OU forced to forfeit all 2005 wins . . .

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

[DeltAlum]

I think they (Oklahoma) should be brought up on student recruiting violations as well.

The National Merit Scholars office practically promised our son that the Sooners would be national champions in football while he was there (2002-2006).

Shame.

If it weren't for his free academic ride, I'd be furious.

Well, maybe not.

(Sorry, Kevin, yet another cheap shot)

In reality, I think it speaks volumes when a program turns itself in. Kudos for Castiglione and company. As pointed our earlier, there's very little chance the NCAA would have discovered this on its own.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

In reality, I think it speaks volumes when a program turns itself in. Kudos for Castiglione and company. As pointed our earlier, there's very little chance the NCAA would have discovered this on its own.

BS! I'm quite positive the NCAA keeps very close tabs on the texags.com message board!

[sueali]

In the actual NCAA report it states that both the NCAA and OU were sent an anonymous email. The report can be found here just search for Oklahoma.

https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/LSDBi/LSDBI.home

"In its response to the enforcement staff's notice of allegations, the institution claimed that it "self-reported" the employment violations to the NCAA. In reality, the violations at the dealership were first exposed in a March 3, 2006, electronic message (e-mail) sent by an anonymous source to both the NCAA enforcement staff and to institution officials. This e-mail stated that several student-athletes, including student-athlete 1, the institution's starting quarterback, were paid by the dealership for work that they did not perform. But for this e-mail, it is unlikely that these violations would have come to light"