Question Regarding the Compliance Dept.

[TexasLidig8r]

Having sifted through the emotion, the facts, the innuendo, having heard the press conference(s) yesterday, I have some puzzling questions.

As I understand, the issue of Peterson's car came up in the spring of 2006 (this year). The OU internal compliance department investigated the situation and issued it's finding that not only did they not find anything that violated NCAA rules and regulations but other football athlete's working arrangements with the car dealership were clean as well.

In the press conference(s) yesterday and in reports, it was reported that Bomar was paid for work allegedly performed during the fall of 2005. Stoops when asked, stated that Bomar had not reported this "work" to compliance. Therefore, presumably, the information that Bomar had worked for the dealership in the fall of 2005 came from Bomar himself, or from the work records at the dealership.

Presumably, if the Compliance Dept. had performed a thorough investigation into the car dealership, they would have obtained the time cards and employment records of all OU athletes who worked at the dealership and compared those records to the employment records required to be turned in by the athlete to the Compliance Dept. As part of the investigation, they should/would have talked to the athlete as well with the employment records and Compliance records in front of them.

If such rudimentary research and investigation had been done this past spring at the time the Peterson car issues were being raised and investigated, wouldn't the Compliance Dept. have known at that time, of the discrepancy?

Apparently, the Bomar situation arose when the new ownership took over the dealership, audited the records from the former owner (records which should have previously been made available to the Compliance Dept) and approached the university.

So, at least in my mind, questions remain, "Did the Compliance Dept. do a thorough investigation into the dealership and conduct the type of due diligence expected of a NCAA D-1 university?" If so, why didn't they discover this situation earlier? Is it possible they did discover it, but turned a blind eye to it?

It seems as if either the Compliance Dept was incompetent and did not conduct a thorough investigation into the dealership, or turned a knowing or otherwise, blind eye to the situation. Either way, there should be some serious questions asked of the Compliance Dept about this one.

[XingTheRubicon]

"Did the Compliance Dept. do a thorough investigation into the dealership and conduct the type of due diligence expected of a NCAA D-1 university?"


No.

[OKLA21FAN]

The new Owner of the dealership has vehemently denied that they 'discovered' the discrepancy and aproached the university. he says that the university was the one that approached the new dealership and requested records.

(just a point of clarification)

[axiom]

this question (I think verbatim) is asked on a Texas website. It does nothing but trash OU and now this clown is here posting it. Someone should ban this clown.

[SOONER44EVER]

I think its a valid question. Someone obviously wasn't doing their job.

[sooneron]

I think I can see where you're going here, but if a compliance dept. is investigating a loaner, I think it's pretty normal that they aren't going to ask for timecards from the previous Fall.
Do I think that they should have taken a closer look at BRSAI with so many guys working there? Yes, but that is a separate instance.

[OUstudent4life]

An article that might clear some of it up:

http://www.newsok.com/article/2825198/?template=sports/ou

Specifically:


The money

The $18,000 reported by various media outlets as the amount overpaid by Big Red Sports and Imports to Bomar is inaccurate, according to multiple sources.

A university source said Bomar had been overpaid between $2,500 and $6,000. The source said the exact figure was unclear because the hours Bomar actually worked and did not work hadn’t yet been determined.

Regardless, Stoops and Castiglione expressed disappointment in what they called knowing misconduct “over an extended period of time.”

“They’re plenty old enough that they understand the rules,” Stoops said. “They understand what’s right and wrong.”

The discovery

Although Bomar and Quinn had worked at Big Red Sports and Imports during the offseason and summer of 2005, the violations discovered by OU’s compliance staff occurred last fall.

Castiglione and Stoops said OU officials were aware of the players’ initial employment with the dealership, which was not unusual. Brad McRae, the former general manager of Big Red Sports and Imports, said as many as 20-25 football players in the last four years were paid $10 an hour for washing cars and running errands - serving as “lot porters.”

But Castiglione and Stoops said they not know Bomar and Quinn were on the Big Red payroll last fall. Although athletes may be employed during the school year (and during the football season), sources said Bomar and Quinn did not inform OU officials of their autumn employment.

The investigation

The investigation by the OU compliance department stemmed from an investigation last winter into an aborted car deal involving tailback Adrian Peterson. At that time, officials investigated the employment of OU football players at the dealership, but didn’t find any rules violations.

After receiving new information this summer, the compliance staff began investigating the employment of Bomar and Quinn. OU officials would not disclose the source of the information, but with the assistance of the new owners of Big Red Sports and Imports, they discovered the players’ employment last fall.

According to sources, OU officials sought and obtained signed releases from Bomar and Quinn that gave permission to access the players’ employment and financial records, including the players’ W-2 earnings forms and timesheets.

The players were required to do so under the provisions of the OU student-athlete handbook. According to the handbook, had Bomar and Quinn not signed the releases, they could have been declared ineligible for “refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of possible NCAA rules violations.”

Although Stoops and Castiglione would not discuss specifics, several sources said OU officials noted discrepancies in the hours worked and team activities, including football practices.

According to Castiglione, OU’s compliance staff confirmed the violations within the last few days, and the school acted immediately.

[TexasLidig8r]

I think I can see where you're going here, but if a compliance dept. is investigating a loaner, I think it's pretty normal that they aren't going to ask for timecards from the previous Fall.
Do I think that they should have taken a closer look at BRSAI with so many guys working there? Yes, but that is a separate instance.

Ron, I thought in the findings issued by Compliance this past spring, they stated they had looked into other athlete's situations at the dealership as well.

If the investigation focused solely on the issue of the loaner, then they would not have asked for the time cards of other employees.

[Tear Down This Wall]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my fellow Sooner fans, I'm not 100% pleased with what's going on up there. We've got men's basketball violations, violations in the men's and women's gynamstics program, and now with the football program. So, from no revenue suck-off programs to the money machine programs, we've got NCAA violations.

I noticed in my season ticket package that if you order merchandise from the little enclosed flyer, the order went to some outfit in suburban Kansas City. We've got ticky-tacky fees on things and points programs and all this other good bullsh*t. It seems that the folks up there may be spending too much time on the "business" end and not enough on the "student" end of college athletics.

If you ask me, the athletic department needs to get back to watching the athletics end of things and quit trying to squeeze every dime out of the fans as they can at every turn.

