My guess on OM sanctions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reason2succeed

I hear you. But if they get what you described what I will say is that OM was smart to continue cheating since there is obviously a max penalty that the NCAA is willing to drop.

I would then expect many programs to make sure that if they are cheating to make sure that they make it worth it. Why only rob one bank when you can rob ten banks and you still won't get life in prison?

---

No way. A 2 year bowl ban, which allows players to transfer, plus a 30 or more scholarship loss is program crippling in the SEC. Absolutely crippling. They will become everyone's homecoming opponent for the next 10 years or more. USC still hasn't recovered and they are light years above ole miss. I expect a 3 year bowl ban and close to 40 scholly's lost. They may never be competitive again. Plus, what did all that cheating get them? They still haven't played in the SEC CH and they finished ahead of us 1 time!!! ONE!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reason2succeed

I hear you. But if they get what you described what I will say is that OM was smart to continue cheating since there is obviously a max penalty that the NCAA is willing to drop.

I would then expect many programs to make sure that if they are cheating to make sure that they make it worth it. Why only rob one bank when you can rob ten banks and you still won't get life in prison?

---

I think you are really underselling those penalties. But even if you think that that is light and it is worth it to continue cheating, you understand that they would be under repeat offender and the death penalty would definitely be on the table if caught again with any major infractions. I mean they are so good at cheating and keeping it hid and not pissing off other schools that this NOA is only one of the largest in history. And now they have to keep their nose clean for several years or they will extend their probation and multiple major infractions again during their probation period would be the first major case since SMU that will give the NCAA a legitimate chance to go nuclear

"Take the win." Well said Sandwolf.
Anything over 30 over 4 and a 2 year bowl ban is A HUGE BLOWOUT WIN. In the hyper-competitive SEC, it will take a mid-tier school like Ole Miss at least a decade to begin to recover. I made my prediction of 32 over 4, 2 year bowl ban (may up that to 3 but will stick for now.) and I'll take that all day.
"Take the win."

#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spbdawg

I think we all need clarification of what has happened so far:

The 2016 noa had 14 Level I Allegations supported by nearly 50 unique Level I Violations. For instance The ACT fraud was one Level I Allegation which was broken three times....so that's technically three Level I Violations not one....so they each will/could be applied against the penalty matrix.

The 2017 noa has an additional 7 Level I Allegations with an unknown number of unique Level I Violations.

The penalty matrix is applied against violations not allegations.

Ole Miss is already under the repeat offender window and any additional Violations post Oct 2016 could trigger the death penalty.

If any of the above is substantially wrong please feel free to tell me which and how.

---

Yeah that's not correct. An individual violation only helps determine what Level an infraction will be alleged. Under the infraction you have some violations that in themselves would only be a Level III or less. You can have enough minor violations under one like infraction that it can rise to a Level 1 infraction. You take As a whole similar violations under that infraction or the violations concerning one person, that is what determines what Level the entire infraction is alleged to be. And no where in the bylaws, matrix, or case history does it state that each infraction must be added for a grand total of penalties. The individual violations are not even a part of the matrix. The violation or violations only help determine the Level of the infraction. You also don't apply an infraction dealing with an individual to the school either. The ULL case with Saunders had 4 infractions in the case but ULL only had to deal with 1, the other 3 were against Saunders so the matrix was applied but only the sections that dealt with that infraction. There is no lumping, stacking or adding of all penalties under every subsection of the matrix for each infraction. Much less for every individual violation.

#

33-40 scholarships
3 year bowl ban
Freeze gets a 5+ year show cause.
Bjork and Vitter forced to resign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spbdawg

Ok. So if 25 instances of ACT fraud were documented under one allegation it would be treated like a single episode against umiss for the purposes of penalties. This doesn't make sense. Multiple infractions should carry multiple penalties.

