Troy Smith?

[achiro]

So am I remembering correctly that he took money to play? What was his punishment(how long was his suspension?)

If he did take money to play, what are your thoughts on him winning the Heisman with that type of background?

[AzianSooner]

after taken some money. He is about to get the Heisman this year.

[colleyvillesooner]

After leading the Buckeyes to a victory over Michigan in the 2004 regular season finale, it was revealed that Smith had accepted approximately $500 from an athletic booster, an NCAA violation. He was suspended by the team for the season finale in the Alamo Bowl against Oklahoma State and the 2005 season opener against Miami University. No further supsension was handed down by the NCAA

from the wikipedia

[Scott D]

he also had to pay back the $500 to charity via NCAA rules.

[SoonerStormchaser]

You know what...I don't care how much money you take. If you take any amount of money, you should automatically lose any eligibility you have left.

Troy Smith, unnamed QB...they're the same corrupt morons...they both should've been banned!

[Blues1]

This Makes the Hiesman Look Cheap -- He's the best player at this time but NO Cookies for Bad Little Boys......JMHO....!!!!

[SoonerDood]

Troy Smith's illegal benefits will justify OMG Reggie Bush winning the trophy last year. No NCAA action will be taken.

[StoopTroup]

You would think the Heisman Players would be more interested in picking the right guy for the Trophy.

It's really their job to make the right pick IMO.

If they wish to keep the Trophy as something special...they better start paying attention to stuff like violations IMO.

[Scott D]

Troy Smith's illegal benefits will justify OMG Reggie Bush winning the trophy last year. No NCAA action will be taken.

I'd say there is a far cry between taking $500 one time from a booster, and having continual alleged improprieties over an extended period of time in regards to dealing with an agent.

[StoopTroup]

As if this isn't enough of an embarassment...

http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/photosearch/Previews/PLX080719.jpg

[snp]

I'd say there is a far cry between taking $500 one time from a booster, and having continual alleged improprieties over an extended period of time in regards to dealing with an agent.

Exactly. Even the most bias homer should be able to see a major difference between the two.

[Crucifax Autumn]

True enough, but neither deserve the Heisman. The presentation always involves a speech about character and neither of these guys is of the highest caliber in that category.

[snp]

Only difference between Troy Smith and the majority of D1 football players is that he got caught.

Still, the Heisman is for the Most Outstanding Football player. A person's morals aren't in the criteria.

[douxpaysan]

I'd say there is a far cry between taking $500 one time from a booster, and having continual alleged improprieties over an extended period of time in regards to dealing with an agent.Sure enuff...it's like the difference in robbing a convenience store and shoplifting the same store several times.

[douxpaysan]

Only difference between Troy Smith and the majority of D1 football players is that he got caught.

Still, the Heisman is for the Most Outstanding Football player. A person's morals aren't in the criteria.
That is the dumbest statement I have ever read.

[franklinjake]

So am I remembering correctly that he took money to play? What was his punishment(how long was his suspension?)

If he did take money to play, what are your thoughts on him winning the Heisman with that type of background?

Character should be part of getting the Heisman. Yes he took money which I think you shouldn't be able to win the Heisman after doing something like that. Seems like there is a double standard between Troy Smith and Bomar. Bomar was absolutely crucified by the sports world, while Troy Smith is being pushed for the Heisman in a big way by all the media. Also, Troy Smith has a criminal record. I can't remember what it all is, but I remember ESPN talking about it last year.
But, then again, there was a lot of accusations about Reggie Bush taking money and recieving benifits, and ESPN didn't care - they pushed him to the Heisman with the voters.
I think whites in college ball are held to a higher standard. I know some are going to disagree, seems that is the case. Bomar versus Troy Smith is a great example!

[snp]

That is the dumbest statement I have ever read.

:rolleyes: Keep on being naive and ignorant about the Heisman Trophy voting criteria then.

[Scott D]

Sure enuff...it's like the difference in robbing a convenience store and shoplifting the same store several times.

your comparison makes no sense and has no valid place in reality.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So how many rules violations and/or criminal acts do those of you who think we should draw the line between a one time cheater and a long term cheater should be enough to disqualify a player from Heisman consideration?

