How Many Of You Supported Bob Stoops' Actions Regarding Bomar And Quinn?

[FaninAma]

If you did, what are your thoughts regarding how OU and the ahtletic department handled the Kelvin Sampson transgressions?

I personally supported the actions taken with Bomar and Quinn but I feel strongly that the Castiglione, Stoops and Boren should have made a stronger public comment on how the Sampson situation was handled instead of sweeping it under the rug.

In other words, Stoops and the University brought down the hammer on a couple of players who were 20 years old at the time of their transgressions but did nothing to a coach making millions of dollars by representing the university.

The crimes of the individuals involved were not commensurate with the penalties paid. Bomar and Quinn payed a heavy price. KS is sitting pretty at Indiana with, I assume, the payout still inntact from the large annuity the University bought him.

[fadada1]

not sure of the article, but i would think if your behavior leads to ncaa sanctions against the program, that should constitute a breach in contract and subsequent loss of any funds that may be owed.

maybe we should get a lawyer type to get a real answer.

[sooner518]

I definitely supported the actions against The Two Idiots.

With that said, KS's transgressions were minor in comparison. There are so many recruiting loopholes that I really don't think making extra phone calls is that big of a deal. It's basically a technicality. If he had sent 500 text messages instead of making phone calls, it would have been completely legit.

Sure, KS should have known the rules regarding this and he was punished for it. But it wasnt like he was caught passing out Ben Franklins to potential recruits. They were just phone calls. BFD.

[sooner94]

I absolutely supported the way Stoops handled the BRSI situation. Stoops was really ****ed off because Bomar and Quinn lied to him. I don't know when and what the lies were, but Stoops said in his press conference that they lied to him about the situation and that was unacceptable. And what they did was detrimental to the team.

I don't really follow the basketball team that much, but from what I hear, no one was begging Sampson to stay when he got the offer from Indiana. I think Sampson took another job before OU had a chance to fire him, although I may be wrong on the timing of that. I thought that the investigation and penalties were not finalized until after Sampson signed on at Indiana.

And I do know for a fact that sanctions did follow Sampson to Indiana (scholarship limits?). The NCAA decided a couple of years ago to penalize a coach that gets a program in trouble and leaves by penalizing that coach at his new program.

[fadada1]

If he had sent 500 text messages instead of making phone calls, it would have been completely legit.

500 text messages = 500 phone calls = 500 emails = 500 visits

it's "contact" according to the ncaa.

[FaninAma]

I definitely supported the actions against The Two Idiots.

With that said, KS's transgressions were minor in comparison. There are so many recruiting loopholes that I really don't think making extra phone calls is that big of a deal. It's basically a technicality. If he had sent 500 text messages instead of making phone calls, it would have been completely legit.

Sure, KS should have known the rules regarding this and he was punished for it. But it wasnt like he was caught passing out Ben Franklins to potential recruits. They were just phone calls. BFD.

Needless to say I disagree strongly. My understanding of the situation is that KS treated the investigation very cavalierly and Boren and Castiglione had to work very hard to prevent the NCAA from slapping OU with "Lack of Institutional Control" violations.

My irritation is directed at the degree of punishment netted out to 2 players who neither profited as much as KS from their association with OU or had as much experience dealing with the NCAA compared to the "punishment" dealt out to a supposedly experienced, well compensated, mature adult representative of the University.

[OUMallen]

SHould have been harder on KS.

Did the right thing on the Two Idiots.

If they had done the right thing on KS, then maybe we could have kept the Two Idiots around like Ohio State...nah, I am still glad he did it.

[FaninAma]

SHould have been harder on KS.

Did the right thing on the Two Idiots.

If they had done the right thing on KS, then maybe we could have kept the Two Idiots around like Ohio State...nah, I am still glad he did it.

So why are the two former players referred to as "idiots" and KS referred to as KS?

[BermudaSooner]

On the face of it, the dismissing of Bomar and Quinn seems too harsh to me. Now if they did in fact lie to Stoops about it, I can see why they would be dismissed and I agree with it.

The phone calls don't seem like a big deal to me--unless or until the NCAA slaps us with big sanctions.

In summary, phone calls were a violation of a stupid rule. What Bomar and Quinn did was an obvious violation of well established rules. If they then in fact lied about it to the coach, they should be dismissed.

I don't see a big inconsistency.

