Gutless -- Typical SMU

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:00 pm

you guys can dance around the truth all you want -under the clear wording of the statute SMU committed a Level 1 violation "intended' to receive a competitive advantage. ("provides or is intended to provide") It doesn't have to result in an advantage-you only have to intend to receive a competitive advantage. The use of the term "or" makes this quite clear legally

EastStang · Post by **EastStang** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:12 pm

Even if it was a Level I violation, the Bylaw still says "MAY". It means the NCAA has the discretion to issue lesser punishments as well. Further, if we had Four Level I violations and it turns out it was only 1, then perhaps the punishment would have come under the "MAY" language. By not appealing all penalties we set ourselves up to win nothing. Its kind of like the Court instead of giving you consecutive sentences choosing instead to issue concurrent or suspending part of the sentence even if you are guilty because you cooperated with the cops or admitted fault. Here they just whacked us with the whole kitchen sink as non-discretionary.

Rebel10 · Post by **Rebel10** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:15 pm

Some were saying that the golf team did not commit a level 1 violation but the report says they did.

mr. pony · Post by **mr. pony** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:56 pm

Funny, isn't it, how whenever the NCAA comes up with new rules/penalties SMU gets to be the guinea pig? See that brand spanking new death penalty they tested out on us in '87.

mr. pony · Post by **mr. pony** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:24 pm

All this lawyer-talk is BS too.
You APPEAL THE D@MN BBALL POST-SEASON BAN AND GO TO THE STINKIN' SWEET 16 - MAYBE THE FF!!!!
TO HELL WITH THE REST OF IT!
MK, Nic and the rest deserved better.

smupony94 · Post by **smupony94** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:28 pm

You are angry

gostangs · Post by **gostangs** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:08 pm

He is angry and correct. we are wussies.

Topper · Post by **Topper** » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:10 pm

Hoop Fan wrote:No way they would add to the punishment. If we are scared of that, then we truly are afraid of our own shadow.

We are afraid of our own shadow. Have been since we were put on probation for having the nerve to sign Ira Terrell in the early 70s. Everyone knows that SMU isn't supposed to recruit top players. I understand that argument that by taking our medicine now we can tell recruits that they will be eligible to go to the post season. But so what? The other schools are going to convince them that SMU is snakebit with the NCAA. Why take a chance of another infractions investigation at SMU?

whitwiki · Post by **whitwiki** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:05 am

The safest work hour is one you never work

smusportspage · Post by **smusportspage** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:10 am

EastStang wrote:Even if it was a Level I violation, the Bylaw still says "MAY". It means the NCAA has the discretion to issue lesser punishments as well. Further, if we had Four Level I violations and it turns out it was only 1, then perhaps the punishment would have come under the "MAY" language. By not appealing all penalties we set ourselves up to win nothing. Its kind of like the Court instead of giving you consecutive sentences choosing instead to issue concurrent or suspending part of the sentence even if you are guilty because you cooperated with the cops or admitted fault. Here they just whacked us with the whole kitchen sink as non-discretionary.

I have to agree with you on this. I have not brought this up, because I wanted to give the school the benefit of the doubt on this (silly me). But did we use in house lawyers for the initial phase of the investigation? Did we use outside attorneys to review the appeal process? To me, outside counsel with proven history of dealing with the NCAA would have been the way to go from the get go.

gostangs · Post by **gostangs** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:22 am

Bing Bing Bing. We have a winner

To have handled initially internally is hopelessly naive. I am sure someone said, let's not lawyer up - it looks defensive. Meanwhile NCAA was sharpening their fangs.

SMUer · Post by **SMUer** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:28 am

SMU Athletics makes me sad.

Pony64 · Post by **Pony64** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:03 am

mr. pony wrote:All this lawyer-talk is BS too.
You APPEAL THE D@MN BBALL POST-SEASON BAN AND GO TO THE STINKIN' SWEET 16 - MAYBE THE FF!!!!
TO HELL WITH THE REST OF IT!
MK, Nic and the rest deserved better.

Dam right

Topper · Post by **Topper** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 1:52 pm

Pony64 wrote:
mr. pony wrote:All this lawyer-talk is BS too.
You APPEAL THE D@MN BBALL POST-SEASON BAN AND GO TO THE STINKIN' SWEET 16 - MAYBE THE FF!!!!
TO HELL WITH THE REST OF IT!
MK, Nic and the rest deserved better.

Dam right

Mr. Pony is right. But if Hoopmax is right,and this whole capitulation is nothing but a cover up of something much deeper and worse, then the whole truth should be made public to the supporters of SMU and the whole bunch should be fired.

smupony94 · Post by **smupony94** » Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:18 pm

Free hugs from Larry for the butt hurt on the boulevard the next home game

Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU

Re: Gutless -- Typical SMU