[franklinjake]

That I do not know, but is a great question. Question is do you want your kids looking up to him as a role model. My opinion is no. I think taking money under the table absolutely qualifies to kick you out of the coveted Heisman candidacy. No way do I think Troy Smith should be in the same company as Jason White who followed the rules and is a stand up guy. I think it is a good subject to debate. You have so many kids in college playing by the rules doing the right thing, and then others that have no regard for rules. Troy Smith has no regard, and still being told by ESPN that he should be voted for on the Heisman.

[Scott D]

Character should be part of getting the Heisman. Yes he took money which I think you shouldn't be able to win the Heisman after doing something like that. Seems like there is a double standard between Troy Smith and Bomar. Bomar was absolutely crucified by the sports world, while Troy Smith is being pushed for the Heisman in a big way by all the media. Also, Troy Smith has a criminal record. I can't remember what it all is, but I remember ESPN talking about it last year.
But, then again, there was a lot of accusations about Reggie Bush taking money and recieving benifits, and ESPN didn't care - they pushed him to the Heisman with the voters.
I think whites in college ball are held to a higher standard. I know some are going to disagree, seems that is the case. Bomar versus Troy Smith is a great example!

Smith's criminal record is a charge of Disorderly Conduct last year for participation in a fight.

The Bush family stuff didn't start to hit the media until the spring. Well after the football season was over.

Now since you're making it a race issue let's compare.

Smith - Accepted $500 from a booster, suspended for bowl game and first game following season, is played part time for weeks before becoming full time starter late in 2005 season. Arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct from an incident on Nov. 16, 2005.

Bomar - Willingly accepted $5000 in excess pay for work not done. Charged multiple times for underage drinking in public. Dismissed from team for all of the aforementioned issues.

Yeah, higher standards my ***....one had two incidents the other, a few more.

[franklinjake]

Smith's criminal record is a charge of Disorderly Conduct last year for participation in a fight.

The Bush family stuff didn't start to hit the media until the spring. Well after the football season was over.

Now since you're making it a race issue let's compare.

Smith - Accepted $500 from a booster, suspended for bowl game and first game following season, is played part time for weeks before becoming full time starter late in 2005 season. Arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct from an incident on Nov. 16, 2005.

Bomar - Willingly accepted $5000 in excess pay for work not done. Charged multiple times for underage drinking in public. Dismissed from team for all of the aforementioned issues.

Yeah, higher standards my ***....one had two incidents the other, a few more.

So do you really think though that if Jason White would have taken money from a booster he would have still gotten the Heisman. I don't think he would have.

I don't know if race has anything to do with it. All I am saying that is the only difference. Amount really does not matter, they broke the same rule - period.

[Scott D]

you do realize that the booster incident took place two years ago, right? The NCAA reinstated him a long time ago, if they're satisfied with it, then there isn't a reason he shouldn't be a valid candidate.

Would it really matter if it came out now that JW accepted money from a booster when he was a sophomore? What if it came out now that Billy Sims took $200 from a booster the year before he won his Heisman (which is more likely than JW in my opinion)

I'd say Bomar was more of a habitual rule breaker where Smith's could be chalked up as isolated incidents.

[snp]

I don't know if race has anything to do with it. All I am saying that is the only difference. Amount really does not matter, they broke the same rule - period.

Race has nothing to do with it. One had a reoccuring theme of accepting money that wasn't his. The other took a much smaller amount once.

Totally different cases.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Again I ask...How many isolated incidents make it a habit? How many make it something to disqualify a player from consideration?

[franklinjake]

you do realize that the booster incident took place two years ago, right? The NCAA reinstated him a long time ago, if they're satisfied with it, then there isn't a reason he shouldn't be a valid candidate.

Would it really matter if it came out now that JW accepted money from a booster when he was a sophomore? What if it came out now that Billy Sims took $200 from a booster the year before he won his Heisman (which is more likely than JW in my opinion)

I'd say Bomar was more of a habitual rule breaker where Smith's could be chalked up as isolated incidents.
Valid points. I am definately not a Bomar apologist, I am glad he is not with us anymore, and he got what he deserved. In my opinion I don't think the NCAA is the best judge and jury on rules. They are rarely consistant on anything and sell out to big money.