OU stuff out of a suburban KC dealer...F'n F that noise! Get it back home, F-tards!

[ouflak]

It seems that the folks up there may be spending too much time on the "business" end and not enough on the "student" end of college athletics.

If you ask me, the athletic department needs to get back to watching the athletics end of things and quit trying to squeeze every dime out of the fans as they can at every turn.

At the risk of having Tear Down This Wall incurr even more wrath, I have to say that I agree.

I'm not very pleased with all of the web companies, none of whom are actually affiliated with OU, that I have to send money just to have a hope of catching the one that OU made a deal with to actually do the broadcast (and there's no guarantee). How much OU has sold out, to the detriment to the fans, and perhaps even the student athletes, becomes a lot more apparent when you get to see it from a distance.

If you guys disagree, go ahead and let Tear Down This Wall have it.

[MiccoMacey]

Ron, I thought in the findings issued by Compliance this past spring, they stated they had looked into other athlete's situations at the dealership as well.

If the investigation focused solely on the issue of the loaner, then they would not have asked for the time cards of other employees.

That would probably be part of the "new information" that isn't being released yet.

It's pretty easy to sit back and make accusatory questions when only part of the information is available. Why not wait until everything comes to light first?

[Tear Down This Wall]

At the risk of having Tear Down This Wall incurr even more wrath, I have to say that I agree.

I'm not very pleased with all of the web companies, none of whom are actually affiliated with OU, that I have to send money just to have a hope of catching the one that OU made a deal with to actually do the broadcast (and there's no guarantee). How much OU has sold out, to the detriment to the fans, and perhaps even the student athletes, becomes a lot more apparent when you get to see it from a distance.

If you guys disagree, go ahead and let Tear Down This Wall have it.

Good persepctive, but you don't have to be in England to see that. For instance, for years our family was in the Sooner Club. Every year after national signing day, coaches would come down to Dallas and talk about the recruits. It was a big deal. And, it was free. Even before the Sooner Club, Switzer would come down and talk about the newly signed recruits, for free.

Now, they want to charge you $10-$25 a head to attend these things - whether or not you're a Sooner Club member. I not only stopped attending the meetings, I quit joining the Sooner Club every year. It was just too different after they started asking for money. It just didn't feel right, like we were no longer fans supporting the program, but customers.

My relationship to OU isn't "customer," it's fan. My family is Okie. I grew up as a child watching the Oklahoma Playback show every Sunday night with my dad and brother. Dad took us to OU games and to the recruiting recap visits Switzer would make in Dallas. Our family is full of OU grads, and we've many OU grads as good friends. It's not a situation where I shopped around and decided on OU. It's in my roots.

I detest being treated more like a customer these days than a fan. It seems like the chickens are coming home to roost with that failed mindset of the athletic department. Get back to what it is, please, Joe. It's a great school and program that many of us have loved our entire lives. We invest more than money in it, we invest time and emotion into it. Don't ignore the most important end of it - the student athletes and the fans. These NCAA violations stacking up hurt all of us.

[humblesooner]

[QUOTE=TexasLidig8r]
Presumably, if the Compliance Dept. had performed a thorough investigation into the car dealership, they would have obtained the time cards and employment records of all OU athletes who worked at the dealership and compared those records to the employment records required to be turned in by the athlete to the Compliance Dept. As part of the investigation, they should/would have talked to the athlete as well with the employment records and Compliance records in front of them.

If such rudimentary research and investigation had been done this past spring at the time the Peterson car issues were being raised and investigated, wouldn't the Compliance Dept. have known at that time, of the discrepancy?

QUOTE]

If someone is stopped for speeding, you wouldn't normally investigate his buddy following him for kidnapping. The two are unrelated. AD's case was checked in to to see if he was given a "privilege" that is not available to other of his peers - as a customer. Bomar's incedent was improper payments - as an employee. Totally unrelated.
Would you think that, because AD was driving a car during a trial period, that they should have investigated to see if anyone from the athletic department was vandalizing the dealership? Has about as much relevance.
You wouldn't think you would have to explain this to a "Texas" "Lidig8r".

[Uncle Russ]

Before anyone gets upset, here, I am talking about ANY athletic program, including my own school: This thread clears up a lot of what I was asking in a separate thread and a lot more. Given the excellent description of what occurred, if I were a compliance department and really wanted to know what was going on, given the rights to investigate set forth in the handbook, I would want to audit every single timecard for every athlete just to nip things in the bud (that obviously would not uncover deep, under-the table deals) as much as possible. On the other hand, the way the handbook is quoted, it could be that the school only has the right to threaten loss of scholarhip if their request for records is pursuant to an investigation of alleged rule violations in the first place--sort of an analogy to probable cause.

[TexasLidig8r]

QUOTE]

If someone is stopped for speeding, you wouldn't normally investigate his buddy following him for kidnapping. The two are unrelated. AD's case was checked in to to see if he was given a "privilege" that is not available to other of his peers - as a customer. Bomar's incedent was improper payments - as an employee. Totally unrelated.
Would you think that, because AD was driving a car during a trial period, that they should have investigated to see if anyone from the athletic department was vandalizing the dealership? Has about as much relevance.
You wouldn't think you would have to explain this to a "Texas" "Lidig8r".

As the article linked above shows, the Compliance Dept. did allegedly conduct an investigation into other athletes employed at the dealership. Apparently, Peterson was one of the employees as well.

Compliance's job is to ensure, as much as possible, that student athletes comply with NCAA and university rules. If you have a situation at one employer where there are questions raised regarding possible, improper benefits to one student athlete, any reasonably prudent compliance department should conduct a thorough investigation into all aspects of all student athlete's employment at that employer, from benefits to time worked to rate of pay, to records turned into the university.

In that way, Compliance can go to the university and the NCAA and say, this is the investigation we conducted.. it was thorough, it was unbiased, it definitively clears all aspects of work at this employer and this employer runs a completely clean, honest and ethical workplace for the student athletes who have been entrusted to us.

[OklaUalum]

ToastaBRew

HEAR!! HEAR!! I toast a brew to you!!!

[GottaHavePride]

As the article linked above shows, the Compliance Dept. did allegedly conduct an investigation into other athletes employed at the dealership. Apparently, Peterson was one of the employees as well.