[bluedogok]

Stoops should have nothing to comment on in the Sampson situation, that is wholly the domain of Boren and Castiglione (maybe the upper levels of the athletic dept. and/or regents). He is the football coach and has nothing to do with any other sport, any comment other than dealing with his sport would construed as being meddlesome and would have no good public outcome. I think they were on the verge of ditching Sampson because of the violation but IU took him off their hands. It seemed like there was nothing more than a goodbye and enjoy your time in Bloomington.

I think Stoops did the right thing with Bomar and Quinn.

[TUSooner]

I supported Bob. Who's Kelvin Sampson?

(I know who he is :rolleyes:, I just don't care - or know - that much about hoops, even OU hoops.)

[OUMallen]

So why are the two former players referred to as "idiots" and KS referred to as KS?


WTF does it matter? Someone refered ot the Two Idiots as the "Two Idiots" and I didn't know whether to type RB and JQ or JDQ.

Is your question serious? Are you REALLY needling me after my opinion agreed with yours?

[caphorns]

From an outsiders situation, I thing both situations were handled very well. Taking money for no work is obviously a bigger ethical issue from a personal perspective than making too many phone calls to recruits. But the latter involved a person in a somewhat fiduciary position, and a person on the university payroll, so the consequences are at least equal for the individual and worse for the program. There really is nothing OU could do to keep Sampson from taking another job. If OU went after him verbally, they'd face a defamation or other type of lawsuit possibility - not to mention that it raises the profile of the situation where it continues to hurt the program's marketing as a whole (see Indiana). The most the OU administration could do is boot him from his job, which is what was apparently done. I'm sure if they can weasel out of the contract, they will.

[fadada1]

"rules are what keeps us from living in trees, throwing poop at each other" - redd forman

there's a couple ways to look at it. with the idiots, they were hurting themselves and the program. they knew the risks, and still did it - and now they're dealing with the consequences (and potential millions lost to the nfl). had they gotten away with it, ala reggie bush, the program suffers with sanctions after it's found out.

as for sampso, he was only hurting the program, imo. he has his millions, and as long as he doesn't care about his reputation, who cares. but he DID hurt the program and it's image. sampson could've made 1 extra call, or 500 extra calls - either way, he broke the rules and potentially damaged a program. i don't think, by doing this, he left the program in better shape than he found it. when sherri coale leaves, i think she can say, "i'm leaving this place better than when i found it."

just my opinion.

[picasso]

If you did, what are your thoughts regarding how OU and the ahtletic department handled the Kelvin Sampson transgressions?

I personally supported the actions taken with Bomar and Quinn but I feel strongly that the Castiglione, Stoops and Boren should have made a stronger public comment on how the Sampson situation was handled instead of sweeping it under the rug.

In other words, Stoops and the University brought down the hammer on a couple of players who were 20 years old at the time of their transgressions but did nothing to a coach making millions of dollars by representing the university.

The crimes of the individuals involved were not commensurate with the penalties paid. Bomar and Quinn payed a heavy price. KS is sitting pretty at Indiana with, I assume, the payout still inntact from the large annuity the University bought him.

why should Stoops have to comment on a coach from a different sport? One of his assistants? of course!!!

I'm not getting that one.

[OUMallen]

Plus, we can't exactly control Indiana giving him a job offer.

[FaninAma]

WTF does it matter? Someone refered ot the Two Idiots as the "Two Idiots" and I didn't know whether to type RB and JQ or JDQ.

Is your question serious? Are you REALLY needling me after my opinion agreed with yours?

A bit touchy, aren't you? No, I'm not needling you. Another poster referred the two former players as idiots also. I find it irionic that a vast majority of Sooner fans speak in very deroggatory terms of the players yet there are still numerous defenders of Sampson to be found among the Sooner faithful.

The reason I brought this subject up is because I think it's representative of the gross inequities in the major college athletic system in regards to where the major portion of the financial benfits are going as well as the standards the players are held to v. the standards coaches, bowl executives, the NCAA and university presidents are held to.

[FaninAma]

why should Stoops have to comment on a coach from a different sport? One of his assistants? of course!!!

I'm not getting that one.

Why not? KS actions directly affected the football program by causing the NCAA to bring it's bright spotlight to Norman and if the football program gets stronger sanctions that expected for the Bomar affair then Bob can thank KS.

Why can't one high profile representative of an organization speak out about the conduct of another high profile member.

And how how about Castiglione and Boren? Why didn't they have stronger comments on the KS affair? I'm pretty sure KS's emplyment and conduct fell under their jurisdiction.