---

The number and/or severity of each violation is what determines the Level of the infraction and the sub-Level (aggravated, standard, mitigated). People also seem to forget that a Level 2 aggravated infraction is the same as a Level 1 standard with the penalty matrix. But yes the number of violations definitely play a part in determining the level of the infraction and the severity of that level. Each violation when looked at separately can vary greatly in severity from minor to major. But the matrix was never intended or presented in a way to make people believe that it would be applied for each and every violation. No infractions case has ever been handled that way. At some point you have to stop the penalty application for the infractions or it gets extremely silly. Under your scenario if you applied 25 different Level 1 aggravated infractions because there are 25 violations, then you could put them on probation for 250 years and take away 1,062.5 scholarships. That's a ridiculous penalty proposition.

#

which leads to the argument that if a thief continues to burglarize other peoples' homes while he's waiting on court but he's out on bail, at some point his bail has to be revoked to protect the public. Just because his hearing may be a year or so down the road doesn't mean society has to continue to put up with his thieving ways and act as if his latest law-breaking attempts are excusable.

Because these guys won't stop cheating (even while the investigation is ongoing), the ncaa knows what they gotta do as unpopular as it may be (and I'm talking about the DP).

#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spbdawg

Agreed. And that's why everyone agrees the number of violations in this case has stressed the new matrix.

---

I agree partially but not under your original premise. It was never written with the intent that each separate violation has to be a separate infraction for the penalties. Violations only determine the level of the infraction by the individual or school or both. I agree it's going to strain the matrix to a degree but penalties to a school do not and usually are not applied in conjunction with individual infraction. Only part of the matrix will or could apply per infraction. However the number and/or severity of the infractions dealing with indivuals of the school do directly coorelate to LOIC and Fraud. The number or severity of the infraction that individuals are responsible for Level 1 infractions dealing with impermissible benefits and competitive advantages is what gets a school to LOIC. That is what they don't want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spbdawg

Agreed. And that's why everyone agrees the number of violations in this case has stressed the new matrix.

---

has stressed the new matrix to the point the ncaa NEVER thought could be accomplished. This case will definitely be precedent-setting for the next 25 years imo, and TCUN will not get off light.

Again, I'll say we're closer to the DP than not despite what some of my fellow Bulldogs want to deny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WSOPdawg

has stressed the new matrix to the point the ncaa NEVER thought could be accomplished. This case will definitely be precedent-setting for the next 25 years imo, and TCUN will not get off light.

Again, I'll say we're closer to the DP than not despite what some of my fellow Bulldogs want to deny.

---

They will NOT go against their on legislation concerning the death penalty:

"Following the announcement of a major case, a major violation occurs and
The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case. The second major case does not have to be in the same sport as the previous case to affect the second sport.
Penalties for repeat violators of legislation, subject to exemptions authorized by the committee on the basis of specifically stated reasons, may include any of the following:

The prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation for one or two sport seasons and the prohibition of all coaching staff members in that sport from involvement (directly or indirectly) in any coaching activities at the institution during that period
The elimination of all initial grants-in-aid and recruiting activities in the sport involved in the latest major violation in question for a two-year period.
The requirement that all institutional staff member serving on the NCAA Board of Directors; Leadership, Legislative, Presidents or Management Councils; Executive Committee or other Association governance bodies resign their positions. All institutional representatives shall be ineligible to serve on any NCAA committee for a period of four years and
The requirement that the institution relinquish its Association voting privileges for a four-year period."

To do so against the legislation of the NCAA is opening them up for issues that could be litigated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WSOPdawg

which leads to the argument that if a thief continues to burglarize other peoples' homes while he's waiting on court but he's out on bail, at some point his bail has to be revoked to protect the public. Just because his hearing may be a year or so down the road doesn't mean society has to continue to put up with his thieving ways and act as if his latest law-breaking attempts are excusable.

Because these guys won't stop cheating (even while the investigation is ongoing), the ncaa knows what they gotta do as unpopular as it may be (and I'm talking about the DP).