I think the key is that the University didn't know Bomar and Quinn were employed during the fall, and so wouldn't have thought to ask for their fall timecards (the ones with the discrepancies) during the initial investigation. And the previous crooked management (McRae) would certainly not have volunteered that information. So the university wouldn't have known anything was fishy until someone tipped them off.

It's pretty easy to come up with ways the compliance office could have received a snow job in this mess.

[GrapevineSooner]

And unless NCAA bylaws have some provision that mandates a company must release all pertinent employee records to a student-athlete when either the institution or the NCAA requests it (without obtaining a court order), I don't see how else the compliance department would have known.

[Speer]

And unless NCAA bylaws have some provision that mandates a company must release all pertinent employee records to a student-athlete when either the institution or the NCAA requests it (without obtaining a court order), I don't see how else the compliance department would have known.

Bingo.

Lid- Why don't you give a call to the UT Compliance Department and ask how they would have handled the entire situation (Peterson's car, BRSI, Bomar/Quinn). Let us know what they say.

[humblesooner]

As the article linked above shows, the Compliance Dept. did allegedly conduct an investigation into other athletes employed at the dealership. Apparently, Peterson was one of the employees as well.


You are not any different than any of the Ags and Horns on the radio here in Houston. You come on as a "concerned" sports fans, but in reality you hope there is more to the picture and this time next year Stoops will not be in Norman. If you take every call to the radio or every message on message boards and add "I Hope..." to them, you will get to the true meaning of the call/post.

I am at work and have skimmed over most of the articles published, so I may have skimmed over it, but I have yet to see one where it even slightly indicated the Peterson might be one of the 24-25 FB players who worked at Big Red in the last 4 years.

As GottaHavePride pinted out, the violations apparently occurred during the season last fall when players normally do NOT hold down jobs. So the Complaince Dept was not even thinking along the lines of illegal jobs. This was an investigation in to possible improper privileges given to a football player. That's what they investigated and that's what they determined was within the rules.

Again, If you add "I hope..." to your statement above, Lid's real feelings on the matter are known.

Don't worry, AD will be gone in 2007 so you won't have to worry about him any longer. However, Stoops will be in Norman for as long as he wants to be there.

Thanks for your concern.

[Texas Golfer]

Ron, I thought in the findings issued by Compliance this past spring, they stated they had looked into other athlete's situations at the dealership as well.

If the investigation focused solely on the issue of the loaner, then they would not have asked for the time cards of other employees.

I know that you are, once again, trying to find something that isn't there. The staff checked the others' time cards because they were told by the players that they worked there. The Compliance Dept. verified the hours worked with the compensation paid. Bomar and Quinn never told them they "worked" there.

The Compliance Dept has no legal right just to see employees' time cards and the dealer is in no way obligated to show them without consent from the employee or a court order.

You're a litigator, you should know this.

[TexasLidig8r]

You are not any different than any of the Ags and Horns on the radio here in Houston. You come on as a "concerned" sports fans, but in reality you hope there is more to the picture and this time next year Stoops will not be in Norman. If you take every call to the radio or every message on message boards and add "I Hope..." to them, you will get to the true meaning of the call/post.

I am at work and have skimmed over most of the articles published, so I may have skimmed over it, but I have yet to see one where it even slightly indicated the Peterson might be one of the 24-25 FB players who worked at Big Red in the last 4 years.

As GottaHavePride pinted out, the violations apparently occurred during the season last fall when players normally do NOT hold down jobs. So the Complaince Dept was not even thinking along the lines of illegal jobs. This was an investigation in to possible improper privileges given to a football player. That's what they investigated and that's what they determined was within the rules.

Again, If you add "I hope..." to your statement above, Lid's real feelings on the matter are known.

Don't worry, AD will be gone in 2007 so you won't have to worry about him any longer. However, Stoops will be in Norman for as long as he wants to be there.

Thanks for your concern.

No... no "hope" about anything.

In fact, you can't find one post from me where I have bashed Stoops in any way because there are none. Instead, you will find a number of posts from me saying that I respect the man and the job he has done. I certainly don't think he is the Superman, be all, end all, that you believe but that comes from the natural rivalry.

Also, unlike many other Texas posters who have said Stoops had no choice to do what he did and his hand was forced, not only have I not jumped on that bandwagon, I have never even implied that to be the case.

If you think the Compliance Dept. did all they could do to uncover this before, I certainly won't change your mind. Despite this view, there are some more objective fans who are going to raise some very legitimate questions concerning the process used in this instance.

In fact, I imagine that if I were an OU alum or fan, your outlook to the intial questions and comments posed would be very different.

In this case, don't let the messenger impede the legitimacy of the issues raised.

[Speer]

In this case, don't let the messenger impede the legitimacy of the issues raised.

Nice spin Lid. You knew the answer before you asked the question. Hardly a messenger.

[humblesooner]

No... no "hope" about anything.

In fact, you can't find one post from me where I have bashed Stoops in any way because there are none. Instead, you will find a number of posts from me saying that I respect the man and the job he has done. I certainly don't think he is the Superman, be all, end all, that you believe but that comes from the natural rivalry.

Also, unlike many other Texas posters who have said Stoops had no choice to do what he did and his hand was forced, not only have I not jumped on that bandwagon, I have never even implied that to be the case.

If you think the Compliance Dept. did all they could do to uncover this before, I certainly won't change your mind. Despite this view, there are some more objective fans who are going to raise some very legitimate questions concerning the process used in this instance.

In fact, I imagine that if I were an OU alum or fan, your outlook to the intial questions and comments posed would be very different.

In this case, don't let the messenger impede the legitimacy of the issues raised.

You could not be more wrong.

The first line in your post here is the only truly debatable thing I said and I will admit that is my opinion. It would not change no matter which school you are a fan of, including Oklahoma.

Nowhere in my post did I accuse anyone, including you, of bashing Stoops, so I'm not sure why you mentioned that.

Also, I have never said (here or in any forum) that Stoops was the "Superman, be all, end all," so I am not sure why you mentioned that either.

