Now that things have subsided - my thoughts on the penalties

[Statalyzer]

Ok, the storm has died down a bit, so here goes. BTW, I know some people here don't give a crap what a Texas fan's opinion of the NCAA's penalties on OU are. That's fine, you are free to stop reading. I do believe it's as objective as an opinion as I can make it.

A lot of OU fans seem to think the whole thing was an outrage because the Athletic Department didn't cheat directly and therefore there should no penalties at all. A lot of Texas/Okie State/A&M/Tech/NU/etc fans seems to think the whole thing was an outrage and OU was just slapped on the wrist and blatant cheating was condoned. I think the truth is in-between somewhere, so I'll bring up the 3 components in turn.

1 - Probation. This one really is a slap on the wrist, I don't think y'all have anything to complain about here. If another violation happened, the NCAA would just extend the probation and say "And if you do it one more time, we'll REALLY put you on some probation!" Paper tiger here, essentially no penalty at all. There is nothing for OU fans to cry "unfair" about here, nothing at all.

2 - Loss of 2 scholarships for the next few years. It's a gray area here but I don't think either side can complain too much. I know some here will disagree, but this was not excessive. Basically you just lost Bomar and Quinn's scholarships for as long as they would have been at OU, plus one extra year. I think losing 3 scholies would have been more appropriate, even though the third player was a walk-on, because illegal activity is equally illegal if done to a scholarship athlete or a walk-on. But either way, this one seems close to right, which is all you can ask.

Now, some will say "But the boosters cheated, not the school." That's true, but the NCAA cannot simply levy no penalty when a booster cheats, because if they do, there is no reason for any school to monitor the booster. If that's the case, a school could secret meet with a booster and tell them to pay the players, then just intentionally not check up on the records. That would look just the same unless the booster talked. I'm not saying OU did this, but w/o penalties, someone could; there must be an incentive to rigorously monitor, and a penalty when things slip past the monitors is the best way.

3 - Erasure of 8 wins from the 2005 season. This penalty is inanely stupid. The other teams still get a loss. If Team A plays Team B and Team B gets a loss, that means Team A won! If you add up all the records of every team that played that season and the number of wins aren't the same as the number of losses, then your rules are idiotic. Also makes no sense that individual stats now add up to so-many touchdowns yet the team doesn't get credit for those in the final score - how the hell can a player score a TD to give his team 0 points? As far as I am concerned, OU went 8-4 in 2005; this talk of an 0-4 season is retroactive magic doublespeak bull****. I don't blame you for being ****ed at this.

Honestly, as a fan of OU's biggest rival I'm ****ed also, because when I compare the teams on who won more games in the past X years, whose coach has a better win%, etc, I want Texas to be better fair and square, and if we're worse in those areas I hope that also happened fair and square. I hope Mack passes Stoops in wins/year by earning it out on the field, not by having some jackwad beauracrat go back in time and mess with the records to skew the competition. Forfeiting games shouldn't be part of unintentional participation of a player who pulled the wool over someone. Forfeiting should only be done in the case of systematic cheating by the athletic department or the sport's specific staff knowing full well what they are doing - and in that drastic case the opponents should have their L changed to a W. The middle ground where the W disappears and the L doesn't is stupid.

The NCAA screwed this one up big time, which doesn't surprise me. Longhorn and Raider fans ought to be able to sympathize with you guys on this one instead of making stupid claims of OU's winless season in 2005, as we've both been the vicitim of stupid NCAA decisions involving a player being suspended during a season just for being investigated, and then declared innocent later on but by then they've already missed the games for doing nothing wrong. I don't understand your rivals exulting over this - rival or not they should be able to judge it objectively and realize this half-forfeiture is totally irrational.

I hope Boren wins his appeal on issue #3.

[goingoneight]

We're all pretty close to agreeing with that. Meaning, we feel the 83 other 2005 players didn't do anything wrong, so their MVPs, game balls, wins, etc. should still be counted. If Bomar was like Vince Young and took over games and won them himself... it still wouldn't be fair to the RBs who get beat up running for the, the linemen who block for them, the WRs like Kelly who made circus catches to make Bomar look better, etc... you get the point. If my child steals something, I don't punish his four other siblings who weren't there, in the know, or participating in such events as Bomar/Quinn/Hardison.

Something has to be done or it IS a slap on the wrist. Punish the compliance department with team probation, don't extend probation for something another team or coach did in a completely different sport. If Bob Stoops deserved punishment for Kelvin Sampson's (ridiculous nit-picking) so-called "sins," then Colt McCoy deserves to be arrested for Kindle's DWI. Clearly that's not how it works... but again, you get the point.

