OU forced to forfeit all 2005 wins . . .
 

The Oklahoma football program must forfeit all wins from the 2005 season and will lose scholarships as a result of players being paid for work they had not performed . . .

Link to ESPNU story

Pretty sick penalty - I wonder if any of this will fall on Stoops, especially given the relative lack of national prominence the last few seasons.

Actually, they don't forfeit the wins -- to forfeit means they'd be recorded as an "L." These will be recorded as vacated -- that means they essentially never happened. That's a huge difference.

I'm not too ticked about the ruling. Anyone in this town knows Brad McRae (the manager of the dealership) is absolute sleaze.

He should have been disassociated a long time ago simply because of his mullet.

At any rate, the only real hit is a 2 year 2-scholarship reduction which was self-imposed already. The University has also disassociated from that dealership, a purely symbolic act since that dealership is now under new management.

As far as hurting Stoops? Oh hell no. We in Oklahoma (well, minus the Okie-lite fans) are all big fans of Stoops. As to his national prominence? Who cares what the W-L record was 2 years ago as determined by the NCAA? Stoops still did win those games.. everyone will know that except for the "official" stat books.

Note that this is a change from the original ESPN.com article, which was incorrect - that makes it less of a story, for sure.

My reason for asking had nothing to do with the "official" stat books - after the initial national title years, while he's put up great seasons (8-4 and 11-3 are certainly nothing to sneeze at) the record has dropped off (relatively speaking, as I noted), and his 2007 recruiting class wasn't even top-25 while UT, A&M and Nebraska all made that list. Add to this the rumors of scandal beyond the Bomar incident that populate the blogosphere, and that's the reason for my asking - although it's good to see he's largely avoided blame.

This is a pretty weak penalty. However, the NCAA has been pretty weak of late.

I'm still patiently waiting for the NCAA to take action on the obvious USC violations, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, the penalties for USC and tOSU *should* be higher. The only real difference between those two and OU is that OU disclosed what was going on, cooperated with the NCAA and even imposed some pretty harsh penalties on itself.

The only additional penalty here was the amendment to the record book.

As for last year's recruiting class, the word is that a lot of recruits were negative recruited because of these violations. That said, the '07 class ahs been pretty damn good. It was ranked 14th that year which ain't shabby.

This year, thus far, Oklahoma is ranked #5 by Rivals currently. I imagine that they'll be doing even better now that prospects know that the penalties imposed here won't be serious.

"On Aug. 3 -- the day before the Sooners began preseason practice -- Stoops dismissed Bomar and Quinn from the team after the university determined they had been paid for work not performed at Big Red Sports and Imports."

Oops. We bought a car for our son from these guys when he was at Oklahoma.

I'm disappointed in you DA.

Actually, it was a pretty good deal.

We just sold it.

Sounds like the players had a pretty good deal, too. No work and good pay.

Anyone who doesn't think this goes on at every major program in the nation is naive as heck. Hundred dollar handshakes and things of that nature happen in every program, even the small ones.

If colleges would just pay the damn athletes, we could all stop pretending this stuff doesn't really happen.

I think most colleges would be happy to -- but let's all hide behind the NCAA rules a while longer.

I agree - the real issue is the level of athletic department or team "awareness" (more likely influence) . . . really, the separation between teams is more on the level of what they are willing to ignore or forgive, rather than whether they're all 'clean' or not.

College football and basketball are incredibly dirty, there's no doubt about it.

I don't know that paying players will really end it, though - is the pay based on performance? It would have to be 'standardized' to prevent the rich from getting richer as it were, which would just lead to the same sort of tipping and payouts. I don't know that there's really a solution at all.

I'd just like to see some of the nations powerhouses get their fair share. Unless you're an SEC powerhouse, it seems the NCAA is pretty hesitant.

The thing is -- SEC schools don't understand the concept of protecting their competitor schools for the sake of the conference. Instead, they incessantly investigate and report on their fellow schools.. well.. mostly Tennessee and Alabama do this to each other. When they actually do turn up some malfeasance, which is something that accompanies every single Division I school in the country, they sort of force the NCAA to act.

It's crap, but those schools bring it on themselves. Tell your alums to stop acting like douchebags. Problem solved.