I never said that the Compliance Dept did all they could do to uncover this before. But while we are on the subject, I do think that the Compliance Dept probably did as much as was reasonable to uncover any illegal actions, not just at Big Red and with regard to FB players. I just think that there are probably somewhere between a few hundred to a few thousand potential places of employment in the Norman/OKC area that could offer employment to OU athletes. I really don't expect the Compliance Dept to go to everyone of these places, without cause, and ask for player employment records. Once they (Comp. Dept, Boren, Joe C. and Coach Stoops) were alerted to potential problems, they investigated, found improper activities and took what I deem as appropriate action.
If you will go back to my original post, you will find that the gist of the post is to say that the Peterson "incident" and the Bomar/Quinn "incidents" are totally unrelated. You would not investigate a possible improper privilege of the car issue with one athlete, and dig in to the employment records of other student athletes. The two are not related.

We do appreciate you bringing the message, but if you didn't want to hear an answer, why did you post in the form of a question? Troll is the first word that comes to my mind.

Have you found the link to the post saying that Peterson might be one of the 20-25 players working at Big Red over the last 4 years? I didn't think so.

Go back to Hornsfans for a while.

[Ike]

my guess, in answer to Lid's original question is that one of two different situations occured with respect to the original investigation:

possible situation 1) The compliance department investigated the work records of those players whom they knew to be employees of BRSI. If they did not know that Bomar and Quinn were employees of BRSI during the period for which they were conducting the investigation, they probably would not have asked for those timecards. The new informantion that the compliance department recieved was probably someone informing them that Bomar and Quinn were on the BRSI payroll in the fall, which contradicted what their records stated, and thus a new investigation began....

possible situation b: During their investigation of players employments at BRSI, the compliance department investigated only whether the players were paid in excess of what they are allowed to make in an off campus job under NCAA rules, and not whether they actually worked the hours they reported to be working. Again, as I mentioned earlier in another thread, an investigation into whether or not players actually worked hours they were clocked in for would be difficult, unless there is documented (which there is apparently) evidence that they were at a different place during hours they claimed to work.


I don't think either of those situations would merit tagging the compliance department with the incompetent label, however if situation b did occur, they might want to re-think what they deem as "thourogh"

[mildpussy]

my guess, in answer to Lid's original question is that one of two different situations occured with respect to the original investigation:

possible situation 1) The compliance department investigated the work records of those players whom they knew to be employees of BRSI. If they did not know that Bomar and Quinn were employees of BRSI during the period for which they were conducting the investigation, they probably would not have asked for those timecards. The new informantion that the compliance department recieved was probably someone informing them that Bomar and Quinn were on the BRSI payroll in the fall, which contradicted what their records stated, and thus a new investigation began....

possible situation b: During their investigation of players employments at BRSI, the compliance department investigated only whether the players were paid in excess of what they are allowed to make in an off campus job under NCAA rules, and not whether they actually worked the hours they reported to be working. Again, as I mentioned earlier in another thread, an investigation into whether or not players actually worked hours they were clocked in for would be difficult, unless there is documented (which there is apparently) evidence that they were at a different place during hours they claimed to work.


I don't think either of those situations would merit tagging the compliance department with the incompetent label, however if situation b did occur, they might want to re-think what they deem as "thourogh"

option b also makes sense in light of OUstudent4life's link to the Oklahoman article - specifically that the money Bomar received was much less than previously reported. this suggests that bomar was/is an idiot and/or arrogant (or whoever clocking him in was/is) in that he/she should have made sure that there were no obvious conflicts between his/bomar's supposed work for BRSI and his/bomar's responsibilities as an athlete-student.

this entire situation seems consistent with the old maxim about the lie being worse than the crime - had bomar been forthcoming with stoops, he might still be on the team (although i sense that stoops decision to get medieval real disprportionate like on bomar's rectum was inevitable).

[GDC]

It's great that some whorns feel legitimized enough to come on this board and keep bringing **** up in an "innocent" and "conversational" manner, just enough to keep rubbing our noses in it. Thanks, whornlovers!

[Uncle Russ]

Once again, from what was posted from the handbook, it sounds as though the athlete only has an obligation to authorize the school to view his employment records if the school has a reason to investigate him (i.e., not someone else.) So, if the school did not know he worked there, they wouldn't ask in the first place.

[FaninAma]

Bingo.

Lid- Why don't you give a call to the UT Compliance Department and ask how they would have handled the entire situation (Peterson's car, BRSI, Bomar/Quinn). Let us know what they say.

Bingo! And while you're at it let us know why Ricky Williams only started flunking drug screens once he got to the NFL. I am sure he only began partaking of the hemp weed once he was a professional. :rolleyes:

The day Brown nuts up and does what Stoops did with his star QB( or any starter) is the day I stop thinking horn fans are FOS.

[GDC]

Schools reliant on honor system
By BILL HAISTEN World Sports Writer
8/6/2006

Officials say the OU flap is not indicative of a flawed compliance system.
Student-athletes and their employers essentially are working on an honor system. Officials at Oklahoma's three universities with NCAA Division I-A football programs acknowledge it is impossible to monitor every aspect of an athlete's relationship with employers and boosters.

As it pertains to offseason jobs, a school's most prominent concern is whether the employer might overpay the athlete in violation of NCAA rules.

Universities trust both parties to do the right thing. The student-athlete is expected to actually do the work, and the employer is expected to pay the student-athlete a wage consistent with what others receive for doing the same task.

Officials at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University and the University of Tulsa say the Rhett Bomar-J.D. Quinn controversy is not indicative of flaws in the monitoring of student-athletes' jobs.

Bomar and Quinn were permanently dismissed from the Sooner football team after OU investigators determined they were paid an excessive amount by a Norman car dealership. OU's investigation apparently reaches beyond that matter and, a university spokesman said, is ongoing. The NCAA likely will

follow with an investigation of its own.

During the 2005 fall period when Bomar and Quinn apparently were overpaid, their employment was not registered with the OU compliance office. When a student-athlete has a job, he or she is required to report the specifics to the university's NCAA compliance office.

"Rhett and J.D. could have done this even if we had 50 compliance officers," said a source within the OU athletic department. "There's nothing wrong with our system. Our (athletes) are educated. Countless times, we've instructed them on what is right and what is wrong. Our system isn't broken. Society is broken.

"This is not that complex an issue. Two guys lied, cheated and got caught. And now they're gone. End of story."