So now we have KS earning big bucks at a high profile BB program while Bomar and Quinn are held up to continuous ridicule by Sooner fans even though their football careers have virtually been ended by the punishment of OU, Stoops, Boren and Castiglione. And they all seemd to have very little problem commenting on that situation.

Seems fair to me. :rolleyes:

[Sooner24]

If Bomar had never been in any trouble it might have beem different. Bomar was a Brent Rawls looking for a place to happen.

As far as Sampson goes I don't know that there was a whole lot the university could have done in that situation.

[picasso]

Why not? KS actions directly affected the football program by causing the NCAA to bring it's bright spotlight to Norman and if the football program gets stronger sanctions that expected for the Bomar affair then Bob can thank KS.

Why can't one high profile representative of an organization speak out about the conduct of another high profile member.

And how how about Castiglione and Boren? Why didn't they have stronger comments on the KS affair? I'm pretty sure KS's emplyment and conduct fell under their jurisdiction.

So now we have KS earning big bucks at a high profile BB program while Bomar and Quinn are held up to continuous ridicule by Sooner fans even though their football careers have virtually been ended by the punishment of OU, Stoops, Boren and Castiglione. And they all seemd to have very little problem commenting on that situation.

Seems fair to me. :rolleyes:

that's a good point but I think it would be unprofessional for Stoops to say anything negative about a fellow coach of any sport regarding something like that. it's really not his place I would think.
Joe C. and Boren's job to do that.

[SoonerJason]

Who is this Bomar everyone keeps talking about?

[RRWSooner]

Stoops definitely did the right thing. If any of you lived through the last probation and the aftermath, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I don't believe Bomar could have carried us to a title game anyhow. Bomar has to be the most overated bluechip recruit in college football history.

[RRWSooner]

Who is this Bomar everyone keeps talking about?

The waterboy.

Stoops had to let him go because he kept squirting everyone:D

[fadada1]

Stoops definitely did the right thing. If any of you lived through the last probation and the aftermath, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

the 90's were a riot.

'89 was my freshman year - totally sucked.

[humblesooner]

From an outsiders situation, I thing both situations were handled very well. Taking money for no work is obviously a bigger ethical issue from a personal perspective than making too many phone calls to recruits. But the latter involved a person in a somewhat fiduciary position, and a person on the university payroll, so the consequences are at least equal for the individual and worse for the program. There really is nothing OU could do to keep Sampson from taking another job. If OU went after him verbally, they'd face a defamation or other type of lawsuit possibility - not to mention that it raises the profile of the situation where it continues to hurt the program's marketing as a whole (see Indiana). The most the OU administration could do is boot him from his job, which is what was apparently done. I'm sure if they can weasel out of the contract, they will.

The Bomar/Quinn situation was as harsh as it was because Bob had heard rumblings early this year (April-ish??) and asked both players about it. They both assured Stoops (ie "lied to Stoops") and told him that there was nothing to the rumors. When the truth came out in August, they were dismissed for lying to Bob about the infractions when asked about them face-to-face.

I do not have any links, and I am too lazy to look them up, but this was reported within the last 4-6 weeks it seems like.

[RRWSooner]

the 90's were a riot.

'89 was my freshman year - totally sucked.

Hey at least we beat the snot out of Nebraska in '90. That was my last home game as a student.

[caphorns]

The Bomar/Quinn situation was as harsh as it was because Bob had heard rumblings early this year (April-ish??) and asked both players about it. They both assured Stoops (ie "lied to Stoops") and told him that there was nothing to the rumors. When the truth came out in August, they were dismissed for lying to Bob about the infractions when asked about them face-to-face.

I do not have any links, and I am too lazy to look them up, but this was reported within the last 4-6 weeks it seems like.

I'm certainly not disagreeing that the Bomar/Quinn matter was handled correctly. What they did was flat out dishonest and fraudulant all the way around. They deserved dismissal and have a chance now to rehabilitate themselves elsewhere. I see no problem in that.

[Octavian]

Bomar's lucky Bob didn't have him hung by his heels and dropped from the top of Sarkey's.

[Wishboned]

100 % behind Stoops's decision.

In fact after what he did I respected him even more.