While I do not work at an SEC program, I am an administrator for a D-I athletic department(not the institution in my signature, but I did work for their athletic department for 4 years), and I would just like to comment that Oklahoma was monitoring student-athlete employment the same way that every other school in the country is monitoring their employment, pretty much the student-athlete gets a form (that details ncaa rules, including must be paid for actual work performed and how much they will be paid) from their compliance office fills it out takes the form to their supervisor and has the supervisor sign the form acknowledging that they understand the NCAA rules.

Yes, all programs are cheating and are dirty, but sometimes it isn't because they are trying to be dirty, it is because it is nearly impossible to monitor all of the NCAA rules pertaining to the programs. I do not possibly have the time to drive around to every student-athletes place of employment and make sure they are actually showing up to work.

Oh and I am also waiting for USC to get theirs and Duke too.

Does anyone else find Paul Dee being the head of the NCAA committee sort of like Syria being in charge of the UN Human Rights Committee?

So does that mean they have to return bowl money?

This isn't the problem. I don't care if SEC schools get in trouble, but I do care when the NCAA has USC on a silver platter and drags their feet.

Its more than just Tenn and Bama now. Well, most of it involves Bama, but LSU has for sure gotten in on it now that Saban is at UAT.

No. Did you even read the penalty?

I would think the LSU folks would just get over the Saban thing. I know.. Miles is a goober and a general embarrassment whenever he opens his mouth.. but the guy wins games and has assembled one hell of a recruiting staff. He also seems to run a pretty clean program.

That the difference though -- with OU who provided the NCAA with evidence or the SEC schools who rat out each other, the NCAA has some solid stuff to charge schools with. In the case of USC, the school has done everything in their power to deny responsibility and cover things up. That means the NCAA has no evidence of wrongdoing.

I guess that's a precedent the NCAA is comfortable with -- cover it up and you're in the clear... do the honest thing and you're getting slapped.

Obviously LSU is against Saban, but there were also a lot of accusations made against Bama going into signing day this year.

Of course I read it. That’s why I’m asking. The games were wiped. OU didn’t lose or win the Holiday Bowl so I was curious to know if this had any affect on the bowl pay out. I think it’s a legitimate question.

/edit: ah apparently reading the whole article helps.

From the link:

"Paul Dee, the athletic director at Miami and the interim chairman of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions, said Oklahoma will be allowed to keep the money it received for playing in the 2005 Holiday Bowl, because the NCAA does not regulate bowl games."

This is what gets me. OU's charges are failure to monitor, yet it was our investigators that found the initial wrongdoings and dismissed the players from the team.

Yet Bush's family was living in a mansion that they didn't own, and nothing happens?

Don't forget Dwayne Jarrett (sp) and his luxury apartment.

Or for tOSU, Troy Smith and the cash he took.

I never heard of anything ever happening with the Maurice Clarett situation either.

Duke? For what?

And as far as this ruling, its disgustingly weak.

In my opinion, the NCAA has shown a trend from the late 80's to the present of preaching fairness and equity while acting in an inconsistent manner that only serves to protect institutions that are their cash cows. A&M had the exact same charges in the mid 90's, players working a summer job for a booster recieving payment for work not performed, and we were slapped with a year TV ban, one year post season ban and lost scholarships. We were a top 10 team going into that season, ripped off a 10-0-1 record and because of sanctions lost a run for the MNC. OU 'vacates' wins from the prior season and loses 2 scholarships, hardly equitable.

Its the EXACT same as the brouhaha over Native American mascots and nicknames. The NCAA allows Florida State to remain eligible to host playoff events with their mascot and logo, while the University of North Dakota, which has a more direct tie to Native American students, a higher NA student enrollment and more of a committment to NA education, including a Department of Indian Studies is involved in legal entanglements.

The NCAA is a joke of an organization that only seeks to keep money flowing into the coffers of its 'big name' programs and this joke of a penalty is further evidence of that.

I don't know what went on at A&M. At Oklahoma, 2 scholarship athletes were paid for work not done. As soon as the team found out, the kids were dismissed from the team, the team disassociated the dealership, investigated and turned themselves in. All of the penalties handed down by the NCAA except the vacation of 2005 wins were already self-imposed.

Considering Oklahoma's proactive approach as compared to say.. USC, Ohio State, etc., I'm actually pretty shocked that the NCAA handed down any additional penalties. I don't think they would if it hadn't been for Kelvin and his overactive cell phone.