I think it is a valid question though if race has anything to do with it. I just want to see consistancy. Not this "well even though it was the same rule they broke, since it was less money it shouldn't be a big deal" that ESPN talking heads are pushing. I think Bomar was and is a scumbag. I think that other who do the same thing, even with a smaller amount of $$$$$, should get the same treatment by ESPN, the NCAA, and the school they were going too. Think Stoops would have kept Troy Smith on the team - no way!

[douxpaysan]

Smith's criminal record is a charge of Disorderly Conduct last year for participation in a fight.

The Bush family stuff didn't start to hit the media until the spring. Well after the football season was over.

Now since you're making it a race issue let's compare.

Smith - Accepted $500 from a booster, suspended for bowl game and first game following season, is played part time for weeks before becoming full time starter late in 2005 season. Arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct from an incident on Nov. 16, 2005.

Bomar - Willingly accepted $5000 in excess pay for work not done. Charged multiple times for underage drinking in public. Dismissed from team for all of the aforementioned issues.

Yeah, higher standards my ***....one had two incidents the other, a few more.I think Bomar's chance of winning the heisman trophy are pretty small. :twinkies:

[franklinjake]

Race has nothing to do with it. One had a reoccuring theme of accepting money that wasn't his. The other took a much smaller amount once.

Totally different cases.

Good point. So, should the NCAA say then and Heisman Voters say as long as you don't break the rule too bad, and bend it just a little you should be voted into a high class of people to win a Heisman Trophy - something that kids should want to idolize and try to be like? Just throwing around ideas, because I don't know the answers to all this......

[franklinjake]

I think Bomar's chance of winning the heisman trophy are pretty small. :twinkies:

HA HA, think of the poor sap who picked him up to play in Houston - he's going to have his hands full - I don't know if you can have a tight enough leash to keep him out of trouble!

[Crucifax Autumn]

Yeah, it seems to me that we're on the verge of telling kids that it's okay if they don't get caught and if they do get caught, then make sure you get caught only barely breaking a rule and not breaking it big.

[snp]

Good point. So, should the NCAA say then and Heisman Voters say as long as you don't break the rule too bad, and bend it just a little you should be voted into a high class of people to win a Heisman Trophy - something that kids should want to idolize and try to be like? Just throwing around ideas, because I don't know the answers to all this......

I don't understand why you keep reiterating this point about morality and winning the Heisman. The Heisman is voted on by media and former winners for Most Outstanding Football Player. Nothing else. They purposely leave it very subjective.

[Scott D]

Again I ask...How many isolated incidents make it a habit? How many make it something to disqualify a player from consideration?

If one takes multiple paychecks knowingly for higher amounts than the agreed upon wages and hours, that would be habitual. If one gets cited multiple times for the same drinking offense, that would be habitual.

If you get pulled over once for speeding, and a year and a half later you get a parking ticket. Should that disqualify you for 'Employee of the Month'?

[Scott D]

Good point. So, should the NCAA say then and Heisman Voters say as long as you don't break the rule too bad, and bend it just a little you should be voted into a high class of people to win a Heisman Trophy - something that kids should want to idolize and try to be like? Just throwing around ideas, because I don't know the answers to all this......

Ballot..Carson Palmer...2004

1. Matt Leinart (Winner)
2. Reggie Bush
3. Dwayne Jarrett (freshman)

Clearly the Heisman voters are a high class of people and should be idolized, especially the truly honest past winners and their voting.

[douxpaysan]

The Heisman Trophy should have a more ethical ingredient that the NFL draft. Just as Paul Thompson won the Don Key award...no one questions that AD will place higher in the draft.

[Scott D]

The Heisman Trophy should have a more ethical ingredient that the NFL draft. Just as Paul Thompson won the Don Key award...no one questions that AD will place higher in the draft.

Why? For awhile there before Jason White won it, you could argue that it was the John Heisman Lifetime Achievement Award on the Field for a few years after Charles Woodson won it.