[FaninAma]

From an outsiders situation, I thing both situations were handled very well. Taking money for no work is obviously a bigger ethical issue from a personal perspective than making too many phone calls to recruits. But the latter involved a person in a somewhat fiduciary position, and a person on the university payroll, so the consequences are at least equal for the individual and worse for the program. There really is nothing OU could do to keep Sampson from taking another job. If OU went after him verbally, they'd face a defamation or other type of lawsuit possibility - not to mention that it raises the profile of the situation where it continues to hurt the program's marketing as a whole (see Indiana). The most the OU administration could do is boot him from his job, which is what was apparently done. I'm sure if they can weasel out of the contract, they will.

I would hope that if there was a clause in Sampson's contract that allowed OU to withhold financial incentives based on ethical behavior(or lack thereof) the the University would have been as forthcoming with that tidbit of inforamtion as they were with Bomar and Quinn's punishment.

So Cap, in essence what you're saying is that OU's hands were tied because KS could go out and file a grievance through his attorney while the players had to just suck it up because the way the NCAA and college athletics work they(and all other players) are nothing but chattel to be used at the discretion of the University, their athletic department and the NCAA?

Again, that seems tremendously fair.

Still it doesn't address the issue that KS should be held in as much contempt, if not more, than a couple of college aged football players by the Sooner faithful.

[bluedogok]

There are clauses in contracts that I am sure would have impacted him financially concerning NCAA infractions and if severe enough allow for dismissal. I am just glad it didn't get to that and he chose to go on down the road.

I think him leaving prevented the university from having to do something, I think he knew that he had worn out his welcome after the infractions came to light and IU did OU a favor and made it look all nice. If he had stuck around, it might have got nasty and the penalties on OU basketball probably would have been more severe than they were.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

I agreed with the idiots being dismissed.

As far as the KS deal goes, I think he should be penalized more than he was.

What sucks in both cases is that if the NCAA chooses to dole out punishment, it will be to the detriment of the people not even responsible for the misconduct.

[Stoop Dawg]

KS is sitting pretty at Indiana with, I assume, the payout still inntact from the large annuity the University bought him.

You assume? I think you ought to find out for sure before you start making judgments.

[Stoop Dawg]

The reason I brought this subject up is because I think it's representative of the gross inequities in the major college athletic system in regards to where the major portion of the financial benfits are going as well as the standards the players are held to v. the standards coaches, bowl executives, the NCAA and university presidents are held to.

It seems to me that they all ultimately received the same "punishment" - expulsion from OU. The fact that two of them (RB and JQ) had no recourse and KS did speaks more the lack of foresight on the part of RB and JQ than the punishment doled out by OU.


Why not? KS actions directly affected the football program by causing the NCAA to bring it's bright spotlight to Norman and if the football program gets stronger sanctions that expected for the Bomar affair then Bob can thank KS.

Stronger than who expected? Do you have some kind of proof that KS's actions affected the NCAA's investigation into RB and JQ? Or are you just assuming again?

[FaninAma]

It seems to me that they all ultimately received the same "punishment" - expulsion from OU. The fact that two of them (RB and JQ) had no recourse and KS did speaks more the lack of foresight on the part of RB and JQ than the punishment doled out by OU.



Stronger than who expected? Do you have some kind of proof that KS's actions affected the NCAA's investigation into RB and JQ? Or are you just assuming again?

I really don't think it's a stretch that the NCAA looked harder at the Bomar-Quinn situation than they would have had they not just been on an extended stay at the Norman Holiday Inn.

And Boren and the University sure haven't been forthcoming with any inforamtion that they in any way punished KS for his unethical behavior so i don't think it's unreasonable to assume that KS left Oklahoma with a pretty sizeable chunk of change in his pocket.

But hey, if you want absolute proof that this happened, then no I don't have it. But as long as we're playing your silly little game we don't have absolute proof that KS would have indeed been ushered out of the door if he hadn't landed the job in Hoosierville. That's just an assumption on your part.

It is undeniable that the University, at least publically, had a lot more negative things to say about the two college kids enrolled at the University than they did about their own employee.

[Stoop Dawg]

I really don't think it's a stretch that the NCAA looked harder at the Bomar-Quinn situation than they would have had they not just been on an extended stay at the Norman Holiday Inn.

Opinion noted.


But hey, if you want absolute proof that this happened, then no I don't have it. But as long as we're playing your silly little game we don't have absolute proof that KS would have indeed been ushered out of the door if he hadn't landed the job in Hoosierville. That's just an assumption on your part.

