OU forced to forfeit all 2005 wins . . .

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.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

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.

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.

[sueali]

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.

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

Duke? For what?

Originally Posted by macallan25

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.

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.

[sueali]

Originally Posted by macallan25

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.

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.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by sueali

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.

[sueali]

I agree with you one hundred percent. It is really disheartening when a student-athlete has not respect for the institution that has given them a chance to play at that level, and they could care less if something like this happens to the school. I am not going to get into the argument about paying players, but I do want to say that these kids are well taken care of, especially football and basketball players, especially at a large institution like OU(I'm not insinuating rules violations, just stating that some smaller schools can not afford to give their players as much as larger schools can within NCAA rules).

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by sueali

I agree with you one hundred percent. It is really disheartening when a student-athlete has not respect for the institution that has given them a chance to play at that level, and they could care less if something like this happens to the school. I am not going to get into the argument about paying players, but I do want to say that these kids are well taken care of, especially football and basketball players, especially at a large institution like OU(I'm not insinuating rules violations, just stating that some smaller schools can not afford to give their players as much as larger schools can within NCAA rules).

No, trust me, I know of the arguments about paying players. I played baseball for a year and a half in college, at Texas, before getting injured. I think that a lot of people just have absolutely no idea how well athletes in major sports at universities are taken care of......if not simply spoiled. The locker rooms, the player's lounges, the special cooks, the free tutoring, work programs to earn money, meal stipends for road trips, etc. etc. I'm pretty sure you can also get up to 200$ a year for clothing, I'f I'm not mistaken? I was/am fortunate enough to not have to worry about financial difficulties..........but even if I was, I just don't see how I would be worrying about anything so long as I was keeping myself out of trouble and in good standing on the team.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

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.

They imposed such a ban on Alabama fairly recently. Alabama has a pretty substantial fanbase. Probably not on the same order as OU or Texas, but it's substantial. I don't see why Texas or OU would be immune when a school like Alabama is getting hit.

The only football school I can think of which compares to Duke in basketball as far as being untouchable is Notre Dame.

[sueali]

Originally Posted by macallan25

No, trust me, I know of the arguments about paying players. I played baseball for a year and a half in college, at Texas, before getting injured. I think that a lot of people just have absolutely no idea how well athletes in major sports at universities are taken care of......if not simply spoiled. The locker rooms, the player's lounges, the special cooks, the free tutoring, work programs to earn money, meal stipends for road trips, etc. etc. I'm pretty sure you can also get up to 200$ a year for clothing, I'f I'm not mistaken? I was/am fortunate enough to not have to worry about financial difficulties..........but even if I was, I just don't see how I would be worrying about anything so long as I was keeping myself out of trouble and in good standing on the team.

You can get up to $500 a year for clothing if you are a pell grant recipient.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

You bastard. That's a low blow pal.

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