And if Boren doesn't win, we're prepared to look even more like whiners because he said he wouldn't give up on the issue. I've even heard rumors of filing suit, but nothing confirmed obviously with the appeal yet.

Once again, if you're going to vacate wins for "cheating," why were we credited with a loss against Oregon? Why did we drop in the polls? Why weren't we in the National Title mix after we beat Nebraska?

[Zing]

I just wish they'd get around to being "fair" with USC.

[Big Red Ron]

The only reason I hope we lose our appeal on the vacation of wins, is that it would set a precedent that could apply to USC's situation. I'm really
interested to see what happens if the current precedent applies with regard to us not being allowed to display the Holiday Bowl Trophy, and not being able to claim the victory. How does that apply to a BCS win? I don't know but it should be interesting to watch unfold.

[Boarder]

I talked to a buddy of mine the other day and he asked me what I thought about all the penalties. I had to stop and think about what he was talking about it. I told him I thought about it for around a minute and a half and haven't thought any more about it.

[Statalyzer]

Once again, if you're going to vacate wins for "cheating," why were we credited with a loss against Oregon?

If I were the Oregon coach/AD I would have seriously thought about asking if we should just call the game a tie. I just wouldn't feel right winning that way.


Meaning, we feel the 83 other 2005 players didn't do anything wrong, so their MVPs, game balls, wins, etc. should still be counted.

That's a good point.

[Scott D]

Something has to be done or it IS a slap on the wrist. Punish the compliance department with team probation, don't extend probation for something another team or coach did in a completely different sport. If Bob Stoops deserved punishment for Kelvin Sampson's (ridiculous nit-picking) so-called "sins," then Colt McCoy deserves to be arrested for Kindle's DWI. Clearly that's not how it works... but again, you get the point.


The extension of probation was in relation to the minor violations the football program had in 2000, and in no way was related to the basketball or gymnastics matters.

[soonervegas]

If another violation happened, the NCAA would just extend the probation and say "And if you do it one more time, we'll REALLY put you on some probation!"

I agree with you on all points, except this one. If OU gets in trouble again before the probation ends in 2010....we will get ripped a new one and deservedly so.

[101sooner]

The extension of probation was in relation to the minor violations the football program had in 2000, and in no way was related to the basketball or gymnastics matters.


I'm not tracking you on this one. This is from the infractions report:


The committee was troubled by the fact that the institution had appeared before it for a failure to monitor only a year before. In the current case, there was a breakdown in student-athlete employment record-keeping and review; specifically, the timely review of 2005 gross earning statements and a failure to recognize the significance of a critical summer employment form submitted by student-athlete 2. In the 2006 case, there was a breakdown in the review of telephone records in the men's basketball program. As the committee wrote in Infractions Report No. 250 (Case No. M225 ? University of Oklahoma; May 25, 2006):



(R)eview of the (telephone) records by compliance personnel was sporadic at best, occurring approximately once per year. It wasn't possible to say with certainty when the reviews took place, as no records were maintained by the institution. Compounding the problem was that the reviews were conducted by interns rather than by trained and experienced compliance personnel. But perhaps the most glaring deficiency was that the logs produced by the basketball staff (which were incomplete since the coaches failed to record all calls made) were never cross-checked against institutional phone records; the coaches were taken at their word when even a cursory review of men's basketball office, cell phone and calling card bills would have revealed the myriad of impermissible calls being made by multiple coaches over a period of years.




also:



C. PENALTIES.



For the reasons set forth in Parts A and B of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation. The violations were intentional on the part of both the involved student-athletes and the dealership's manager, who was also a representative of the institution's athletics interest. The seriousness of the case was magnified by the fact that two student-athletes competed while ineligible during the entire 2005 football season. As a result of its previous appearance before the committee in 2006, the institution is currently serving a two-year probationary period, which expires on May 24, 2008. In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. [Note: The institution's corrective actions are contained in Appendix Two.] The penalties in this case are as follows (the institution's self-imposed penalties are so noted):



1. Public reprimand and censure.



2. Two additional years of probation to be added to the conclusion of the institution's current probationary period (May 24, 2008). As a result, the institution's extended probationary period will expire on May 23, 2010.

[StuIsTheMan]

I just wish they'd get around to being "fair" with USC.

WORD!

[Scott D]

I'm not tracking you on this one.

there were some bowl time calls made by the football coaches that sorta went against the rules, those were also self reported.