If you don't want to play "silly little games" then don't make silly little posts. I made no such assumptions. I only said that ultimately none of them are at the University any more.

I'm not sure whether you feel that OU should have been more lenient on RB and JQ or more strict on KS, but you evidently feel that they were not treated "equally" - by whatever definition of "equal" you seem to have. I can respect that opinion and think you probably have a point.

However, it's my opinion that they are completely different situations, in completely different sports, and involve completely different types of individuals with completely different agreements/contracts governing their assocation with OU. Add to all of that the fact the I personally don't know the details of either case and I'm just not ready to let the accusations fly.

[Stoop Dawg]

It is undeniable that the University, at least publically, had a lot more negative things to say about the two college kids enrolled at the University than they did about their own employee.

I didn't really hear any negative things said by the University about RB and JQ. If that happened, then it shouldn't have.

Now, there have been tons of negative things said about RB and JQ by the fan base. And that is unfortunate as well.

[bluedogok]

The school didn't throw the players under the bus, they laid down in the gutter themselves. The school said about as little as possible about both situations, that is better for everyone involved. I am sure that OU got some kind of buyout on KS contract since he still had some years remaining. In fact he was upset that the school did not pay out the bonuses to him after the infractions came to light, so I doubt if OU gave him any walking money.

[stoopified]

I fully agre Faninama

[SoonerJason]

The waterboy.

Stoops had to let him go because he kept squirting everyone:D


heh.. I bet he is now..

[jk the sooner fan]

So why are the two former players referred to as "idiots" and KS referred to as KS?

easy answer

because we're a football school

had the situation been reversed at a place like Duke, the basketball players would have been called idiots and the football coach........meh, nobody really cares

alot of fans were tired of Sampson, they were ready for a change....water under the bridge

but F*** with our football program? BIG difference

[FaninAma]

However, it's my opinion that they are completely different situations, in completely different sports, and involve completely different types of individuals with completely different agreements/contracts governing their assocation with OU. Add to all of that the fact the I personally don't know the details of either case and I'm just not ready to let the accusations fly.

No, it comes down to one single principle: how did the University treat three people associated with the University who knowingly broke the rules and made mistakes? This question in turn leads to the following questions:

1.Was the treament fair and equitable or was it disproportionate after considering all the mitigating factors?

2.Why are young athletes held to higher standards than the so-called leaders(ie. coaches) of the athletes?

3.Is there a group of bigger hypocrits than the NCAA or those feeding at the money trough generated by inequitable NCAA rules this side of Jimmy Swaggart and the rest of the television evangelists?

[OUMallen]

A bit touchy, aren't you? No, I'm not needling you. Another poster referred the two former players as idiots also. I find it irionic that a vast majority of Sooner fans speak in very deroggatory terms of the players yet there are still numerous defenders of Sampson to be found among the Sooner faithful.

The reason I brought this subject up is because I think it's representative of the gross inequities in the major college athletic system in regards to where the major portion of the financial benfits are going as well as the standards the players are held to v. the standards coaches, bowl executives, the NCAA and university presidents are held to.

I'm not a bit touchy; I am more than touchy for a couple of reasons.

1. You seem to simply be stirring the pot from some sort of moral high horse.
2. You made up some ridiculous conclusion because I referred to two former players in the collective using an insulting (and applicable) euphemism. I don't take kindly to you making my conclusions for me. That might be the easiest way to win an argument, but leave your presumptions in YOUR mouth and don't put them in mine.

[OUMallen]

No, it comes down to one single principle: how did the University treat three people associated with the University who knowingly broke the rules and made mistakes? This question in turn leads to the following questions:

1.Was the treament fair and equitable or was it disproportionate after considering all the mitigating factors?

2.Why are young athletes held to higher standards than the so-called leaders(ie. coaches) of the athletes?

3.Is there a group of bigger hypocrits than the NCAA or those feeding at the money trough generated by inequitable NCAA rules this side of Jimmy Swaggart and the rest of the television evangelists?


1. No, and it doesn't have to be. One is a contracted employee of the university and has certain rights. Others are members of a voluntary extracurricular sports team and are thus subject to the whims of Coach Stoops. KS is going to get benefits of the doubt for time served, etc.

2. It's not higher standards, bonehead. See #1.

3. No.

[jk the sooner fan]

wait, are you really comparing how people on a message board treated the two players with how the university treated the coach?

are you finding inequity in a bunch of internet posters calling the players "idiots" and the university not taking more stern action on the coach?

