: The RA on the football floor in the athletic dorm calls the Dean of Students and the head coach. It seems there are hookers visiting recruits staying as guests over night and someone just threw an empty keg out of a dorm window. Head coach tells Dean of Students to ignore it, boys will be boys you know. Dean of Students, not sure what to do, tells University President. He ignores it. Isn't he complicit? RA of course tells his frat buddies about the incident, and soon everyone on Campus has heard about it except that instead of hookers its up to Playboy bunnies.
In that time frame just before the decision was made to compete with the big boys of the SWC and pay whatever it took to compete, one of SMU's Trustees had recommended that SMU approach officials at Rice, TCU, Baylor NTSU and other regional privates and "secondary" public schools to form a conference of schools that would compete with similar athletic budgets. He was basically laughed out of the room and the decision was made to organize the group that would fund competing at the "highest level". SMU's example was truly outrageous because top officials were part of the decision. At most places, you'd have to be incredibly naiive to think those same officials are oblivious to what is going on. The big difference is that they choose (at least on the surface) to turn their backs and simply not to know "too much" . That way, when it hits the fan, they can bury the rogue boosters or fire the coach and AD, but ultimately avoid harsh penalties because the administration "cooperated fully" with the investigation. That's what was different at SMU in the 80's and why we were made an example of. Our arrogance has always hurt SMU.
52 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests |
|