[franklinjake]

If one takes multiple paychecks knowingly for higher amounts than the agreed upon wages and hours, that would be habitual. If one gets cited multiple times for the same drinking offense, that would be habitual.

If you get pulled over once for speeding, and a year and a half later you get a parking ticket. Should that disqualify you for 'Employee of the Month'?
No, but I guarantee I would be prosecuted if $500.00 of my companies money ended up in my pocket. But I could say you have no right to deny me of employee of the month because I produce the best numbers and those Enron guys made out with a lot more than me, and I only did it once.

Then if I did get employee of the month, what does that award mean? Means absolutely nothing. I would have been a scumbag being awarded for bad behavior.

[douxpaysan]

Why? For awhile there before Jason White won it, you could argue that it was the John Heisman Lifetime Achievement Award on the Field for a few years after Charles Woodson won it.
Then they should just hand it out to the number one draft choice. That will probably be Adrian Peterson...what a conundrum for ESPN.:pop:

[Crucifax Autumn]

I wouldn't be denied employee of the month for speeding, but if I violated company rules and policies I certainly WOULD be denied such recognition. The speeding analogy is irrelevant.

[franklinjake]

I wouldn't be denied employee of the month for speeding, but if I violated company rules and policies I certainly WOULD be denied such recognition. The speeding analogy is irrelevant.

Agreed. Under the arguement if you broke company policies, you would demand that you deserved the Employee of the Month award because breaking company rules and procedures should not overshadow the great numbers you produced last month. Doesn't make sense in my humble opinion.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Of course the other way of looking at it is in our society bad behavior is rewarded and honesty and integrity is usually punished. So give the heisman to a Miami player every year.

[franklinjake]

Of course the other way of looking at it is in our society bad behavior is rewarded and honesty and integrity is usually punished. So give the heisman to a Miami player every year.

ha ha ha

[The Senator]

The reason Troy Smith accepted $500 from a booster was because his mother had helped one of his friends get a cell phone in her name because his friend had poor credit. This took place prior to the 2004 season, perhaps as early as 2003. The friend agreed to pay the bill every month, and in the beginning, appeared to do just that. However, after awhile, the friend stopped making payments. Troy's mother, who is not wealthy, started receiving letters from the phone company demanding payment since, after all, the phone plan was in her name. So early in 2004, prior to the season, Troy accepted a one-time, $500 payment from a booster to help keep his mom's credit from being damaged. It would appear that he did the wrong thing for the right reason, at least in the eyes of the NCAA. He did what he did to help his mother, who was being squeezed because of the irresponsibility showed by his friend. Who was the friend, anyway? None other than future felon, Maurice Clarett.

Since that incident, Troy has shown remarkable growth, not only as a player, but as a person. He's dedicated himself to his team and his university, more so than probably anyone else in college football. Maybe some of you believe that someone who makes a mistake, learns from it, and gets his life in order is incapable of redemption. Maybe you think that someone with an imperfect past should not be recognized for present accomplishments. That's cool, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I believe that such an opinion is extremely short-sighted and not very practical.

Finally, I don't have any problems with Bomar, but a comparison of his violations compared to Troy Smith's is a poor one at best. One kid is poor, accepting a few hundred dollars for nothing to help his mother. The other kid is middle-class, accepting several thousand dollars for nothing to help no one other than himself. Both broke rules. Both had to pay for their actions. But anyone who thinks their actions were the same and that their punishments should have been similar, probably thinks jaywalkers should get 25 to life.

[sooner94]

The reason Troy Smith accepted $500 from a booster was because his mother had helped one of his friends get a cell phone in her name because his friend had poor credit. This took place prior to the 2004 season, perhaps as early as 2003. The friend agreed to pay the bill every month, and in the beginning, appeared to do just that. However, after awhile, the friend stopped making payments. Troy's mother, who is not wealthy, started receiving letters from the phone company demanding payment since, after all, the phone plan was in her name. So early in 2004, prior to the season, Troy accepted a one-time, $500 payment from a booster to help keep his mom's credit from being damaged. It would appear that he did the wrong thing for the right reason, at least in the eyes of the NCAA. He did what he did to help his mother, who was being squeezed because of the irresponsibility showed by his friend. Who was the friend, anyway? None other than future felon, Maurice Clarett.