Basically, Sooner coach Bob Stoops said, the university could not monitor the Bomar-Quinn situation because there was no awareness of it.

"Players need to be accountable," Stoops said. "We can't spend every minute with them. Our compliance staff cannot spend every minute with them.

"When are (the players) held accountable? In the end, ultimately, they are."

At OU, OSU and TU, compliance staff members frequently remind student-athletes of NCAA rules pertaining to job compensation and illegal gifts. Compliance personnel can be comprehensive in their attempt to educate athletes on what is acceptable and what is not, but they cannot possibly monitor all of the actions of all of the athletes.

At OU, there are about 125 student-athletes for every compliance officer. At OSU, the ratio is approximately 68-to-1. At TU, it is 117-to-1.

In the end, universities are forced to rely on the integrity of athletes and boosters.

"There are opportunities for people to operate beyond the boundaries that we have in place, even with constant education and reinforcement," OU athletic director Joe Castiglione said. "They decide to act on their own. It may be difficult, if not impossible, for us to find it."

Castiglione insists there was no systemic breakdown at OU. Instead, he indicated, there was a brazen disregard for the rules.

In his eight years as TU's assistant athletics director for compliance, Alex Parker can remember "only a couple" of job-related incidents involving Golden Hurricane athletes.

"Nickel-and-dime sorts of things," Parker said. One athlete was suspended, Parker reported, but there have been no dismissals.

An employer's excessive overpayment of a student-athlete, such as allegedly was the case with Bomar and Quinn, is a rare occurrence in major-college sports, Parker said.

Until about 10 years ago, officials say, it was common for universities to assist student-athletes in securing summer jobs. Now, only a handful seek summer employment. Most athletes take summer classes and attend conditioning sessions.

Of 105 players on the Oklahoma State football roster, only nine had a registered job this summer.

In the wake of what happened last week at OU, OSU President David Schmidly and athletic director Mike Holder met to review O-State's compliance policies and procedures.

"Anytime something like that happens with one of your contemporaries, it makes you step back and check to be sure that what you're doing is good," Holder said. "We want to strive for excellence, and we want to play by the rules. Your compliance office is only as good as the coaches on your staff and the athletes they recruit."

Schmidly has ordered the publication of brochures that will be distributed to all Oklahoma State boosters.

"It explains what you can and can't do, according to NCAA regulations," Schmidly said. "We'll be publishing it in a few days, and we're not doing it in response to anything that happened at OU or anywhere else. We were already in the process of publishing before anything happened. . . . We want (boosters) to know what the rules are."

At OU and TU, compliance officers report to the athletic director. At OSU, the compliance staffers report directly to Schmidly.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bill Haisten 581-8397
[email protected].

[Funky G]

Come on Lid. Your inference is that the compliance department did a bad job. So based on that inference what is your next recommended step? See the logic?

[Funky G]

One more thing. Who took Vince Young's ACT/SAT? Was it you Lid? That's an investigation I'd like to see...

[tulsaoilerfan]

The new Owner of the dealership has vehemently denied that they 'discovered' the discrepancy and aproached the university. he says that the university was the one that approached the new dealership and requested records.

(just a point of clarification)
I'm pretty sure that i read in the World that someone tipped the University off to this, and OU requested the records and that the dealership was not the one that initiated this

[TXBOOMER]

The compliance department had to stop their investigation to chase some fast black dude wearing a putrid orange t-shirt that was running down the sidewalk with the lead investigators plasma screen TV.

[Soonerfan88]

As was told to me by an employee of OU:

During the AD car investigation, the Compliance Dept also looked at all timesheets/payments for any athlete working there. These all looked legit with standard number of hours/pay. They issued the press release that all things were well.

Once they had a little more time, they took a more in-depth look at the timesheets and noticed that Bomar & Quinn were supposedly working at BRSI when they were also said to have been at workouts/practice - even in the summer. This of course led them to ask Hudiburg for any info they may have left from the previous owner. They then found the records of them working in the fall & that is when the majority of the money was given to them.

So, how stupid are Bomar, Quinn, & McCrae? Not only did they choose the hard way of falsifying timesheets (direct handouts stupid - no paper trail) but they couldn't even get the hours straight against team workouts. :rolleyes:

[SOONER44EVER]

Part of the problem could be that there is only 1 compliance officer for every 168 athletes at OU. I saw this on the channel 9 news earlier tonight. Tulsa has 1 officer for every 61 athletes and OSU has 1 for every 115. I think that may change soon.

[TexasLidig8r]

The day Brown nuts up and does what Stoops did with his star QB( or any starter) is the day I stop thinking horn fans are FOS.

See Kwame Cavil and Aaron Humphrey, 1999.

Good to see your views on Texas fans is now changed.

[TexasLidig8r]

As was told to me by an employee of OU:

During the AD car investigation, the Compliance Dept also looked at all timesheets/payments for any athlete working there. These all looked legit with standard number of hours/pay. They issued the press release that all things were well.

Once they had a little more time, they took a more in-depth look at the timesheets and noticed that Bomar & Quinn were supposedly working at BRSI when they were also said to have been at workouts/practice - even in the summer. This of course led them to ask Hudiburg for any info they may have left from the previous owner. They then found the records of them working in the fall & that is when the majority of the money was given to them.

So, how stupid are Bomar, Quinn, & McCrae? Not only did they choose the hard way of falsifying timesheets (direct handouts stupid - no paper trail) but they couldn't even get the hours straight against team workouts. :rolleyes:

Getting past the slams and digs on here, it seems then that, especially in light of the post about two above this, the Compliance Department may be a bit understaffed.

I don't know what type of job they did, how thorough they were.. just brought up some possibly thought provoking questions.

[Speer]

Getting past the slams and digs on here, it seems then that, especially in light of the post about two above this, the Compliance Department may be a bit understaffed.

I don't know what type of job they did, how thorough they were.. just brought up some possibly thought provoking questions.

In the interest of provoking thought, here's a few questions Lid.

1. Have you called UT's compliance Dept. yet to see how they would have handled the situation? If you were actually interested in an answer, your inquiries should extend beyond an OU message board.

