Lumpy Chucklelips
05-30-2016, 02:33 PM
I went back to familiarize myself with the ULL case and see what their NOA included and compared that with OM's case, along with the self-imposed sanctions ULL presented compared to what OM presented to the NCAA. It was quite interesting.
I can understand if you don't want to read all of this, but you know how these NCAA things are. Cliff Notes.....OM is in deep shat. And to put it into a sporting term....we aren't even to halftime yet when you really get down to it. The NCAA hasn't ruled on the first round of the investigation yet and we still have the second round of the investigation to go.
Here are some excerpts from the ULL response to their NOA, along with NCAA comments (both in bold italics) and some of my thoughts comparing the ULL case to the OM case.
Farmer (ULL AD) said at a news conference that the committee?s findings ?validate that there was no lack of institutional control by university, no failure to monitor and no lack of head coach responsibility by (Cajuns head coach) Mark Hudspeth.?
We've talked about whether OM will get a LOIC. Some have said yes, some have said no. ULL had sanctions against 1 program. OM has sanctions against 3 programs, over multiple coaches, AD's and Chancellors tenures. Failure to monitor...OM told Tunsil to take the car back, so they knew about it when it happened. He ended up getting 2 more loaners after the first. Did OM monitor to see if that violation continued or not? Doesn't sound like it. No lack of head coach responsibility....Freeze took a booster on a recruiting visit with him. The same booster who provided transportation back and forth to Oxford on several occasions. Same booster who provided meals, lodging and bowl tickets to an OM bowl game. How do you argue the head coach had no lack of responsibility when he was in the middle of one of the violations levied?
I found this next one interesting and wonder if OM will follow suit....
UL Lafayette has countered by filing a lawsuit seeking damages from ACT Inc. for allegedly failing to detect improper test administration or results. You know how OM loves lawyers...I bet they follow suit.
ULL stood up and admitted they were responsible. Will OM ever do this? I doubt it.
?Unfortunately, even with the most-vigilant and comprehensive compliance programs, we cannot prevent all acts of misconduct,? he added. ?Still, this has happened in our program ? and we take full responsibility.?
The NCAA also ruled that UL Lafayette must vacate all football games from 2012 through 2014 in which ineligible student-athletes participated; UL Lafayette will identify those games at a later time, Farmer said. We've speculated on vacating wins for OM. Expect this sanction to follow suit when the NCAA rules. Will Dan be undefeated against them again? Maybe so. This one will be fun to rub in.
I don't think we'll be hearing this one from Bjork in the future.
?We are pleased the Committee on Infractions recognized that the university did not have involvement in or knowledge of Level 1 violations and imposed on us the lowest level of penalties,? UL Lafayette president Joseph Savoie said in a statement. Not even with their "exemplary cooperation".
NCAA ruled Saunders committed "aggravated" violations, while ULL committed "mitigated" violations.
Saunders committed Level 1 ?aggravated? violations while UL Lafayette?s violations were ?mitigated.?
The aggravating factors for Saunders, according to the NCAA: ?unethical conduct, failing to cooperate during an investigation and refusing to provide all relevant or requested information; violations were premeditated, deliberate, and committed after substantial planning. ? one or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete. ? (and) intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.?
Mitigating factors for UL Lafayette, according to the NCAA: ?prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures. ... affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter. ... an established history of self reporting Level III or secondary violations. ... (and) exemplary cooperation.? ULL fired Saunders when he would not cooperate with the NCAA and provide documentation requested. OM has stood by their assistants that have been named in the NOA. Will they continue to stand by Barney Farrar and John Miller regarding the Tunsil tweet?
Cartwright suggested the panel feels neither Hudspeth nor any of his other assistants were aware of Saunders? wrongdoings. ?The committee believed that the totality of the information provided was convincing that the assistant coach worked to conceal his activities and that it was likely difficult for the institution to know what he was doing,? she said. If Hud knew what was going on, they didn't leave any type of trail to link him to it. Freeze knew about Tunsil's loaner car. He was ultimately responsible for following up to make sure he took it back and didn't continue to borrow cars. This did not happen. Freeze let a booster, who had been communicating with one of Freeze's assistants to "assist" four prospects, to tag along on a recruiting visit with at least one of these prospects. Try denying you were aware of any wrongdoing there.
NCAA could copy and paste this next part if they want to...
According to what the NCAA called ?facts of the case,? Saunders ?developed a relationship with an administrator for a college entrance exam test site, which ultimately led to five prospects obtaining fraudulent exam scores.?The NCAA identified that administrator as Ginny Crager, a now-retired Wayne County (Mississippi) High teacher.The NCAA said ?each of the prospects was directed by? Saunders ?to take the exam at a rural Mississippi high school.?