---

It has been proven and reported to the NCAA... In November 2016 and continuing OM coaches and boosters failed to STOP recruiting violations.... JUST STOP...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

The number and/or severity of each violation is what determines the Level of the infraction and the sub-Level (aggravated, standard, mitigated). People also seem to forget that a Level 2 aggravated infraction is the same as a Level 1 standard with the penalty matrix. But yes the number of violations definitely play a part in determining the level of the infraction and the severity of that level. Each violation when looked at separately can vary greatly in severity from minor to major. But the matrix was never intended or presented in a way to make people believe that it would be applied for each and every violation. No infractions case has ever been handled that way. At some point you have to stop the penalty application for the infractions or it gets extremely silly. Under your scenario if you applied 25 different Level 1 aggravated infractions because there are 25 violations, then you could put them on probation for 250 years and take away 1,062.5 scholarships. That's a ridiculous penalty proposition.

---

While there may not be a specific clause that mandates each violation be penalized per the matrix, I don't think there is a clause that prevents it either.

I don't think anyone is forgetting about what can happen with the L2's (S,M or A), it's just that there are so many L1's that the L2's look like icing-on-the-cake only...not necessary to get UNM the kind of crippling penalties we expect.

No infractions case has ever been handled that way, but we are now operating under a different system, with a school that has cheated on a level perhaps unseen since SMU. This matrix only came into play in 2013.

You talk of 25 L1 aggravated resulting in an absurdly high number of penalties, but you seem to not consider just how bad 25 L1 aggravated violations would be. Well before the NCAA got there, the school would have it's program DP'd, and not just for a couple of years.

IMO, the matrix allows for the COI to use each violation, and the DP is still allowed to handle those cases where the violations are so severe, so numerous, or a combination of both that the matrix penalties exceed the damage caused by the DP.

#

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spbdawg

They've been under the repeat offender clause since the fall.

---

So, ANY violations After October 2016 would constitute OM becoming labeled as a "repeat offender".

And many recruits, in the signing class of 2017, could have basically caused OM to qualify for the "repeat offender status"....

Jeez, will they ever stop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklistedbully

While there may not be a specific clause that mandates each violation be penalized per the matrix, I don't think there is a clause that prevents it either.

I don't think anyone is forgetting about what can happen with the L2's (S,M or A), it's just that there are so many L1's that the L2's look like icing-on-the-cake only...not necessary to get UNM the kind of crippling penalties we expect.

No infractions case has ever been handled that way, but we are now operating under a different system, with a school that has cheated on a level perhaps unseen since SMU. This matrix only came into play in 2013.

You talk of 25 L1 aggravated resulting in an absurdly high number of penalties, but you seem to not consider just how bad 25 L1 aggravated violations would be. Well before the NCAA got there, the school would have it's program DP'd, and not just for a couple of years.

IMO, the matrix allows for the COI to use each violation, and the DP is still allowed to handle those cases where the violations are so severe, so numerous, or a combination of both that the matrix penalties exceed the damage caused by the DP.

---

The matrix is just a guideline like a sentencing guideline. But you have to separate the infractions between individuals and institutional and the part of the matrix that applies. The fraud and LOIC (due to the number and severity of infractions by individuals) are the major infractions that are tied to the school and will carry the bulk of their penalties under the probation, competition ban, scholarship reduction, and financial penalties. Recruiting restrictions, etc. is more fluid but still tied to what the staff did. But the infraction concerning Farrar for example, that Level 1 infraction in itself doesn't use the penalties that apply to the program as a whole. The indivual penalties under the matrix will only apply to the Farrar infraction. However; him, Harris, Kiffin, and head coach responsibility taken together is what is getting them LOIC. They will not take each of those separately to apply program sanctions but the whole is applied to levy Level 1 LOIC against the school. There is a separation of what part of the matrix can be used for what infraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spbdawg

They've been under the repeat offender clause since the fall.

---

That's right. But we have no indication that the revised NOA includes any infractions occurring after that time. Until that happens, death penalty can not be consider by their own legislation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

They will NOT go against their on legislation concerning the death penalty:

"Following the announcement of a major case, a major violation occurs and
The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case. The second major case does not have to be in the same sport as the previous case to affect the second sport.
Penalties for repeat violators of legislation, subject to exemptions authorized by the committee on the basis of specifically stated reasons, may include any of the following:

The prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation for one or two sport seasons and the prohibition of all coaching staff members in that sport from involvement (directly or indirectly) in any coaching activities at the institution during that period
The elimination of all initial grants-in-aid and recruiting activities in the sport involved in the latest major violation in question for a two-year period.
The requirement that all institutional staff member serving on the NCAA Board of Directors; Leadership, Legislative, Presidents or Management Councils; Executive Committee or other Association governance bodies resign their positions. All institutional representatives shall be ineligible to serve on any NCAA committee for a period of four years and
The requirement that the institution relinquish its Association voting privileges for a four-year period."