Since that incident, Troy has shown remarkable growth, not only as a player, but as a person. He's dedicated himself to his team and his university, more so than probably anyone else in college football. Maybe some of you believe that someone who makes a mistake, learns from it, and gets his life in order is incapable of redemption. Maybe you think that someone with an imperfect past should not be recognized for present accomplishments. That's cool, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I believe that such an opinion is extremely short-sighted and not very practical.

Finally, I don't have any problems with Bomar, but a comparison of his violations compared to Troy Smith's is a poor one at best. One kid is poor, accepting a few hundred dollars for nothing to help his mother. The other kid is middle-class, accepting several thousand dollars for nothing to help no one other than himself. Both broke rules. Both had to pay for their actions. But anyone who thinks their actions were the same and that their punishments should have been similar, probably thinks jaywalkers should get 25 to life.

Give me a break! Rules are rules.

Do you know what major violation got OU on probation in the late 80's? Switzer bought a plane ticket for a player that could not afford to fly home to attend his father's funeral.

Seems like you are saying that every situations should be looked at differently when a rule is broken. That makes it really difficult to enforce the rules, doesn't it?

How about all of the student athletes out there that come from impoverished backgrounds that DO NOT accept illegal cash payments? I'm sure they could use $500 as much as Troy Smith.

Why should Troy Smith get preferential treatment? I'll bet if he was just an average player he would have been kicked off the team.

Let me guess- you are a Buckeye fan

[achiro]

The reason Troy Smith accepted $500 from a booster was because his mother had helped one of his friends get a cell phone in her name because his friend had poor credit. This took place prior to the 2004 season, perhaps as early as 2003. The friend agreed to pay the bill every month, and in the beginning, appeared to do just that. However, after awhile, the friend stopped making payments. Troy's mother, who is not wealthy, started receiving letters from the phone company demanding payment since, after all, the phone plan was in her name. So early in 2004, prior to the season, Troy accepted a one-time, $500 payment from a booster to help keep his mom's credit from being damaged. It would appear that he did the wrong thing for the right reason, at least in the eyes of the NCAA. He did what he did to help his mother, who was being squeezed because of the irresponsibility showed by his friend. Who was the friend, anyway? None other than future felon, Maurice Clarett.

Since that incident, Troy has shown remarkable growth, not only as a player, but as a person. He's dedicated himself to his team and his university, more so than probably anyone else in college football. Maybe some of you believe that someone who makes a mistake, learns from it, and gets his life in order is incapable of redemption. Maybe you think that someone with an imperfect past should not be recognized for present accomplishments. That's cool, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I believe that such an opinion is extremely short-sighted and not very practical.

Finally, I don't have any problems with Bomar, but a comparison of his violations compared to Troy Smith's is a poor one at best. One kid is poor, accepting a few hundred dollars for nothing to help his mother. The other kid is middle-class, accepting several thousand dollars for nothing to help no one other than himself. Both broke rules. Both had to pay for their actions. But anyone who thinks their actions were the same and that their punishments should have been similar, probably thinks jaywalkers should get 25 to life.
and there are hundreds of very poor kids playing for NCAA schools that don't take money to play. Sorry, Although a good story, I just don't think that excuse works. Honesty and integrity is just that. If it was that important, quit football and get a job, or better yet, go kick the "friends" *** and tell him to.

[snp]

Give me a break! Rules are rules.

Do you know what major violation got OU on probation in the late 80's? Switzer bought a plane ticket for a player that could not afford to fly home to attend his father's funeral.


There were about 18 violations Switzer broke back in the 80's.

[The Senator]

Why should Troy Smith get preferential treatment? I'll bet if he was just an average player he would have been kicked off the team. . .

Let me guess- you are a Buckeye fan

I’m not arguing for preferential treatment, and as for Smith, he didn’t receive any. Ohio State self-reported the incident to the NCAA, assigned a suspension to Smith that was consistent with first-time violators, and stripped him of his starting position. A move which certainly hurt the team to some degree, being that he sat the bowl game and season opener, lost reps in camp because he was practicing as the #2, and only played half the game against Texas in 2005.

