OU forced to forfeit all 2005 wins . . .

[Kevlar281]

So does that mean they have to return bowl money?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kevlar281

So does that mean they have to return bowl money?

No. Did you even read the penalty?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No. Did you even read the penalty?

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Kevlar281

So does that mean they have to return bowl money?

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."

[kstar]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by kstar

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.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

Originally Posted by sueali

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

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

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 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.

Originally Posted by macallan25

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.

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.

Internet Whistleblowers Go Where N.C.A.A. Fears to Tread

By SELENA ROBERTS
Published: July 15, 2007

The Buddy List of watchdogs for college sports operates under pseudonyms inside a message-board world that functions as group therapy for cathartic enthusiasts.
Skip to next paragraph
Jerry Larson/Associated Press

The N.C.A.A. said Oklahoma, coached by Bob Stoops, must forfeit its eight victories in 2005 for failing to monitor player employment.

In technology speak, call them iFans. They descend upon wildly popular Web sites like TexAgs.com with their team musings and debates and, at times, the kind of insider information that can doom a rival to N.C.A.A. purgatory.

It was well past midnight in January 2006 when a user named aggiegrant06 dashed off a thread on TexAgs.com that detailed how his girlfriend handed out payroll checks for a car dealer in Norman, Okla. “She didn’t recognize several of the names,” aggiegrant06 wrote. “She thought it was fishy and asked me.”

The boyfriend knew the names in the blink of an instant message: They were football players at Oklahoma. Gotcha, Rhett Bomar. Six months later, after it was determined that Bomar, the Sooners’ sainted quarterback, received money for a no-show job at Big Red Sports/Imports, Coach Bob Stoops tossed him from the team.

Last week, the N.C.A.A., citing Oklahoma’s failure to monitor the employment of its players, handed down punishment, forcing the team to erase its victories from the 2005 season. Oklahoma will appeal.

Aggiegrant06 wasn’t a spy hidden in the bushes, but a chat-room visitor who lurked among hard drives. He was a legitimate tipster, even though his postings on TexAgs.com were pulled by the administrator within two hours because the information lacked sufficient evidence.

How can a fan-site monitor measure Internet cred?

“We’re in a strange situation,” said Brandon Jones, the vigilant owner of TexAgs.com, a fan site independent of Texas A&M. “We function as editors in trying to determine if something is valid.

“But you’d be surprised. It’s rare when we see something that is blatantly dishonest.”

The iFan, armed with a BlackBerry or an iPhone, a cellphone camera or a text message, is actually better equipped to be a caretaker of college athletics than the sleuths at the N.C.A.A., whose water guns and magnifying glasses leave them best suited to guard a tip jar. <snip>

[Kevin]

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.