To do so against the legislation of the NCAA is opening them up for issues that could be litigated.

---

Also from your source (NCAA):
The repeat-violator legislation (?death penalty?) is applicable to an institution if, within a five-year period, the following conditions exist:

1. Following the announcement of a major case, a major violation occurs and
2. The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case. The second major case does not have to be in the same sport as the previous case to affect the second sport.

On point 2, UNM has been assessed penalties against their WBB & track teams...both within 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklistedbully

Also from your source (NCAA):
The repeat-violator legislation (?death penalty?) is applicable to an institution if, within a five-year period, the following conditions exist:

1. Following the announcement of a major case, a major violation occurs and
2. The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case. The second major case does not have to be in the same sport as the previous case to affect the second sport.

On point 2, UNM has been assessed penalties against their WBB & track teams...both within 5 years.

---

Yes but it will only apply to violations occurring after that penalty being announced last fall. There is no report that the revised NOA includes violations after that point. Everything we know so far is the revised NOA still concerns violations before that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spbdawg

They've been under the repeat offender clause since the fall.

---

This is one variable that could change the game....but this is only a factor if the amended NOA contains an allegation that took place after the women's basketball and track teams were put on probation, and I would be surprised if that were the case. I still don't think that puts the DP on the table but it could open the door to some seriously draconian sanctions.

"Take the win."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

The matrix is just a guideline like a sentencing guideline. But you have to separate the infractions between individuals and institutional and the part of the matrix that applies. The fraud and LOIC (due to the number and severity of infractions by individuals) are the major infractions that are tied to the school and will carry the bulk of their penalties under the probation, competition ban, scholarship reduction, and financial penalties. Recruiting restrictions, etc. is more fluid but still tied to what the staff did. But the infraction concerning Farrar for example, that Level 1 infraction in itself doesn't use the penalties that apply to the program as a whole. The indivual penalties under the matrix will only apply to the Farrar infraction. However; him, Harris, Kiffin, and head coach responsibility taken together is what is getting them LOIC. They will not take each of those separately to apply program sanctions but the whole is applied to levy Level 1 LOIC against the school. There is a separation of what part of the matrix can be used for what infraction.

---

Don't know about that as I think what every one is saying is ALL semantics and a lot of conjuring and wishful thinking because we've never seen anything like this as applied to the NCAA's new penalty matrix introduced in 2013. We'll find out soon.

But, hypothetically speaking, what if the NCAA systematically applied the matrix penalties across the board to EACH individual Level I allegation yielding penalty losses approaching 60 scholarships? I'll tell ya what would happen -- you'd have EVERY institution in the land straightening up and going clean in a heartbeat for fear of being penalized the same way.

Again, this is the 1st time since the introduction of the new penalty matrix in 2013 it's really been used, so we'll see how it all unfolds.

And for the record, I believe this is a benchmark case for the NCAA and unprecedented. I can see school penalties in the form of 6-8 years probation, 2-3 year postseason ban, 50% scholarship reduction over 4 years, and large financial penalty. In the original NOA from last year with their laughable self imposed penalties they did self impose a financial penalty of 1% of the program's budget which is the same as a Level 1 standard. They knew that there was more there and wanted to self impose a large financial penalty (like many of their people believe you just throw money at a problem to make it go away). For reference they tried to self impose the same penalty that ULL received except ULL was only penalized $5,000. They tried to throw $159,325 at the NCAA. That's a large self imposed financial penalty. I believe they get significant penalties but the process that many are trying to apply the penalty matrix is not how violations to infractions to penalties work. The COI do have leadway to deviate from the matrix but thy have to be able to prove and satisfy the remaining NCAA and the appellant committee to do so. That is one of the major reasons for the matrix. You have guidelines to show schools and coaches exactly what to expect if caught because many were looking at old cases and deciding "it's worth it" to cheat in certain instances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WSOPdawg

Don't know about that as I think what every one is saying is ALL semantics and a lot of conjuring and wishful thinking because we've never seen anything like this as applied to the NCAA's new penalty matrix introduced in 2013. We'll find out soon.