I want to clarify my position so that it is not further misinterpreted. My point is not to argue for lighter punishments for poor kids or for kids, as I put it, doing “the wrong thing for the right reasons.” I was mad as hell at Troy when this went down a few years ago and I supported his punishment. What I disagree with is the notion that if a person makes a mistake and learns from it, he is somehow less deserving of praise when he later does something good. Troy took his punishment, paid the money back, and has worked his butt off to get himself back in good graces the program. In so doing, he’s developed into a terrific leader and one hell of a football player. He’s a perfect example of someone, who after screwing up, chose to take the high road, work hard, and make up for what they did. A lot of people in his situation would have given up, started to sulk, and quit.

To bring up the circumstances behind the booster incident is not the same as condoning his behavior. In regards to his punishment, I don’t think his motives should have been considered, nor were they. Whether he took the money for selfish reasons (i.e. buy himself an X-Box) or to help out his mother, his actions hurt the team. He learned that. But in regards to judging what type of person he is, then yes, I find the circumstances behind the incident relevant. If he had accepted the cash just so he could have some spending money, I would view him to be a selfish person who puts his own desires in front of the team. I wouldn’t have any problem with people dogging him for that. What he did do was accept cash and give it to his mother. He put her in front of the team. It’s no less clear a violation, and no less deserving of punishment. But it’s also a situation that many people on this board would probably have to struggle with if they were put in between a similar rock and a hard place.

As for your “if it were another player” bit, that’s pure speculation.

So, in conclusion, Troy broke the rules. Troy (and the team) paid for it. Troy got what he deserved. However, Troy has learned from his mistakes and deserves any praise and awards he has received and will receive. While not perfect, Troy is a good person who loves his mother and his teammates. If this is the worst he’s ever done, someone who thinks he shouldn’t be awarded the Heisman is silly.

Finally, I guess my handle doesn’t completely give me away. Yes, I root for tOSU.

[colleyvillesooner]

Oh, that became apparent when you rattled of those two novel posts.

Don't care if Troy smith or Ohio St win anything. Could care less. Pretty sure we play OSU this weekend.

[Scott D]

Give me a break! Rules are rules.

Do you know what major violation got OU on probation in the late 80's? Switzer bought a plane ticket for a player that could not afford to fly home to attend his father's funeral.

Were you even alive for when the football program was put on probation?


In 1988, it all came crashing down for Switzer. His team was placed on probation by the NCAA for violating several rules. In a six month time frame, there was a shooting and a rape in the athletic dorm on OU's campus, Switzer's house was robbed with the help of one of his athletes, and an athlete was caught attempting to sell drugs to an undercover agent. The three year probation included a two-year ban on TV and bowl appearances and a reduction in scholarships from 25 to 18.

I'd hardly call that a planet ticket only violation. The primary violation was in regards to the NCAA going with the testimony of Hart Lee Dykes who in all honesty is about as believable as Bill Clinton when it comes to sex. The NCAA frowns heavily on all violations, but recruiting violations are the cardinal sin.

[Luthor]

You would think the Heisman Players would be more interested in picking the right guy for the Trophy.

It's really their job to make the right pick IMO.

If they wish to keep the Trophy as something special...they better start paying attention to stuff like violations IMO.


The Hypesman has been a popularity contest for several years, period. All you need do is look at some of the past winners who weren't even the best player on their own team, much less in the nation.

[sooner94]

Let me repeat- THE ONLY MAJOR VIOLATION was the airline ticket. Again, THE ONLY MAJOR VIOLATION. I did not say the ONLY violation.

I am aware that numerous other violations occurred, but the airline ticket was one of the major factors in OU receiving more than just a slap on the hand.

[sooner94]

Were you even alive for when the football program was put on probation?



I'd hardly call that a planet ticket only violation. The primary violation was in regards to the NCAA going with the testimony of Hart Lee Dykes who in all honesty is about as believable as Bill Clinton when it comes to sex. The NCAA frowns heavily on all violations, but recruiting violations are the cardinal sin.

I wish people would stop quoting wikipedia.

[OSUAggie]

The Hypesman has been a popularity contest for several years, period. All you need do is look at some of the past winners who weren't even the best player on their own team, much less in the nation.

