Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
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.