But, hypothetically speaking, what if the NCAA systematically applied the matrix penalties across the board to EACH individual Level I allegation yielding penalty losses approaching 60 scholarships? I'll tell ya what would happen -- you'd have EVERY institution in the land straightening up and going clean in a heartbeat for fear of being penalized the same way.

Again, this is the 1st time since the introduction of the new penalty matrix in 2013 it's really been used, so we'll see how it all unfolds.

---

But an infraction dealing with the individual, like Farrar, has no scholarship reduction portion or program probation or postseason ban that can be applied. The infractions of a coach, staffer, etc. that single infraction can't use the program penalty of the matrix only the part that deals with individual penalties. But what those infractions are tied to are institutional Failure to Monitor, Lack of Institutional Control, etc.

I do agree with your hypothesis and believe they will deviate with the penalties some or maybe within multiple sections. It is uncharted waters.

Everyone keeps saying "worst since SMU". Is it not worst in history? Just asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boodawg

Everyone keeps saying "worst since SMU". Is it not worst in history? Just asking.

---

AGREED.... The DP is beginning to look to the the life saver at this time.....

If they lose 30 scholarships and a two year bowl ban and Freeze and a few other coaches get show clauses then I believe OM has dodged a bullet. I'm not saying that those penalties won't hurt them. They will. Basically they will have lost only one scholarship for each infraction.

A bowl ban hurts financially but all they have to do is schedule a home and away against Hawaii and the recruits won't know the difference.

The probation issue won't be much of a problem because the NCAA will have already shown they aren't interested in inflicting too much damage on a program so I would be confident that investigators would not be back on the beautiful OM campus until after the probation was lifted.

OM has already shown no shame concerning Hugh Freeze. The chancellor of OM went out there and fully back him on the hostage video. Why do people think a show cause would force OM to fire Freeze? Under those penalties Freeze likely continues to coach OM and spout his BS about integrity, faith and family

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reason2succeed

If they lose 30 scholarships and a two year bowl ban and Freeze and a few other coaches get show clauses then I believe OM has dodged a bullet. I'm not saying that those penalties won't hurt them. They will. Basically they will have lost only one scholarship for each infraction.

A bowl ban hurts financially but all they have to do is schedule a home and away against Hawaii and the recruits won't know the difference.

The probation issue won't be much of a problem because the NCAA will have already shown they aren't interested in inflicting too much damage on a program so I would be confident that investigators would not be back on the beautiful OM campus until after the probation was lifted.

OM has already shown no shame concerning Hugh Freeze. The chancellor of OM went out there and fully back him on the hostage video. Why do people think a show cause would force OM to fire Freeze? Under those penalties Freeze likely continues to coach OM and spout his BS about integrity, faith and family

---

https://media0.giphy.com/media/XeMHd...webp#141-grid1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Yes but it will only apply to violations occurring after that penalty being announced last fall. There is no report that the revised NOA includes violations after that point. Everything we know so far is the revised NOA still concerns violations before that time.

---

Actually, it does not have to be "after that penalty being announced". Rather the rule says, "after a major case is announced" When was the case announced?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklistedbully

Actually, it does not have to be "after that penalty being announced". Rather the rule says, "after a major case is announced" When was the case announced?

---

"The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case." It has to happen after that point.

I understand what you are saying about the NCAA legislation saying that a DP must fall under the repeat violator status but as someone mentioned before SMU "self imposed" the DP under pressure from the NCAA.

Regardless of how penalties are calculated with the matrix the process will include a committee sitting around a table looking at the list of infractions on one hand and the penalty matrix on the other hand. These people will fully understand that watering down penalties for such an extensive list of infractions could set a detrimental precedent for the entire NCAA. They can't just decide not to use the matrix.

