smupony94 wrote:You guys missed burgers and cheer the most ridiculous self reporting???
Unbelievable that SMU alumni Max Williams ratted us out on that because he was butthurt that his grandson wasn't playing when it was he (Williams) who provided the funds. From a DMN article: "Tubbs did, apparently, make one major mistake in his short stay at Moody Coliseum. He gave a scholarship to the grandson of SMU booster and oil man Max Williams, who played basketball on the Hilltop in the '50s.
Williams was one of the last defenders of Bob Hitch, the SMU AD in the early '80s who reportedly was aware of the payments to football players that gave SMU the infamous identity it will never shake.
Williams was one of only a handful of witnesses to the scandal, including several suspended boosters, who refused to be interviewed then by the Bishops' panel that produced the damning investigative report on it all. He went on to employ Hitch after Hitch was defrocked.
But Tubbs extended an opportunity to Williams' grandson Matt, who was a freshman last season. He played very little. Next thing Tubbs knew, granddaddy told school officials he gave Tubbs money to buy some meals for some players, which would be a violation."
The whole NCAA system should be trashed an restructured. To bad it will never happen.
Question here. I couple of weeks ago I mentioned the possibility of a violation when a coach has a player over for a meal. It was said coaches can buy meals for players all the time and there is no violation, and referenced the Krispy Kremes. It is also known that boosters supplement income for coaches all the time. That is how the salaries reach the level they do.
So in the instance cited above, a booster gives money to a coach and subsequently the coach provides meals for the players. Where is the violation?
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand
RGV Pony wrote:Guessing we didn't paper it up the right way?
yeah, I don't know all the details of that event, but this was my guess too. I know there are reporting requirements, so I assume we mismanaged those.
"This is . . . dedication to distraction by fans. Is that what I'm going to go with Jay?" "That poor kid has to be wondering what is dad doing." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XknLDwj0dSo
For those who haven't read the report I highly recommend it. The way they talk about LB is disgraceful and vindictive. Pretty much everything they use against him could just have easily been used to exonerate him. I still believe that SMU mishandled the whole thing but I do think that the NCAA comes across as truly amateurish.
Mustangsabu wrote:For those who haven't read the report I highly recommend it. The way they talk about LB is disgraceful and vindictive. Pretty much everything they use against him could just have easily been used to exonerate him. I still believe that SMU mishandled the whole thing but I do think that the NCAA comes across as truly amateurish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I found it to be pretty vindictive against both LB and SMU. The give props for our compliance team, but then admit that in the punishment that they factored in events that happened 30 years ago?
All of that is why I think we will see a significant reduction in the scholarship and recruiting restrictions. Plus, they should give us credit for acknowledging the post season ban is part of the new rules and not challenging that.
If they do not significantly reduce the restrictions, there is absolutely a lawsuit waiting. I know everyone wants to compare our punishment to Syracuse and UNC, but I believe the best comparison is Hawaii, which was found to have three major violations and received far less punishment than we did.