2. How does UT's compliance staffing compare to OU's?

3. Did UT's compliance dept know about Benson's jail sentence for the plasma incident?

4. Who knew that Taylor was flunking out prior to the Rose Bowl?

5. Have you compiled a list of suspended players for OU and TX (Stoops and Brown tenure) showing the alleged offense & length of suspension? It would be interesting to compare offenses to suspension length for both teams.

6. Why do the horns on your tie appear upside down? (I think I know this one)

I think we've collectively answered your provoking questions. I think it's only courteous that you answer mine.

[humblesooner]

In the interest of provoking thought, here's a few questions Lid.

1. Have you called UT's compliance Dept. yet to see how they would have handled the situation? If you were actually interested in an answer, your inquiries should extend beyond an OU message board.

2. How does UT's compliance staffing compare to OU's?

3. Did UT's compliance dept know about Benson's jail sentence for the plasma incident?

4. Who knew that Taylor was flunking out prior to the Rose Bowl?

5. Have you compiled a list of suspended players for OU and TX (Stoops and Brown tenure) showing the alleged offense & length of suspension? It would be interesting to compare offenses to suspension length for both teams.

6. Why do the horns on your tie appear upside down? (I think I know this one)

I think we've collectively answered your provoking questions. I think it's only courteous that you answer mine.

7. Why does a Horn fan have 5,000+ posts on an OU board?

[TexasLidig8r]

In the interest of provoking thought, here's a few questions Lid.

1. Have you called UT's compliance Dept. yet to see how they would have handled the situation? If you were actually interested in an answer, your inquiries should extend beyond an OU message board. Actually, talked to an acquaintance who has worked with outside counsel on investigations into past improprieties in the UT program. Didn't give any specifics other to say it's a case by case basis and that UT has retained outside counsel to conduct investigations in similar circumstances. As you are undoubtedly aware if compliance was called directly, they do not respond to inquiries from "the public."

2. How does UT's compliance staffing compare to OU's? Information regarding UT Compliance staffing and program can be found.. here...
http://www.texassports.com/mainpages/001_structure/compliance/main.html

3. Did UT's compliance dept know about Benson's jail sentence for the plasma incident? Benson's situation was known by Compliance. The appropriate email addys are listed on the site above should you need additional information.

4. Who knew that Taylor was flunking out prior to the Rose Bowl? Taylor was cleared to play in the Rose Bowl as at that time, his grades were compliant with the NCAA minimum requirements.

5. Have you compiled a list of suspended players for OU and TX (Stoops and Brown tenure) showing the alleged offense & length of suspension? It would be interesting to compare offenses to suspension length for both teams. No, nor do I intend to. If you would like to assemble the list, contact both universities and ask for the information. At no time did I ever state that UT Compliance would have handled the investigation differently. I simply posted some questions which I believed were legitimate. I am aware that many posters cannot objectively view ANY post not posted by an OU alum or supporter of the program.

6. Why do the horns on your tie appear upside down? (I think I know this one) Before the Texas - OU game last year, one of the Admins went on to my account and turned the tie upside down. With the success in last year's RRS and the eventual National Championship, I saw no reason to change it back up. :D

I think we've collectively answered your provoking questions. I think it's only courteous that you answer mine.

I trust these answers suffice.

As for why over 5,500 posts, I have been here for about 4 years or so and as to why I am here.. that question has been answered many times.

[GrapevineSooner]

Sufficient, indeed.

And in light of the whole Bomar situation, there's nothing wrong with asking thought-provoking questions to see whether or not the Compliance Department could have done anything differently.

[MamaMia]

The players have been made aware of the rules of compliance on many different occasions. I think OU needs to do a better job of checking out whether or not the athletes are in compliance, now that this has happened, but who would have guessed that a player with such a bright future and so much to lose would be so stupid?

[C&CDean]

The players have been made aware of the rules of compliance on many different occasions. I think OU needs to do a better job of checking out whether or not the athletes are in compliance, now that this has happened, but who would have guessed that a player with such a bright future and so much to lose would be so stupid?

Yup. Who'd a thunk it?

[Speer]

I trust these answers suffice.

As for why over 5,500 posts, I have been here for about 4 years or so and as to why I am here.. that question has been answered many times.

Like you Lid, I knew the answers before I asked the questions.

This incident begins and ends with Bomar and Quinn. Questioning the compliance department's actions, procedures, staffing, etc. is nothing more than stirring the pot. If you or anyone else has a legitimate suggestion for how they can improve, give them a call. Otherwise, stop suggesting/implying they're not doing their jobs.

I've yet to see anything in your posts that suggests objectivity.

[GDC]

Like you Lid, I knew the answers before I asked the questions.

This incident begins and ends with Bomar and Quinn. Questioning the compliance department's actions, procedures, staffing, etc. is nothing more than stirring the pot. If you or anyone else has a legitimate suggestion for how they can improve, give them a call. Otherwise, stop suggesting/implying they're not doing their jobs.

I've yet to see anything in your posts that suggests objectivity.

Exactly.

[spaceman]

I agree with Tear and ouflak. It looks like arrogance is setting in.

But I have a question for Kenny Mossman? How in the world does the RB incident get posted on a Texas A&M message board several months ago but our compliance department has absolutely no clue about the situation until a week or so ago? Something is not right. Heads need to roll and people need to be called on the carpet.

[jrsooner]

As I understand, the issue of Peterson's car came up in the spring of 2006 (this year). The OU internal compliance department investigated the situation and issued it's finding that not only did they not find anything that violated NCAA rules and regulations but other football athlete's working arrangements with the car dealership were clean as well.

In the press conference(s) yesterday and in reports, it was reported that Bomar was paid for work allegedly performed during the fall of 2005. Stoops when asked, stated that Bomar had not reported this "work" to compliance. Therefore, presumably, the information that Bomar had worked for the dealership in the fall of 2005 came from Bomar himself, or from the work records at the dealership.

Presumably, if the Compliance Dept. had performed a thorough investigation into the car dealership, they would have obtained the time cards and employment records of all OU athletes who worked at the dealership and compared those records to the employment records required to be turned in by the athlete to the Compliance Dept. As part of the investigation, they should/would have talked to the athlete as well with the employment records and Compliance records in front of them.
.....edited out....
So, at least in my mind, questions remain, "Did the Compliance Dept. do a thorough investigation into the dealership and conduct the type of due diligence expected of a NCAA D-1 university?" If so, why didn't they discover this situation earlier? Is it possible they did discover it, but turned a blind eye to it?

