More proof that our probation was a vendetta...

[2ndandlong]

For reference. Here's an excerpt for level I and level II violation penalties.

[RebStang]

You'll forgive me for not being willing to just take their word for it... I've found that organizations don't tend to change their stripes voluntarily and the NCAA has never been interested in fairness in the past and I'll only believe they're interested in fairness now when they prove it through action.

[PonyTime]

Why has UNC not been given punishment?

NCAA investigation is still ongoing. It's a 15 year violation, thus the investigation will take longer than a one-off finding of a school on probation.

Things to keep in mind on UNC:
-violations under investigation (vast majority of which, if not all) took place during preceding rules system; therefore, expect old system to apply.
-early reports show that NO NCAAM student-athlete received preferential treatment; although, NCAAW, NCAAF and other student athletes were linked to preferential treatment. This likely means institutional control without a specific focus on the basketball program (i.e. no head coach suspension, no vacated wins, no scholarships or recruiting restrictions, and possibly no post-season ban in men's basketball).

So we would have been better off if we had:
1.) proven that we have been doing this for a much longer period of time than just one indecent.
2.) proven that we have other non-athletes that have had others do on-line work for them.
3.) thrown our other NCAA non-rev programs under the bus to save BBall. Perhaps Rowing or Equestrian.

[2ndandlong]

So we would have been better off if we had:
1.) proven that we have been doing this for a much longer period of time than just one indecent.
2.) proven that we have other non-athletes that have had others do on-line work for them.
3.) thrown our other NCAA non-rev programs under the bus to save BBall. Perhaps Rowing or Equestrian.

I get what you are saying, and it's funny/interesting points. I know you are joking, but I will say no for this reason. The NCAA was somewhat limited in what they could hit us with in the new system. They could have technically given us a worse penalty if there was no recorded penalty framework. It would have allowed us a more open method for appeal though.

[smupony94]

Syracuse got some scholarships back on appeal

[Dukie]

Things to keep in mind on UNC:
-[deleted]
-early reports show that NO NCAAM student-athlete received preferential treatment; although, NCAAW, NCAAF and other student athletes were linked to preferential treatment. This likely means institutional control without a specific focus on the basketball program (i.e. no head coach suspension, no vacated wins, no scholarships or recruiting restrictions, and possibly no post-season ban in men's basketball).

This statement is horrendously wrong. Early reports indicate that WBB, FB, WSOC, MBB and other sports are all implicated. It would have been true for you to say that individual WBB and FB players receiving improper benefits have been publicly identified, while no individual MBB players have been named publicly. But the MBB program is absolutely implicated.

[RebStang]

Things to keep in mind on UNC:
-[deleted]
-early reports show that NO NCAAM student-athlete received preferential treatment; although, NCAAW, NCAAF and other student athletes were linked to preferential treatment. This likely means institutional control without a specific focus on the basketball program (i.e. no head coach suspension, no vacated wins, no scholarships or recruiting restrictions, and possibly no post-season ban in men's basketball).

This statement is horrendously wrong. Early reports indicate that WBB, FB, WSOC, MBB and other sports are all implicated. It would have been true for you to say that individual WBB and FB players receiving improper benefits have been publicly identified, while no individual MBB players have been named publicly. But the MBB program is absolutely implicated.

Yeah... but it's under the "old rules" which makes it perfectly acceptable for them to let them off with a slap on the wrist (or less).

That, of course, is what makes the "old rules" vs "new rules" argument so utterly laughable. As if that somehow justifies handing out much lighter punishments to schools that have done much worse.

[Topper]

The NCAA is a reprehensible, unconscionable, self-dealing, petty, and vindictive bunch of worthless scum. We know that, and we have allowed them to bully us for years. When you don't stand up to a bully they continue to abuse you. Such is our lot at SMU. I should feel better after venting but I don't. Our athletes and our fans deserve better than this worthless pile has handed out to us since the early 70s and even before that.

[Hilltop]

The bottom line is, when it comes to NCAA violations you better hire excellent, competent lawyers who control the narrative both publicly and privately. Since it is preferable to be punished under the old system instead of the new system, why didn't we come up with a better argument to have this apply to our case. Apparently our probation and previous reputation carried weight on this punishment. Since all of those items took place under the old system, I would have argued that this violation should have as well. I don't care if it makes sense or not, my point is the schools that look right in the camera and say "we are not to blame" and fight back regardless of their level of guilt seem to walk away more easily. It appears we tried to just play by the rules and were hammered for doing so.

[2ndandlong]

The bottom line is, when it comes to NCAA violations you better hire excellent, competent lawyers who control the narrative both publicly and privately. Since it is preferable to be punished under the old system instead of the new system, why didn't we come up with a better argument to have this apply to our case. Apparently our probation and previous reputation carried weight on this punishment. Since all of those items took place under the old system, I would have argued that this violation should have as well. I don't care if it makes sense or not, my point is the schools that look right in the camera and say "we are not to blame" and fight back regardless of their level of guilt seem to walk away more easily. It appears we tried to just play by the rules and were hammered for doing so.