[sanantoniosooner]

I hear Boren negged Kelvin once.

[proudsoonergal]

Regarding the JQ/RB situation and the KS situation, the main difference I can see is that, as far as I can recall, KS never actually lied about the 500 phone calls. RB/JQ lied, and then were caught in the lie. If they had told the truth when Stoops inquired about it in April, do you think Stoops still would have kicked them off the team? (That's an actual question, not rhetorical.)

[usmc-sooner]

KS, Rhett Bomar or JD Quinn have nothing to do with OU from here on out.

I liked all three, was mad at all three, all three have been punished.

The way things were handled were no different than things are handled in real life.

The lower you rank the more strictly the rules get applied. It's that way with CEO's and labor or middle management, Pvts and Col's.

[FaninAma]

I'm not a bit touchy; I am more than touchy for a couple of reasons.

1. You seem to simply be stirring the pot from some sort of moral high horse.
2. You made up some ridiculous conclusion because I referred to two former players in the collective using an insulting (and applicable) euphemism. I don't take kindly to you making my conclusions for me. That might be the easiest way to win an argument, but leave your presumptions in YOUR mouth and don't put them in mine.

I'll repeat my statement. You seem a bit touchy. Maybe you need to lay off the caffeine.

And please enlighten me. How is pointing out a perceived inequity in the way OU's administration handled these two situations stirring the pot?

And yes, I think it is an ethical problem. I hate inconsistencies from public institutions, like OU, when they show they are willing to absolutely hammer somebody they know is powerless to fight back but then act all politically correct and treat the situation with kid gloves when dealing with someone who has the ability to fight back.

Lastly, I never would presume to make conclusions for you because I could really care less what you think.

The purpose of this thread was to make some of the more objective Sooner fans think about how the two situations were handled. Obviously you don't fall in that group.

[FourKings]

Bomar and Quinn got what they deserved, they knew it was wrong, they did it anyway, paid for it, done deal. Good riddance!
Stoops should have no commented about the other coach on staff, but he is the face of OU these days after all, so I guess it should be expected he have a comment on the situation.

[FaninAma]

wait, are you really comparing how people on a message board treated the two players with how the university treated the coach?

are you finding inequity in a bunch of internet posters calling the players "idiots" and the university not taking more stern action on the coach?

Yes to your first question. No to your second question.

IMO, KS committed the far more aggregious sin considering all the mitigating factors like age, experience and the fact that he was a f'in employee of the University and should have been held up to a higher standard of conduct by his contract and employers.

Yet he is allowed to leave without so much as a peep out of David Boren's office.

Meanwhile, Bomar and Quinn are left to finish out their career in obscurity at East Popcorn state while Boren and others give high moral sounding speeches why the player's actions can't be tolerated.

Again, I agree with how they handled the Bomar/Quinn situation but I am also more than a little disappointed in the disconnect and the lack of intestinal fortitude they showed in the way they handled the KS situation.

[jk the sooner fan]

wait, are we talking about the two football players who were getting a four year free education from a major university, but no longer are?

didnt Sampson take the IU job before the NCAA handed out its decision on the program?

[sooneron]

Bomar and Quinn got what they deserved, they knew it was wrong, they did it anyway, paid for it, done deal. Good riddance!
Stoops should have no commented about the other coach on staff, but he is the face of OU these days after all, so I guess it should be expected he have a comment on the situation.
Why? It's a part of the department that he has NOTHING to do with- other than play golf with KS and show up at fundraisers/caravans.

[caphorns]

Gah. NM.

[SouthFortySooner]

On my list of things I've never done. Coon Hunt, Drive an eighteen wheeler, listen to a rap song or watch a basketball game all the way through. Kelvin who?

[DrZaius]

I supported it all the way with how Stoops quickly dismissed the players. I am still waiting, like everyone else, on the NCAA. But i think that Bobs quick action will help. There are certain southern conferences that the same offense would be nothing more than a 1 game suspension.

All hale Bob

[Stoop Dawg]

And yes, I think it is an ethical problem. I hate inconsistencies from public institutions, like OU, when they show they are willing to absolutely hammer somebody they know is powerless to fight back but then act all politically correct and treat the situation with kid gloves when dealing with someone who has the ability to fight back.

Kelvin quit. Bomar did not. I think that makes a difference.

And I'd still like to see some actual evidence of this "hammering" versus "kid gloves" stuff coming from OU. I'm too lazy to look it up, but since you're the one belaboring the point the onus is really on you anyway.