Also, while this is the first "major" case under the new matrix it is not the first case. If they do not follow the matrix to the letter they potentially open the NCAA up to scrutiny from smaller schools and programs that have already been punished following this matrix.

I believe that someone on the COI will suggest asking OM to consider self imposing a DP as an alternative to accepting the penalties on the matrix. As has been stated before I fully believe that a one or even two year DP would not be as detrimental as the number of scholarships, bowl bans, and years of probation that could be charged. Accepting the DP would give OM more than adequate reasoning to fire HF and clean house with cause which would void the contract they just signed him to.

And let's be honest the real big wigs (both athletic and academic) at OM must realize that even under probation they are one silly rogue booster and/or recruit away from repeat violation and the DP anyway.

Let's not forget that at every university there are some academic types who absolutely loathe the athletic side and all the money football coaches are paid. This is all the ammunition the deans and tenured professors need to argue that the athletic department is ruining the reputation of the UM. I would not be surprised to see some professors either raising hell or leaving for other schools over this. The chancellor will be in a major pickle.

SMU didn't self impose the death penalty. Not sure where anyone got that.

The matrix is a guideline. It was never intended and the NCAA specifically stated when they introduced the matrix that COI can still deviate, if justified. They do not have to follow it to the letter or apply it to the letter for each infraction. The smaller cases will fall within the matrix guidelines the vast majority of the time because you are dealing with a number of infractions that are manageable. It's going to be impossible for major case to be followed by the letter with each infraction and added together. That was never the intention or ever presented that they would do so. And the schools would not want the matrix implemented in that way. Remember the matrix and how it is to be used was discussed with the member institutions, presidents, AD's and coaches long before it was unveiled to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklistedbully

Actually, it does not have to be "after that penalty being announced". Rather the rule says, "after a major case is announced" When was the case announced?

---

When was this case announced? Was it ever??? Has that been the game all along?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

SMU didn't self impose the death penalty. Not sure where anyone got that.

The matrix is a guideline. It was never intended and the NCAA specifically stated when they introduced the matrix that COI can still deviate, if justified. They do not have to follow it to the letter or apply it to the letter for each infraction. The smaller cases will fall within the matrix guidelines the vast majority of the time because you are dealing with a number of infractions that are manageable. It's going to be impossible for major case to be followed by the letter with each infraction and added together. That was never the intention or ever presented that they would do so. And the schools would not want the matrix implemented in that way. Remember the matrix and how it is to be used was discussed with the member institutions, presidents, AD's and coaches long before it was unveiled to the public.

---

I though SMU decided "for the safety of the players" that playing the year following the bcaa-mandated "year-off" that they would NOT field a team, thus they self-imposed the 2nd year of the DP. But not the 1st year, which was NCAA mandated as they wanted to shut the cheating-laced program down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgology

When was this case announced? Was it ever??? Has that been the game all along?

---

See my response above that includes the second point in that legislation. It has to occur after the penalties are announced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WSOPdawg

I though SMU decided "for the safety of the players" that playing the year following the bcaa-mandated "year-off" that they would NOT field a team, thus they self-imposed the 2nd year of the DP. But not the 1st year, which was NCAA mandated as they wanted to shut the cheating-laced program down.

---

Yeah. As I remembered it, SMU was penalized a season and a portion of another season, and SMU voluntarily gave up the rest of that second season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WSOPdawg

I though SMU decided "for the safety of the players" that playing the year following the bcaa-mandated "year-off" that they would NOT field a team, thus they self-imposed the 2nd year of the DP. But not the 1st year, which was NCAA mandated as they wanted to shut the cheating-laced program down.

---

No. They couldn't field a viable team so they decided to wait until they could to play. They were not able to play home games that year anyway from the original NCAA decision. But they didn't decide that until later and had nothing to do with giving themselves additional sanctions because they believed they deserved harsher punishment. It was the NCAA's punishment that made it difficult for them to get enough players to compete and field a team that was not completely outclassed. That's not self imposing a penalty, that's dealing with the consequences of the death penalty handed down by the NCAA.