OU forced to forfeit all 2005 wins . . .

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.


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

SPORTS PEOPLE: COLLEGE FOOTBALL; 2 More Aggie Players Ineligible

Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: May 27, 1993

R. C. SLOCUM, Texas A&M's football coach, said yesterday that two more of his players, linebacker JESSE COX and wide receiver BRIAN MITCHELL, have been declared ineligible for accepting improper payments from a prominent Dallas booster.

Slocum said the two players worked summer jobs at a Dallas company owned by WARREN GILBERT and were paid salaries of $200 a week. An investigation by the university and the National Collegiate Athletics Association showed they were paid for some hours they did not work, Slocum said.

The two players bring to seven the number declared ineligible for accepting illegal payments from Gilbert, who owns several low-income housing projects in Dallas. (AP)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

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.

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?

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

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?

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

You bastard. That's a low blow pal.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

You bastard. That's a low blow pal.

Yeah, I know.. Sorry,couldn't resist