So..... other than VY, who got screwed in the past 20 years? j/w

[colleyvillesooner]

Let me repeat- THE ONLY MAJOR VIOLATION was the airline ticket. Again, THE ONLY MAJOR VIOLATION. I did not say the ONLY violation.

I am aware that numerous other violations occurred, but the airline ticket was one of the major factors in OU receiving more than just a slap on the hand.
Really?



https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBi.MajorInfPackage.ProcessMultipleBylaws?p_Mult iple=0&p_PK=455&p_Button=View+Public+Report&p_TextTerms=ThisIsADummyPhraseThatWillNotBeDuplica ted&p_TextTerms2=ThisIsADummyPhraseThatWillNotBeDuplic ated&p_Division=


During the 1985-86 academic year, while the university was preparing its response to the initial Information submitted by the NCAA, additional Operation Intercept interviews conducted by the enforcement staff resulted in receipt of new information indicating the possibility of rules violations in the university's football program. The NCAA enforcement staff determined that this new information, and the information contained in the university's response to the staff's initial letter, should be reviewed with appropriate individuals at the university. Accordingly, in September 1986, a preliminary letter of inquiry was sent to the university, and an NCAA special investigator visited the university's campus.

In October 1986, two former student-athletes, who had transferred to other institutions, were interviewed. They provided additional information regarding possible violations of NCAA legislation in the university's football program. The NCAA enforcement staff continued its investigation of the university's football program, and a letter of official inquiry was submitted to the university in February 1988. Subsequently, information regarding other possible rules violations in the university's football program came to the attention of the enforcement staff, and supplemental alleged violations were forwarded to the university in August and September 1988.

The university submitted its response to the initial official inquiry in September 1988, and it submitted its response to the supplemental allegations in October 1988. The NCAA Committee on Infractions met with university representatives, the university's head football coach, other members of the university's football and athletics department staffs, and one of the university's student-athletes on October 30, 1988. Following this hearing, the committee deliberated in private, made findings and imposed penalties as set forth in Parts II and III of this report.

The rules violations found in this case include: arrangements by an assistant football coach for a prospective student-athlete, who had signed a letter of Intent, to be employed by a representative of the university's athletics interests who then provided an automobile and over $6,000 for summertime "employment," even though the prospect provided no services for these benefits; an offer of $1,000 to a prospective student-athlete by an assistant football coach as an attempt to induce the young man to attend the university; the sale of student-athletes' tickets to football games by a former football recruiting coordinator and receipt of substantial proceeds of such sales by the student-athletes; arranging airline tickets at no cost to a prospective and an enrolled student-athlete by the former football recruiting coordinator; the provision of improper local transportation to prospective student-athletes; arranging airline tickets for a young man while he was a prospect and after he enrolled, and use of the head football coach's private funds for the rental of vans for student hosts and to supplement athletics department members' salaries in a manner prohibited by NCAA regulations. In addition, an assistant football coach and a former football recruiting coordinator were found to be in violation of the NCAA's principles of ethical conduct that govern members of the Association.

The committee also found that an assistant coach ignored a warning from the head football coach and became involved in a "bidding war" for a highly recruited prospective student-athlete. Subsequently, the assistant coach denied his involvement in these activities and attempted to get persons knowledgeable of the matter to change their testimony. The scope and nature of the violations in this case also resulted in the committee's determination that the university violated the principle of institutional control as set forth in the NCAA constitution. The details regarding these and other violations of NCAA legislation are contained in Part II of this report.
Because this case involved major violationS of various provisions of the NCAA constitution and bylaws, the committee imposed major penalties on the university's football program, which are set forth in Part III of this report. In brief, the penalties include the following: a three-year probationary period; prohibiting postseason competition in football following the 1989 and 1990 seasons; prohibiting appearances on "live" telecasts in football during the 1989 season; restricting the number of official paid visits in football in the 1988-89 and 1989-90 academic years; reducing the number of coaching staff members who may participate in off-campus recruiting during the 1989-90 academic year, and reducing the initial financial aid awards that may be provided to recruits in the sport of football in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 academic years. The university also will be required to show cause why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it does not: (a) discipline two assistant football coaches who were involved in the case; (b) discipline the former recruiting coordinator who was involved in this case and who remains employed by the university's athletics department, and (c) disassociate one representative of the university's athletics interests from the university's athletics program.


