PonyFans.com

dbone wrote:

Junior wrote:The main problem I have with dbone's position is the whole "if it's not in the NCAA's report, then it's a baseless rumor". That crap doesn't fly with me. Nor should it with any reasonable person. Stallion isn't 100% correct, but neither is dbone's position. Like always, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.

Fair criticism. Clearly your opinion. I obviously disagree...hope you are good with me voicing mine.

of course, man. It's an open forum.

Stallion wrote:Sorry the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has rejected the claims of alumni, cheerleaders and students to assert such claims on behalf of the University. Only SMU had standing to assert lack of procedural due process on behalf of SMU. The players claims were also rejected by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. SMU admitted the violations. SMU received procedural due process under NCAA Bylaws. Slam Dunk case-Plaintiffs couldn't even withstand procedural motion to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted

"While we give the loyal students and alumni credit for making a college try, we affirm the judgment dismissing their complaint, for we hold that some of the plaintiffs lack standing and the others have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted to them"

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -2802.html

Sounds like we are getting closer. If someone can get standing...and access to the courts...then they get the due process all courts give us. But as you mention above in the SMU case...and seems to be the case anytime anybody attempts to access due process protections...the NCAA will fight them.

I am ok if I cannot recruit you to my argument. I would love if we could pull together. But it does seem that you are personally wed to the idea that we deserved it and that there is nothing more to discuss.

You are right on the facts that SMU was legitimately handed the DP once we got to the Infractions Committee. But there are many things leading up to the ruling that the NCAA did wrong. That matters.

Look...we're guilty (I don't think we are innocent because everybody else does it and I am not hiding behind what they proved vs. what really happened)...but they broke their rules to prove it. That may be a technicality...but lots of guilty people walk when our law enforcement people break the law. Both sides have rules to follow. Same principle here.

And I am being a bit of an absolutist on that principle. What do you think?

dbone wrote:What if I told you the NCAA clearly broke their rules to "trap" us? What if I told you one of those three ways to overturn a penalty was if the NCAA broke their rules in an infractions case?

dbone are you saying in effect that the NCAA broke their own rules...
in other words the NCAA "cheated" in their pursuit of SMU
which amounts to...grounds for over-turning the death penalty given to SMU?

Feb. 25th 1987, the biggest party ever at stallion's house.

Everyone talked about due process etc, but that was not the serious issue. There is an implication of a contractual nature that the NCAA was bound to treat all members equally for the purpose of promoting sports. No question the NCAA breached that contract. Or at least such a claim could have gotten us standing in state court to start discovery that would have blown the lid off of things. Stallion's thinking is narrow, but he is right that the school would have needed to be the party to any such lawsuit. Since the Governor was in the middle of it up to his neck, it was best for him that no lawsuit existed to keep his name in the papers for years. I will always suspect that was the reason SMU had no stomach for a fight.

Topper wrote:Everyone talked about due process etc, but that was not the serious issue. There is an implication of a contractual nature that the NCAA was bound to treat all members equally for the purpose of promoting sports. No question the NCAA breached that contract. Or at least such a claim could have gotten us standing in state court to start discovery that would have blown the lid off of things. Stallion's thinking is narrow, but he is right that the school would have needed to be the party to any such lawsuit. Since the Governor was in the middle of it up to his neck, it was best for him that no lawsuit existed to keep his name in the papers for years. I will always suspect that was the reason SMU had no stomach for a fight.

I actually agree with you. It's a lot easier today to see what happened and why. At the time SMU, Clements, other leaders (the ones still around)...were rattled and scared out of their wits. The NCAA was on the march, nobody knew how much power they had, and nobody really knew how far they would go. Best to stop fighting them.

Penn State was in a similar situation...they had no obligation to accept the penalties...but they wanted to get out of the news. They obviously thought it was best to accept penalties and try to move on.