I don't remember that happening to A&M in the mid 90's, but you seem to have forgotten about the quite serious NCAA violations that the A&M football program itself committed during the late 80's. Obviously the punishment laid down in the 90's was a direct result of them already being in trouble a few years earlier. Here's the direct link to the official report from the NCAA:

https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi...ed&p_Division=

I didn't read all of it, but I definitely skimmed over the part about A&M assistant coaches giving and offering inducements to prospective student-athletes, lying to them about alleged NCAA viloations, etc. etc.

Bob Stoops was brought into OU to clean up that program and return it to a national power. He has done both, and he has done it with quite a bit of integrity. The guy turned in his own program to the NCAA and kicked off three players when it wasn't necessary to do so. He could have easily kept them on the team and waited for an NCAA investigation to decide their fate. I would be willing to be that if he had done that, OU would have gotten severe penalites. For you to call their punishment "disgustingly weak", given the circumstances, is ridiculous.

.............and this is coming from a Texas student.

I'm not arguing that A&M has a clean slate by any stretch of the imagination. The incident that you cite took place in 1988 and A&M was on 2 years probation after that point. The incident I brought up took place in 1993 and involved Greg Hill and other Aggies and resulted in our bans in 1994. We were off probation by then and it was a separate incidence. Now, if you're claiming the prior incidence influenced our sanctions, I can accept that. How can you then excuse OU whose past is even more checkered than A&M's (and thats saying something) receiving a light punishment? Their INSTITUTION is CURRENTLY still on probation from indiscretions committed by former basketball coach Kelvin Sampson. http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...tions_rls.html

A&M, off probation, harsher sentence. OU STILL ON probation, lighter sentence. And I'd expect someone from Austin to agree with the Sooners, since your school is also considered an "untouchable" institution. CU got slapped with essentially the same penalties, 2 years probation, loss of one scholarship for improper training table meals to walk-on athletes http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...orado_rls.html . A crime that I think most would agree is benign compared to illegal paying of players.

And for all the high and mighty Sooners, this story wasn't brought to light by self investigations or the University, the dust was kicked up after an internet posting. Had that individual NOT posted that information, its likely y'all would still be cheating.

How would you expect the team to have known about this? Do you actually expect the NCAA compliance department to go and verify all timecards for all scholarship players at OU to make sure that athletes aren't clocking in while we know they're in class/practice?

As for the "cheating" allegation, that's a very misleading word. Cheating usually means that you're gaining some unfair advantage on the field. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these guys were already committed to play at OU when they showed up for work at Big Red, right? So how, exactly did this affect the product on the field? Not at all.

Cheating goes on everywhere. I know guys who have played at various schools. They *ALL* talk about how well their boosters take really, really good care of them... no need to go into specifics, pretty much everyone admits that this stuff goes on everywhere.

Despite what you just posted, which may or may not be how this story broke, Oklahoma did in fact initiate its own investigation once this was problem was brought to their attention. Oklahoma did in fact gather information pertaining to the allegations and verify facts in connection therewith. They then took severe action by dismissing a starting OL and the starting QB -- an action which very likely cost the conference and school millions of dollars in bowl money and merchandise. They then self-imposed all of the other penalties Paul Dee of Miami mentioned in the official sanction report but the change in the record books.

As far as compliance, self-reporting, etc. go, this far trumps the cooperation level the Aggies exhibited in the early 90's/late 80's. Your coaches were directly involved for chrissakes... and I don't recall them being particularly compliant with the NCAA.

Could Oklahoma have covered this up? Oh absolutely. Your message board poster had paychecks. Those were only part of the story. They may have seemed large, but in itself, that proves nothing. He didn't have timecards and he had no way to obtain them (other than theft of company records). klahoma could have instructed Big Red to destroy those time cards, they could have covered everything up, and they probably would have gotten away with it just as Ohio State and USC have done.

You're comparing apples to oranges here brother. That's all I'm saying. One violation is not the same as another.

Kevin,

I'm not arguing that the 1988 instance linked by the 'sip up there is different from OU's current situation. What I was referencing was the 1993 case involving A&M and a rogue booster that had Aggie players in a similar situation to Bomar and Quinn.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...M%20University

No, what you're saying is that OU should be slapped with similar penalties since they were on probation already. This seems to suggest that you think being on probation for coaches personally providing illegal benefits to players ought to be as severely looked upon as probation for sending too many text messages.

Is that accurate?