It seems as if either the Compliance Dept was incompetent and did not conduct a thorough investigation into the dealership, or turned a knowing or otherwise, blind eye to the situation. Either way, there should be some serious questions asked of the Compliance Dept about this one.
You can't say that. If the original investigation was centered on giving cars to football players, then that is where the auditors would have focused their investigation. They would have asked for any contracts or "lendings" to athletes. Nowhere in a "free car" investigation would an "employment" issue been brought up. That wasn't the investigations. Plus, they had no legal reason at that time to even suggest payoffs in the garage area, and add to that the players already stated they worked there in the summer but did not mention it in the fall, it wouldn't have been on the radar for the Compliancy department.

That would be similar to saying Player X worked at Sonic last year, and Player Y got a free meal today. Therefor let's get all their payroll records for all their possible athlete employees to find out who works there and see if they've received more money than they should have, especially since no athlete is reported working there now. That's ridiculous! You're going to ask a PRIVATE business to burn time and money to help on an investigation (not even a criminal investigation) that has nothing to do with their business? Unless the business signed an agreement with OU concerning hiring players, then OU can't do anything about it business wise. OU can state athletes can't work there, but they can't state how businesses pay their employees.

If they did ask for employement records at that time it would have been just to insure the time that they were notified the athletes worked there, not the "unknown" time. OU would've had to ask for a period per player, and assumably that would have been the time on the Compliance departments work months for each athlete.

[jrsooner]

Compliance's job is to ensure, as much as possible, that student athletes comply with NCAA and university rules. If you have a situation at one employer where there are questions raised regarding possible, improper benefits to one student athlete, any reasonably prudent compliance department should conduct a thorough investigation into all aspects of all student athlete's employment at that employer, from benefits to time worked to rate of pay, to records turned into the university.I disagree wholeheartedly! It is the Compliance department's job to monitor and test controls that have been put into place to ensure that the athletic department is following those key controls from the NCAA. They aren't babysitters, but glorified auditors (I wonder if I can get a job with them. :))

By doing so they have set up some controls from what I can tell. Control #1 (Detective Control)is (from the articles I've read) "You have to notify us when you are working someplace." Control #2 (Investigative Control) "Have players sign releases on financial information with Company XYZ", have OU lawyers get papers on the players for time period worked. Control #3 (Disciplinary Control) - "If Player has broken rules - kick them off the team". Control #4 (Remediation Control) - "Are there new processes or procedures we can put in to cover Control #1 better?".

At your company is there a rule about sharing passwords? Is there a rule that says you can't share your password with another individual? I can guarantee you that's a key control for SOX. There will be people at your company that do share their passwords, and then there should be remediation controls to take care of violators. Same here. Do you think if Billy Bob down in Austin shared his password with a coworker, everyone in that office should be put under investigations (which cost $$$) on if they shared passwords or not?

[RedstickSooner]

The fact that it took so long for this to come to light disturbs me to no end.

Yes, I realize that an investigation would be hampered, but if we were aggressive enough, I would think we could (for instance) get releases from every player and use those as our "carte blanche" when requesting employment information from a dealership we had reason to suspect.

I continue to firmly believe we run a clean program. I really don't want to be proven wrong in this belief.

As a side note, Big Red Ron - listening to a recruiting wrap-up from Switzer sounds like it would've been an absolute blast. Guy was quite possibly the greatest college football recruiter to ever live -- I can't even imagine how much fun it'd be to hear him expound on each year's class like that right after signing.

[jrsooner]

Getting past the slams and digs on here, it seems then that, especially in light of the post about two above this, the Compliance Department may be a bit understaffed.
I don't know what type of job they did, how thorough they were.. just brought up some possibly thought provoking questions.Dang!! Give yourself a cigar!!!! For most companies the compliance (internal controls) groups are always understaffed! They don't like spending money on them when they don't produce revenue. I work for a global company, we have 5 people on staff for running processes/controls/evidencing for the whole IT deparment of 500+. We have the gritty duty of that and then other jobs and projects for IT (including Disaster Recovery). The Company does have an Internal Controls group that is less than our staff.

You do the best you can, make sure you cover all the holes you can, and then hope you have enough detective controls in place that if something does slip through you can state with a clear conscience you did all you could to ensure compliance.

[Funky G]

Speaking of compliance and rules, which one of your clients is being billed for the time you spend on this message board?

[TexasLidig8r]

You can't say that. If the original investigation was centered on giving cars to football players, then that is where the auditors would have focused their investigation. They would have asked for any contracts or "lendings" to athletes. Nowhere in a "free car" investigation would an "employment" issue been brought up. That wasn't the investigations. Plus, they had no legal reason at that time to even suggest payoffs in the garage area, and add to that the players already stated they worked there in the summer but did not mention it in the fall, it wouldn't have been on the radar for the Compliancy department.

That would be similar to saying Player X worked at Sonic last year, and Player Y got a free meal today. Therefor let's get all their payroll records for all their possible athlete employees to find out who works there and see if they've received more money than they should have, especially since no athlete is reported working there now. That's ridiculous! You're going to ask a PRIVATE business to burn time and money to help on an investigation (not even a criminal investigation) that has nothing to do with their business? Unless the business signed an agreement with OU concerning hiring players, then OU can't do anything about it business wise. OU can state athletes can't work there, but they can't state how businesses pay their employees.

If they did ask for employement records at that time it would have been just to insure the time that they were notified the athletes worked there, not the "unknown" time. OU would've had to ask for a period per player, and assumably that would have been the time on the Compliance departments work months for each athlete.

Naturally, the original investigation centered on the car to Peterson questions. Perhaps I tend to be thorough, but, if I am looking at a possible violation involving the EMPLOYER, then I conduct a full scale investigation into all student athletes employed at that Employer.

Let's presume, as we should, the university and Compliance knew nothing about any improprieties at the dealership. (Is that objective enought for you Geary?) However, if it comes to light that there have been allegations made against the EMPLOYER (and certainly, the car dealership in this case would be in the know and the precipitator of the incident), then I conduct a thorough investigation into all possible connections between that Employer and the student athletes... this investigation would include all aspects of those student athletes' employment.