According to the NCAA:
?Without aid from the former assistant coach, the prospects would not have known about the location because each had to travel a great distance to reach it.
?In previous exams, four of the five prospects? scores did not meet NCAA standards for initial eligibility. After taking exams at the location, each of the five prospects scored significantly higher and the scores made them all initial qualifiers under NCAA rules.
?Ultimately, the college entrance exam provider cancelled four of the five prospects? scores. The provider cited unusual increases in exam scores from previous exams taken by the prospects and substantial erasure patterns.
?When the prospects became student-athletes at the university and participated in competition before the violations were discovered, they competed while ineligible.
?The panel found the former assistant coach violated NCAA ethical conduct rules during the interview process when he denied his role in arranging the entrance exams and falsifying scores.
ULL had 4 level 1 violations and self-imposed the following. Compare that to what OM self-imposed for 8 level 1 violations, along with some Level 2's and 3's. Good luck Reb's on this one.
UL Lafayette previously self-imposed penalties including the vacating of its entire 2011 season, including its New Orleans Bowl win over San Diego State; a reduction in football scholarships by 11 over a three-year period; and recruiting restrictions. In addition to reducing scholarships and vacating 2011 victories, UL Lafayette also initially reduced the number of its off-campus recruiting days by six in the fall of 2015 and 22 in the spring of 2016, reduced visits to 38 for the fall of 2015 and 44 total visits during the 2014-15 season, prohibited all recruiting communication for a three-week period during the 2015-16 season.
Here are the additional penalties handed down by the NCAA to ULL, in addition to the self-imposed that ULL presented. Keep in mind ULL had 4 Level 1's that pertained to one incident, the Saunders/ACT debacle. Compare that to what has already come out in the first investigation against OM. We still have the second round to come.
According to the NCAA, ?additional penalties prescribed by the panel include:
A two-year probation period from Jan. 12, 2016, through Jan. 11, 2018;
An additional limitation in the number of official visits to 38 for the 2016-17 season; and
An additional three-week ban on all university-initiated recruiting communication in the football program for the 2016-17 season.
Bottom line to me after researching this further....OM will be lucky if the NCAA only doubles what they have initially self-proposed. And we still have the second go round to go, which by all indications, will be worst than the first. We better order more popcorn. I don't think we have near enough.
I can understand if you don't want to read all of this, but you know how these NCAA things are. Cliff Notes.....OM is in deep shat. And to put it into a sporting term....we aren't even to halftime yet when you really get down to it. The NCAA hasn't ruled on the first round of the investigation yet and we still have the second round of the investigation to go.
Here are some excerpts from the ULL response to their NOA, along with NCAA comments (both in bold italics) and some of my thoughts comparing the ULL case to the OM case.
Farmer (ULL AD) said at a news conference that the committee?s findings ?validate that there was no lack of institutional control by university, no failure to monitor and no lack of head coach responsibility by (Cajuns head coach) Mark Hudspeth.?
We've talked about whether OM will get a LOIC. Some have said yes, some have said no. ULL had sanctions against 1 program. OM has sanctions against 3 programs, over multiple coaches, AD's and Chancellors tenures. Failure to monitor...OM told Tunsil to take the car back, so they knew about it when it happened. He ended up getting 2 more loaners after the first. Did OM monitor to see if that violation continued or not? Doesn't sound like it. No lack of head coach responsibility....Freeze took a booster on a recruiting visit with him. The same booster who provided transportation back and forth to Oxford on several occasions. Same booster who provided meals, lodging and bowl tickets to an OM bowl game. How do you argue the head coach had no lack of responsibility when he was in the middle of one of the violations levied?
I found this next one interesting and wonder if OM will follow suit....
UL Lafayette has countered by filing a lawsuit seeking damages from ACT Inc. for allegedly failing to detect improper test administration or results. You know how OM loves lawyers...I bet they follow suit.
ULL stood up and admitted they were responsible. Will OM ever do this? I doubt it.
?Unfortunately, even with the most-vigilant and comprehensive compliance programs, we cannot prevent all acts of misconduct,? he added. ?Still, this has happened in our program ? and we take full responsibility.?
The NCAA also ruled that UL Lafayette must vacate all football games from 2012 through 2014 in which ineligible student-athletes participated; UL Lafayette will identify those games at a later time, Farmer said. We've speculated on vacating wins for OM. Expect this sanction to follow suit when the NCAA rules. Will Dan be undefeated against them again? Maybe so. This one will be fun to rub in.