[FaninAma]

Kelvin quit. Bomar did not. I think that makes a difference.

And I'd still like to see some actual evidence of this "hammering" versus "kid gloves" stuff coming from OU. I'm too lazy to look it up, but since you're the one belaboring the point the onus is really on you anyway.

Well here are the statements of the University representatives following Bomar/Quinns' dismissal:


“We spend a considerable amount of time addressing our players regarding their personal conduct and the NCAA rules,” Stoops said.
“They know exactly what we expect from them. Ultimately, they have to make right decisions. The same holds true for our boosters. When they do not, the consequences are serious, and we will not tolerate this behavior.
“Our team and University actions are necessary because of the intentional participation and knowledge of the student-athletes in these violations,” Stoops said.
“I firmly believe that our program is stronger than any individual player and that a championship program cannot compromise its values,” he said. “We are proud to represent a University with the highest possible principles,” Stoops said.
“I strongly support the decision of Coach Stoops,” said OU President David L. Boren. “Coach Stoops has done the right thing. His action reflects the basic values of our University,” Boren said.
“While this situation is deeply disappointing, the University is sending a clear and unmistakable message that OU will never compromise its high ethical standards or its integrity. We share the sadness about this situation with our fans and players who have followed the rules, but we believe in our program and in this team, which we know will carry on in the great Sooner tradition.”
Athletics Director Joe Castiglione said, “I am disappointed in these student-athletes. The education process is something that we take very seriously. We talk about it frequently and include guidelines in many of our printed materials.
“In the end, individuals must decide right and wrong for themselves and then live with the consequences. Unfortunately, many more people who themselves play by the rules are also affected by these consequences.”

And here are their statements about KS breaking NCAA recruiting rules numerous times:
[crickets chirping]


So here we have the head coach, the athletic director and the president of the University publically lecturing, pontificating and dressing down two 20 year old players while they have nary a word of condemnation for their own f'ing employee's unethical conduct.

There's only one word that can be used: hypocrites.

[MiccoMacey]

Fan,

You seem to think all matters need to be handled the same.

To me, you have to look at all the evidence and make your disciplines based on various factors, the biggest one being past behaviors.

If KS had been in trouble numerous times before, had a pretty bad track record in a short period of time, and lied about the ordeal, I could see much harsher discipline for him.

But if his conduct has been pretty exemplary for a long period of time, and he was upfront and honest about his transgression, the punishment should be less severe.

I understand your coach/employee/representative of the university argument, but I think it's pretty narrow to only use this as the main basis for your dis-satisfaction.

And BTW, I also hate the NCAA with as much passion as I can muster.

[humblesooner]

Regarding the JQ/RB situation and the KS situation, the main difference I can see is that, as far as I can recall, KS never actually lied about the 500 phone calls. RB/JQ lied, and then were caught in the lie. If they had told the truth when Stoops inquired about it in April, do you think Stoops still would have kicked them off the team? (That's an actual question, not rhetorical.)

I think if they had been forthcoming back in the Spring and told Bob the truth and allowed the University to bring this all out in the open, there is a fairly good chance that they would have been suspended indefinitely (or maybe a defined period), rather than dismissed permanently.

It is my opinion that the reason they were dismissed permanently was that they lied about it when asked directly by Bob.

[humblesooner]

There are certain southern conferences that the same offense would be nothing more than a 1 game suspension.


And also the Big 10 and PAC 10.

[humblesooner]

I hear Boren negged Kelvin once.

Post of the Year! :D :D :D

And if it turns out to be true, you get to replace Phil as HMFIC!!

[Stoop Dawg]

Well here are the statements of the University representatives following Bomar/Quinns' dismissal:


And here are their statements about KS breaking NCAA recruiting rules numerous times:
[crickets chirping]


So here we have the head coach, the athletic director and the president of the University publically lecturing, pontificating and dressing down two 20 year old players while they have nary a word of condemnation for their own f'ing employee's unethical conduct.

There's only one word that can be used: hypocrites.


Not sure I agree with "dressing down", but your point is well made.