That way, you can show not only the university, but the NCAA, if necessary (and, right now, it looks like there may not be any additional inquiries), that you investigated not only the incident in dispute, but all connections with the dealership and the dealership, and all of your student athletes' connections with the dealership were above board and clean. It increases your credibility and sets a model for other univerisities to follow.

[GDC]

Speaking of compliance and rules, which one of your clients is being billed for the time you spend on this message board?

Hah


Leave it to one of our whorn "friends" to keep dragging this whole thing on and on, I'm sure he's enjoying every second of it.

[soonerjoker]

i thot "student-athletes" could work ONLY during the summer.

i know that it used to be that way.

what's the deal ???

[ADs_Agent]

if I understand the NCAA rule book, they are allowed to work during the school year, but not a whole lot of hours. It may only be like 10 hours a week.

[soonerjoker]

thanx !!!

[Tear Down This Wall]

Sufficient, indeed.

And in light of the whole Bomar situation, there's nothing wrong with asking thought-provoking questions to see whether or not the Compliance Department could have done anything differently.

Precisely. I'd bet they monitor situations before they arise next time. For me, just saying "we told the kids the rules over and over" doesn't wash. They're kids.

They may be 18-, 19-, and 20-year old kids, but they're still kids. You've got to tell them and monitor them. That's why schools began compliance department to begin with! To make sure all NCAA regs were followed!

So, if something goes wrong we get, "Well, we told the kids" and "We followed up after we heard some things"? Bogus.

You work in the compliance department, your job is to monitor the NCAA regulation stuff. Get off your butts and do it! Quit tyring to put all the blame on the kids. To me, Big Red Sports, Bomar, Quinn, and the OU athletic department's compliance office all share in the blame.

[jrsooner]

Speaking of compliance and rules, which one of your clients is being billed for the time you spend on this message board?None... I'm salaried, and we get fired if we "play" on the internet at work. I do my surfing at home.

[humblesooner]

None... I'm salaried, and we get fired if we "play" on the internet at work. I do my surfing at home.

Just a guess on my part, but I think this question was intended for the "Lid"igator (attorney) who began this thread with a question he didn't want to hear the answer to.

BTW Lid - Ever find that article saying that Peterson was apparently employed at BRSI? :D

[ADs_Agent]

None... I'm salaried, and we get fired if we "play" on the internet at work. I do my surfing at home.

swing and a miss.........

[jrsooner]

Naturally, the original investigation centered on the car to Peterson questions. Perhaps I tend to be thorough, but, if I am looking at a possible violation involving the EMPLOYER, then I conduct a full scale investigation into all student athletes employed at that Employer.And you would appear to be "harrassing" the employer. They could easily argue that their employees are out of scope for a legitimate audit concerning a possible car purchase, and you are harrassing them because they were following their processes by letting AD drive the car for a week. Remember they did not do anything LEGALLY wrong. They are not members of the NCAA. If they as a company want to overpay their employees that's fine, but they did not break the law. 2 students may have broken NCAA rules, but the company did not break the law in overpaying them.

I tend to be overthorough at work. I've saved our IT deparment many times. I also know how to put up detective controls so when that one item slips by and the auditors catch it, then we can prove due diligence on that control so it doesn't kill the department's ratings. I'm one of the individuals where when I walk into an office they don't know if they are in trouble or not. I understand the resources needed for this, the staff to do it correctly, and most of all how much input I would need from the person being audited. I know the run around I sometimes get (I'm well liked besides my job) from people that the CIO tells to work with us or hit the road. I hate to go into a hostile environment and get the "accurate" records when nothing illegal has been done.

I distrust every business that has a "horns" on it. So if I was in the UT Compliance office should I harrass every single one of the businesses to see if they are doing something wrong because I don't agree with their processes? You hope at the end of the day that you've got all your bases covered before going home. You can only be so thorough and I'd guarantee that something will slip by you - it always does.

[ADs_Agent]

don't pat yourself on the back to hard........

[jrsooner]

They may be 18-, 19-, and 20-year old kids, but they're still kids. You've got to tell them and monitor them. That's why schools began compliance department to begin with! To make sure all NCAA regs were followed!You know what? I went to OU when I was 18-20 years old. I was just a kid, and had no family near Oklahoma. I didn't need a babysitter following me around every day to see if I was doing right. I knew the law and rules that OU had. I followed them without a babysitter. I don't see this as a valid excuse. They knew better.

[ADs_Agent]

so you stayed in your dorm and never went out with your friends? You never put yourself in a situation that could get you in trouble just having fun with your college friends? You must have had a 4.0 from doing nothing but studying.

[jrsooner]

so you stayed in your dorm and never went out with your friends? You never put yourself in a situation that could get you in trouble just having fun with your college friends? You must have had a 4.0 from doing nothing but studying.I wish I had a 4.0! :P Didn't stay in my room either all the time, but I knew enough to stay away from the fire to keep from getting burned. Bomar and Quinn both knew enough to know it was wrong, and they still did it. That's a personal choice that they both made, and they are paying the consequences for it. 18-20 years shouldn't need a babysitter to know right from wrong.

[MiccoMacey]

I wish I had a 4.0! :P Didn't stay in my room either all the time, but I knew enough to stay away from the fire to keep from getting burned. Bomar and Quinn both knew enough to know it was wrong, and they still did it. That's a personal choice that they both made, and they are paying the consequences for it. 18-20 years shouldn't need a babysitter to know right from wrong.

And to add to that, even if you did something wrong, you probably wouldn't have hid under the blanket excuse of "it's someone else's responsibility to watch over me".

Bomar and Quinn seem to be accepting the responsibility for their actions. I haven't heard where they are shifting the blame onto the compliance department.

BTW, MiccoMacey does NOT = Bomar or Quinn (just heading that off early) :D

[ADs_Agent]

MiccoMacey = Jerry Bomar

[MiccoMacey]

MiccoMacey = Jerry Bomar

Dude, you are soooo going down hard for that... :D

[ADs_Agent]

:D

[SOONER44EVER]

The compliance department is there to make sure the players comply. Since the players didn't comply the compliance department has been decomplied upon. Its easy to understand.:D

[MiccoMacey]

Would that be that Bomar acted in decomplicity in noncompliance with the compliance officer.