For ours there was no question that the violation occurred under the new system. Your argument for the old system would be that we committed the violation when Keith was younger? At a different high school? I get your point, but, in our penalty, there's really no leg to stand on.

[RebStang]

The bottom line is, when it comes to NCAA violations you better hire excellent, competent lawyers who control the narrative both publicly and privately. Since it is preferable to be punished under the old system instead of the new system, why didn't we come up with a better argument to have this apply to our case. Apparently our probation and previous reputation carried weight on this punishment. Since all of those items took place under the old system, I would have argued that this violation should have as well. I don't care if it makes sense or not, my point is the schools that look right in the camera and say "we are not to blame" and fight back regardless of their level of guilt seem to walk away more easily. It appears we tried to just play by the rules and were hammered for doing so.

For ours there was no question that the violation occurred under the new system. Your argument for the old system would be that we committed the violation when Keith was younger? At a different high school? I get your point, but, in our penalty, there's really no leg to stand on.

Ok... so let's break this down a bit...

SMU's penalties were essentially required by the NCAA's new academic misconduct rule. I'll accept that.

Other schools that have been brought up committed their violations during a time when the new rules don't apply. I'll accept that.

You have implied that the old rules give the infractions committee broader power to impose sanctions as they see fit (you've even implied that they could hand down harsher sanctions than the new rules call for earlier).

So, with those assertions laid out, what are your thoughts on the reason that the infractions committee chose to hand down a lighter penalty to ULL despite the fact that their violations were much more severe (5 proven cases of getting kids eligible with fraudulent ACT scores by an assistant coach)?

[2ndandlong]

Things to keep in mind on UNC:
-[deleted]
-early reports show that NO NCAAM student-athlete received preferential treatment; although, NCAAW, NCAAF and other student athletes were linked to preferential treatment. This likely means institutional control without a specific focus on the basketball program (i.e. no head coach suspension, no vacated wins, no scholarships or recruiting restrictions, and possibly no post-season ban in men's basketball).

This statement is horrendously wrong. Early reports indicate that WBB, FB, WSOC, MBB and other sports are all implicated. It would have been true for you to say that individual WBB and FB players receiving improper benefits have been publicly identified, while no individual MBB players have been named publicly. But the MBB program is absolutely implicated.

You say it's horrendously wrong and then acknowledge that no NCAAM players have been named; whereas, student athletes have been named in other sports. I don't see that as being horrendously wrong.

The 59 page notice of allegations implicates NCAAM but it is significantly more circumstantial than what is alleged about other sports. For NCAAM, here are a handful of examples: Boxill providing syllabus for her class to academic counselor. Boxill providing assignment to academic counselor. Boxill providing reports of poor academic performance to academic counselor. Boxill provided grades to academic counselor. None of this is explicitly a violation.

Here's an exact quote from the report regarding men's football:
Email from Crowder to Holliday. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder mentioning that she would change a football student athlete's grade once he turns in a paper.

And for multiple sports but not MBB, there are several incidences I found of individuals in athletics turning in papers, quote, "delivering a student-athlete's paper to Crowder."

There is no doubt of lack of institutional control which will be levied against the university. The sport specific penalties will be significantly harsher against other sports, and this easily gives the NCAA the ability to go easy on UNC MBB.

[2ndandlong]

So, with those assertions laid out, what are your thoughts on the reason that the infractions committee chose to hand down a lighter penalty to ULL despite the fact that their violations were much more severe (5 proven cases of getting kids eligible with fraudulent ACT scores by an assistant coach)?

First, I haven't read the NCAA report on ULL but am planning to read before a meeting on Friday. From what I have seen in the press (which is totally worthless based on how poorly the press misrepresented the SMU violation), here are the key takeaways early - Farmer lists the mitigating factors as he sees them.

1 Farmer said at a news conference that the committee’s findings ΓÇ£validate that there was no lack of institutional control by university, no failure to monitor and no lack of head coach responsibility by (Cajuns head coach) Mark Hudspeth.ΓÇ¥

2 ΓÇ£The committee also determined that Coach Hudspeth, his staff and his student-athletes are not culpable for the NCAA infractions,ΓÇ¥ Farmer said while reading prepared remarks.

3 ΓÇ£Based on these reasons, the Ragin’ Cajuns football program received the lowest level of penalties for Level 1 violations within the NCAA’s penalty structure while imposing the most-severe penalties on Coach Saunders.

Basically, within Level I violations, a university can be assigned 3 categories - Aggravated, Standard, or Mitigated. (See excerpt photo I posted above from NCAA Infractions Table) SMU was given a Standard Level I violation which carries a 1-2 year postseason ban. I have posted somewhere else all of the aggravating factors and mitigating factors described in SMU's infractions report.

It appears ULL received a Mitigated Level I violation which carries a 0-1 year postseason ban. Both schools were given the low end of their range. One of the main things I will look for in the ULL report will be the list of mitigating vs. aggravating factors as I want to see how that compares to our report. That will ultimately be the only way to answer your question.

[Puckhead48E]

You do realize they already attempted to close this before the class-action lawsuit forced them to readdress the situation.

[2ndandlong]

yes. and?