[leavingthezoo]

i can see your argument, fan, about two out of three... but dragging stoops into the fray seems personal. he is not the face of oklahoma basketball. or the coach. or really even a guy with an opinion that matters. unless, of course, he's been calling plays and no one has told us about it! :mad:

if sampson would not have left, i suspect there would have been reason for more banter and condemnation, etc... but what are you going to do to a guy that is leaving? fire him?

i bet if bomar and quinn voluntarily left the team, they wouldn't have been kicked off. :D

[SoonerJason]

<lots of beer rant>

That f##ker Bomar and his butt buddy Quinn F##king **** me off..

I dont want to go into it.. F##king pricks.

</rant>

Boomer F##king Sooner...

Burrrrrp..

(I am not a hick.. Just been a while since I had some beer)


Carry on

[leavingthezoo]

(I am not a hick.. Just been a while since I had some beer)


Carry on


no. i'm pretty sure you're a hick. :D

[SoonerJason]

no. i'm pretty sure you're a hick. :D


na.. bro..

I own a internet porn company and live in scottsdale..

I'm not a hick.. money wise..

but I do love the state of Oklahoma and Sooner football..

So.. ok.. I'm a hick..


burrrp

[Stoop Dawg]

I own a internet porn company and live in scottsdale..


Your PM box will be full in about an hour. It might be better just to post some passwords here and save yourself the trouble of answering them all.

[FaninAma]

i can see your argument, fan, about two out of three... but dragging stoops into the fray seems personal. he is not the face of oklahoma basketball. or the coach. or really even a guy with an opinion that matters. unless, of course, he's been calling plays and no one has told us about it! :mad:

if sampson would not have left, i suspect there would have been reason for more banter and condemnation, etc... but what are you going to do to a guy that is leaving? fire him?

i bet if bomar and quinn voluntarily left the team, they wouldn't have been kicked off. :D

After contemplating the issue some more I totally agree with you. I was way too harsh on Coach Stoops. He has to take his cue form Castiglione and Boren.

[FaninAma]

Not sure I agree with "dressing down", but your point is well made.

I appreciate that. My intention wasn't to stir the pot. My intention was to draw attention to the discrepancies, in my view, that were shown by Boren and Castiglione. The timimg of the thread was due to the fact that I saw KS on the sidelines in the recently televised IU-Lafayette game.

I guess in regards to errors in judgement I tend to be a liberal and a lot more forgiving when the judgement lapses are made by young people v. those made by "adults" who have more life experience. :eek:

And despite the dumb thing the two players did they paid a terrible price. I'm sure both of them had aspirations to play at the next level. Well, the actions taken by the University basically removed any chance of that happening. And I understand what you are saying about Bomar screwing up before this incident but what about Quinn? I think he's the guy that got thrown under the bus.

And I'm not saying that KS should never, ever be able to get another coaching job but I would have liked Boren and Castiglione to come out with some public statement about his situation saying the same things about their coaches and that KS;s behavior would not be tolerated at OU.

And I do think, (ie I am making an assumption), that the actions taken against Bomar and Quinn were forced by the previous transgressions of KS in order to satisfy the gods at the NCAA.

[soonerjoker]

KS was on the rules committee & knowingly broke the rules.

sanctions did follow him to IU.

[sooner518]

500 text messages = 500 phone calls = 500 emails = 500 visits

it's "contact" according to the ncaa.
im pretty sure thats not true. every article or TV interview I see about this, it talks about how Kelvin has now resorted to texting because the NCAA doesnt restrict those. The NCAA sees a text message like it sees a paper letter and don't have any restrictions on how many a coach can send to a player.

There was an article on espn.com or maybe si.com a few months ago talking about how high school athletes talked about how many texts they get from coaches all the time

[bluedogok]

Why wouldn't Bomar and Quinn be able to play at the next level, both have been approved to play next year at their schools and if they are good enough they will get a shot from the I-AA level. Jerry Rice came from a I-AA school and Keith Traylor transferred from OU to UCO and was drafted out of D-II and was just placed on IR. If you are good, the scouts will find you and Bomar had enough press that if the scouts think he has the skills he will get a shot.

We know the NFL will take chances no matter what the history is with them. So I don't see it as Stoops, Boren and Castiglione took away their chances at the pros, they hurt themselves more than the university did.

[Texas Golfer]

If you did, what are your thoughts regarding how OU and the ahtletic department handled the Kelvin Sampson transgressions?

I personally supported the actions taken with Bomar and Quinn but I feel strongly that the Castiglione, Stoops and Boren should have made a stronger public comment on how the Sampson situation was handled instead of sweeping it under the rug.

Why would Stoops comment on something that has absolutely nothing to do with him?