eric513 wrote:I met and talked to someone on the bball staff during the game yesterday. The gist of it was that (I don't know if I can hold him to this) they're going to appeal, the problem is what they're appealing. What I got from it is that they're more likely to win a smaller battle rather than appealing all three of the sanctions. The postseason ban obviously has to go, but he said that they can live with the scholarship losses and LB being suspended for x amount of games. They just have no room for error on their recruiting classes if they do leave the scholarships sanctions as is.
A friend with a little access to behind the scenes action said that's what he was hearing too. Accept 9 game suspension, scholarship losses, but appeal for the ban. For what it's worth.
I'd rather appeal the recruiting restrictions than the scholarships. When was the last time that we used our full compliment of scholarships? We haven't in the past couple of years.
CalallenStang wrote:I'd rather appeal the recruiting restrictions than the scholarships. When was the last time that we used our full compliment of scholarships? We haven't in the past couple of years.
Exactly. Having 10-11 schollies can work. You should be at a 8-man rotation anyways. This board/community gets WAY too caught up on going three and four deep at a basketball position. Eight strong can win you a NC.
In another thread I suggested that the eventual NCAA ruling would have some hair splitting conclusions to burn SMU while UNC would only someday be singed. To some extent I still feel that way although I also have to agree with those who say that what happened at SMU was amateurish.
Further to the basic problem incurred by the BB program I have to mention I will remember the 1980's. Those on this board who were not around then are getting a dose of what it was like when Football I ended at SMU.
With reference to UNC the Daily Tarheel published a statement that only a few football players were involved. Others have said that 1200 athletes went through an eligibility papermill. Maybe one or both figures have been adjusted but I wonder how many of either number would have qualified to attend or play at UNC as KF could have at SMU without consideration of the correspondence course?
And if the SMU penalty for one player is reasonable given that the secretary and coach involved are gone, then what penalty is reasonable for Carolina?
I'd say appeal unless the consequence would be that additional evidence harmful to SMU might come out.
I'd still contribute to a statue or plaque for Coach Brown though, if ever one is proposed, and if it can't be on campus then maybe the City of University Park would allow it in either Caruth or Curtis Park.
First, I am not sure anyone has sued the NCAA for breach of its own constitution, using an arbitrary and capricious methodology. By agreeing that sanctions would be "reasonable", to me that means proportionally reasonable. Thus, when you have a Maurice Clarett situation or "U" shoe store party and they get little punishment (despite multiple violations), and then for what amounts to one violation, that was self-reported, and the wrong-doers punished, it seems to be that the punishment was arbitrary and capricious and that the entire system of punishments is arbitrary and capricious. Why do you think the Federal Courts and many states came up with sentencing guidelines? Because judges varied in meting out punishments for like offenses. (From probation to suspended sentences to hard time). Those types of examples could be used to bolster an arbitrary and capricious argument. Why not have set guidelines for each school for each type of violation? And thus the lack of them is evidence of arbitrariness.
East, that sure makes sense. There is way too much discretion by the NCAA. Did you cooperate? Did you self-report? Do you have "control", institutional and coaching? Was the violation isolated or widespread? All those things are highly subjective and even when they are concluded on each factor one way or another, it is completely unclear what impact they have in determining punishment. I mean could the NCAA have been tougher on us if we didn't have good compliance system in place and self reporting? I don't think so, they hit us about as hard as reasonably possible in the modern era short of death penalty really. The whole repeat offender factor is bogus as well. That makes sense in terms of individuals in the criminal context, but not institutions who change personnel over time. They have set up a framework with plenty of subjectivity so that they easily can play favorites. Just watch, instead of focusing on the nature and extent of the crime and competitive advantage Louisville gained in recruiting, they will focus on how sorry Rick P is. Remember, his heart is really broken.
Recruiting is already slowed. Also, with Nic, Tolbert and MK graduating it will be tough enough for SMU to get to the post season next year anyway. And if we did it would probably be short lived. We have a team that can win it all this year or at the least make a major run in the NCAA tournament. Take the ban next year when the team will not be as good.
If you want to see us appeal - you better let upper administration know very soon (like today). I am telling you they are leaning the other way.
Their rational is the following - this is the new punishment matrix, therefore they are unlikely to give us relief. Therefore, we might as well get it over with and not effect the program long term. the fear is another year of clouds over recruiting, particularly with guys that think they are one and done. The only thing the admin is even thinking about appealing is the post season - and that idea is starting to wane. The mean well, but are wrong in my view on this one.
Reality is the program is already going to be effected at least for a year or so, so we might as well delay our punishment since this is our best shot in over a decade, assuming the seniors stay. We have the coach and the talent to make run - we are trading a good shot for a very sketchy maybe.
Plus our community needs to know we will stand up for ourselves when wronged. That to me is worth it regardless of the outcome. If we wont do that why should I spend time and money on a program that will never be relevant again since we are scared of our shadow if the NCAA comes calling.
Only caveat - if seniors are leaving regardless, we should go ahead and take it now.
I really hope they appeal the post-season ban. The rest of it sucks, but I can live with it. Not letting this year's team, which is the best team we've had in forever, play in the post-season is a huge donkey punch though.
Sounds to me like there are legitimate arguments both for and against appealing. I guess we'll see.
smupony94 wrote:What would you tell your client if the judge said yes you can appeal this but most likely the outcome will be worse
How in the h*ll do you figure the penalties will be worse? They're already beyond ridiculous as it is for what actually happened. The NCAA threw the book because of past track records. The violations are beyond extensive considering what actually took place.