A&M wasn't still on probation from the 1988 instance when the 1993 incident occurred. There had been a change in the entire power structure of the Athletic Department, from the AD on down to the football coaches. But the key is, we were put on probation, followed the statutes and came off cleanly before our second incident. OU was STILL on probation and if something supposedly as minor as 'too many text messages' can land you in trouble then you would think the AD would look to designate a staff member to review every aspect of the football team's dealings to ensure that the most attention grabbing team in the AD wasn't running afowl of the rules.

Including checking the time cards of every single student athlete against practice schedules? Seriously?

My sister in law works in an NCAA position. What you're expecting just isn't realistic. Those folks have to put up with enough B.S. without having to keep tabs on every single student athlete and their job situation.

I think your expectations are somewhat unrealistic.

Or perhaps you're just wishing that they would take away the 2004 wins as well? :)

You bastard. :D That's a low blow pal.

Yeah, I was merely thinking that previous actions influenced the 1993 rulings for A&M. You are right though, what happened to OU in 2005 looks eerily similar to what A&M did in 1993........booster pay for play type stuff. Surely though you can see how bad A&M's violation looked to the NCAA. They get in trouble in 1988 for pretty serious infractions (I thought the resulting punishment didn't sound to bad given the wrong doing), have a probation period, and then immediately get in trouble again only a few years later.

The only problem I have with your arguments is this: A lot of people, like you, bring up the Kelvin Sampson illegal phone call ordeal. I am in no way all that knowledgeable about how the NCAA rules committee works.......but what does the conduct of OU's Basketball Program have anything remotely close to do with the OU Football program? I don't see how one can affect the other. I can't think of anything that the OU Football Program has done to get themselves in trouble for quite a ways back, at least not in the Stoops era. I just don't see how Sampson's screw up and the probation imposed on the basketball team would affect OU Football.

As far as OU's checkered past? Yeah, they have one.......but look at the dates:
1956
1960
1973
1980
1988 - These violations were pretty severe and had a rough judgement: 3 years probation, tv bans, substantial loss of scholarships, substantial recruiting restrictions, etc.

The current sanctions were laid down what? Close to 20 years later? I just can't see the NCAA taking into account the mess that Switzer caused when deciding the fate of Bob Stoops' team. Especially after what he did when he discovered the problem. Also, it is unfair for you to make the claim that OU was cheating. None of us know that.

As for us being an untouchable institution......I do know that we have 4 violations listed as MAJOR on the NCAA website.......but I don't know what sport they were in. I know our Baseball program got into some trouble a few years back, but that's about it.

One because I hate them and two because the NCAA looks the other way when they too commit violations. They are the NCAA's Big program for basketball, so just as everyone has been pointing out in football they usually aren't investigated or only get a slap on the hand.

The ONLY reason I bring up the Sampson thing is because in the wording the NCAA used, the entire institution was on probation, not just the basketball program. Do I necessarily think that's right? Not really, if my baseball coaches are running trains on students or midgets and get in serious trouble, it shouldn't affect the football program, but according to the wording the NCAA used in their decision the whole institution has to suffer.

Well, the reason I use the word untouchable is that y'all might get caught, but there's no way in hell the NCAA is going to take tu sports off television or suspend them from postseason play.

The NCAA looks at the institution and it's compliance as a whole. The Basketball violation was also a failure to monitor. So as a whole the NCAA is penalizing the Oklahoma Athletic Department (really their compliance department) for failure to monitor for rules compliance. Does that make sense?

As I said in a previous post I am an administrator for a DI program, who is in charge of NCAA Compliance on my campus. This has caused a stir amongst institution compliance programs, because OU was monitoring their employment the same way if not more than most institutions (None of the institutions that I have worked with have ever collected gross employment earnings, which OU was doing, now they failed to collect them during this time, but this was still their policy). A lot of compliance efforts rely on the student and the employer being honest, which in this case they were not. It was a complete disregard for the rules by the employer and the student-athlete (who were both informed on the NCAA policies), which is in no way the fault of OU.

Yeah that makes perfect sense. Absolutely. It's just a shame that when it boils down to it......honesty on the part of your own players is the main issue here. It sounds like OU was doing more than necessary to make sure that rules were followed. You would think that after being given the opportunity to play at a place like OU......you would try to show at least a little bit of integrity. I know I sound incredibly naive (I know this kind of stuff happens everywhere), but man, it is just ridiculous.