PonyFans.com

PonyPride wrote:The lawyers on here can interpret this better than I can, I expect, so feedback is welcome and appreciated.

In the NCAA report (which can be found here: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files ... cision.pdf ), it says that "Collectively, the panel classifies the head coach's violations as Level I – Aggravated."

The NCAA penalty structure (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Figure19-1.pdf ) dictates that the "Competition Penalties: Postseason Ban" for a Level I - Aggravated violation is 1-2 years.

So in my non-lawyer interpretation, wouldn't an appeal of the postseason ban be fruitless? The rules being what they are, the academic violation automatically brings a ban of either one or two years, and in this case, the NCAA chose to give one. Couldn't the decision to appeal other parts of the sanctions be presented (weakly) as some kind of a compromise?

A couple of years ago, a football player could be kicked out of a game for targeting an opponent's head. The calls were reviewed, and if the officials overturned the decision, the ejection could be rescinded but the penalty yards stood, which was ridiculous (either it was a penalty or it wasn't). But those were the rules at the time, and were enforced as such. In the offseason, the rule was changed so that if the officials determined a penalty had been called incorrectly, the yards would be rescinded along with the ejection. Am I crazy to think this is a similar deal — the rule is insane, but has to be changed instead of challenged?

OK, that's the end of my effort to sound like a lawyer. Feel free to tell me what I'm missing.

TidePony wrote:Markus Kennedy just tweeted: Speechless

Mustangsabu wrote:Personally I think you appeal the whole thing, even if you know you won't win on a particular issue. It sends the wrong message in my opinion.

I haven't had time to examine the rules in sufficient detail but I suspect what pony pride says is correct. If that is the case, they need to take the sanction now so next years recruits are not affected. The long term view is best.

None of this makes SMU less spineless and incompetent. The university handled this wrong from day one. And whenever they could get it more wrong they did so.

The great Irish phrase "couldn't run a pissup in a brewery" springs to mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mustangsabu wrote: If that is the case, they need to take the sanction now so next years recruits are not affected. The long term view is best.

PonyPride wrote:The lawyers on here can interpret this better than I can, I expect, so feedback is welcome and appreciated.

In the NCAA report (which can be found here: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files ... cision.pdf ), it says that "Collectively, the panel classifies the head coach's violations as Level I – Aggravated."

The NCAA penalty structure (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Figure19-1.pdf ) dictates that the "Competition Penalties: Postseason Ban" for a Level I - Aggravated violation is 1-2 years.

So in my non-lawyer interpretation, wouldn't an appeal of the postseason ban be fruitless? The rules being what they are, the academic violation automatically brings a ban of either one or two years, and in this case, the NCAA chose to give one. Couldn't the decision to appeal other parts of the sanctions be presented (weakly) as some kind of a compromise?

A couple of years ago, a football player could be kicked out of a game for targeting an opponent's head. The calls were reviewed, and if the officials overturned the decision, the ejection could be rescinded but the penalty yards stood, which was ridiculous (either it was a penalty or it wasn't). But those were the rules at the time, and were enforced as such. In the offseason, the rule was changed so that if the officials determined a penalty had been called incorrectly, the yards would be rescinded along with the ejection. Am I crazy to think this is a similar deal — the rule is insane, but has to be changed instead of challenged?

OK, that's the end of my effort to sound like a lawyer. Feel free to tell me what I'm missing.