Edit: I forgot this very important tidbit.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d40/calland/owned.gif ;)

[OSUAggie]

I wish people would quit quoting the NCAA when talking about NCAA violations...

[sooner94]

OK, I stand corrected.

Now that I recall, I think my source was "Bootlegger's Boy," which is probably not the most objective source of info on the late 1980's OU probation.

[Scott D]

What you should be ****ed about is that we got put on probation over Hart Lee Dykes. I mean the guy was the Rashawn Woods of his generation.

Like I said, the NCAA lets schools police pretty much anything outside of recruiting violations, they may adjust self imposed punishments. But with recruiting violations they bring the hammer.

[OSUAggie]

What you should be ****ed about is that we got put on probation over Hart Lee Dykes. I mean the guy was the Rashawn Woods of his generation.


What do you mean by he was the Rashaun Woods of his generation?

[achiro]

I’m not arguing for preferential treatment, and as for Smith, he didn’t receive any. Ohio State self-reported the incident to the NCAA, assigned a suspension to Smith that was consistent with first-time violators, and stripped him of his starting position. A move which certainly hurt the team to some degree, being that he sat the bowl game and season opener, lost reps in camp because he was practicing as the #2, and only played half the game against Texas in 2005.

I want to clarify my position so that it is not further misinterpreted. My point is not to argue for lighter punishments for poor kids or for kids, as I put it, doing “the wrong thing for the right reasons.” I was mad as hell at Troy when this went down a few years ago and I supported his punishment. What I disagree with is the notion that if a person makes a mistake and learns from it, he is somehow less deserving of praise when he later does something good. Troy took his punishment, paid the money back, and has worked his butt off to get himself back in good graces the program. In so doing, he’s developed into a terrific leader and one hell of a football player. He’s a perfect example of someone, who after screwing up, chose to take the high road, work hard, and make up for what they did. A lot of people in his situation would have given up, started to sulk, and quit.

To bring up the circumstances behind the booster incident is not the same as condoning his behavior. In regards to his punishment, I don’t think his motives should have been considered, nor were they. Whether he took the money for selfish reasons (i.e. buy himself an X-Box) or to help out his mother, his actions hurt the team. He learned that. But in regards to judging what type of person he is, then yes, I find the circumstances behind the incident relevant. If he had accepted the cash just so he could have some spending money, I would view him to be a selfish person who puts his own desires in front of the team. I wouldn’t have any problem with people dogging him for that. What he did do was accept cash and give it to his mother. He put her in front of the team. It’s no less clear a violation, and no less deserving of punishment. But it’s also a situation that many people on this board would probably have to struggle with if they were put in between a similar rock and a hard place.

As for your “if it were another player” bit, that’s pure speculation.

So, in conclusion, Troy broke the rules. Troy (and the team) paid for it. Troy got what he deserved. However, Troy has learned from his mistakes and deserves any praise and awards he has received and will receive. While not perfect, Troy is a good person who loves his mother and his teammates. If this is the worst he’s ever done, someone who thinks he shouldn’t be awarded the Heisman is silly.

Finally, I guess my handle doesn’t completely give me away. Yes, I root for tOSU.
I guess this is the root of my initial question. I don;t know the answer, just asking what others thought. I do think though that there are several really great people in prison for the rest of their life for murder or what have you that are sorry for what they did and now model citizens. Remember a few years ago the chick that was executed in TX. All these folks said it was bad because she was now a christian. Well guess what, you still did the crime.

Oh, and I am in no way comparing murder to taking $500, just saying that regardless how remorseful (sp?) one is, they still have things that they give up as a result of their actions. So the question is, did he serve his time and all is forgiven, or should not being considered for the heisman be part of the overall punishment?

[Scott D]

What do you mean by he was the Rashaun Woods of his generation?

His NFL career with the Patriots might have been a smidgen more stellar than Rashaun's with the 49ers.