I don't think we'll be hearing this one from Bjork in the future.
?We are pleased the Committee on Infractions recognized that the university did not have involvement in or knowledge of Level 1 violations and imposed on us the lowest level of penalties,? UL Lafayette president Joseph Savoie said in a statement. Not even with their "exemplary cooperation".
NCAA ruled Saunders committed "aggravated" violations, while ULL committed "mitigated" violations.
Saunders committed Level 1 ?aggravated? violations while UL Lafayette?s violations were ?mitigated.?
The aggravating factors for Saunders, according to the NCAA: ?unethical conduct, failing to cooperate during an investigation and refusing to provide all relevant or requested information; violations were premeditated, deliberate, and committed after substantial planning. ? one or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete. ? (and) intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.?
Mitigating factors for UL Lafayette, according to the NCAA: ?prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures. ... affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter. ... an established history of self reporting Level III or secondary violations. ... (and) exemplary cooperation.? ULL fired Saunders when he would not cooperate with the NCAA and provide documentation requested. OM has stood by their assistants that have been named in the NOA. Will they continue to stand by Barney Farrar and John Miller regarding the Tunsil tweet?
Cartwright suggested the panel feels neither Hudspeth nor any of his other assistants were aware of Saunders? wrongdoings. ?The committee believed that the totality of the information provided was convincing that the assistant coach worked to conceal his activities and that it was likely difficult for the institution to know what he was doing,? she said. If Hud knew what was going on, they didn't leave any type of trail to link him to it. Freeze knew about Tunsil's loaner car. He was ultimately responsible for following up to make sure he took it back and didn't continue to borrow cars. This did not happen. Freeze let a booster, who had been communicating with one of Freeze's assistants to "assist" four prospects, to tag along on a recruiting visit with at least one of these prospects. Try denying you were aware of any wrongdoing there.
NCAA could copy and paste this next part if they want to...
According to what the NCAA called ?facts of the case,? Saunders ?developed a relationship with an administrator for a college entrance exam test site, which ultimately led to five prospects obtaining fraudulent exam scores.?The NCAA identified that administrator as Ginny Crager, a now-retired Wayne County (Mississippi) High teacher.The NCAA said ?each of the prospects was directed by? Saunders ?to take the exam at a rural Mississippi high school.?
According to the NCAA:
?Without aid from the former assistant coach, the prospects would not have known about the location because each had to travel a great distance to reach it.
?In previous exams, four of the five prospects? scores did not meet NCAA standards for initial eligibility. After taking exams at the location, each of the five prospects scored significantly higher and the scores made them all initial qualifiers under NCAA rules.
?Ultimately, the college entrance exam provider cancelled four of the five prospects? scores. The provider cited unusual increases in exam scores from previous exams taken by the prospects and substantial erasure patterns.
?When the prospects became student-athletes at the university and participated in competition before the violations were discovered, they competed while ineligible.
?The panel found the former assistant coach violated NCAA ethical conduct rules during the interview process when he denied his role in arranging the entrance exams and falsifying scores.
ULL had 4 level 1 violations and self-imposed the following. Compare that to what OM self-imposed for 8 level 1 violations, along with some Level 2's and 3's. Good luck Reb's on this one.
UL Lafayette previously self-imposed penalties including the vacating of its entire 2011 season, including its New Orleans Bowl win over San Diego State; a reduction in football scholarships by 11 over a three-year period; and recruiting restrictions. In addition to reducing scholarships and vacating 2011 victories, UL Lafayette also initially reduced the number of its off-campus recruiting days by six in the fall of 2015 and 22 in the spring of 2016, reduced visits to 38 for the fall of 2015 and 44 total visits during the 2014-15 season, prohibited all recruiting communication for a three-week period during the 2015-16 season.
Here are the additional penalties handed down by the NCAA to ULL, in addition to the self-imposed that ULL presented. Keep in mind ULL had 4 Level 1's that pertained to one incident, the Saunders/ACT debacle. Compare that to what has already come out in the first investigation against OM. We still have the second round to come.
According to the NCAA, ?additional penalties prescribed by the panel include:
A two-year probation period from Jan. 12, 2016, through Jan. 11, 2018;
An additional limitation in the number of official visits to 38 for the 2016-17 season; and
An additional three-week ban on all university-initiated recruiting communication in the football program for the 2016-17 season.
Bottom line to me after researching this further....OM will be lucky if the NCAA only doubles what they have initially self-proposed. And we still have the second go round to go, which by all indications, will be worst than the first. We better order more popcorn. I don't think we have near enough.