Guessing OM Scholarships and Bowl Ban (Using NCAA Penalty Matrix)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

I understand that issue with the guidelines. My biggest point with the matrix guidelines use is how many keep trying to add all of the infractions for individuals with the part of the matrix that deals with the institution penalties. That is not what it was ever intended to do. What those infractions will do is help set the severity of the LOIC and academic fraud portion of the case. With so many different individuals involved you have to assume the LOIC is at least standard and usually aggravated Level 1. That in itself carries substantial penalties. The Fraud will tack on additional penalties to the school. What I want to see is if the HC responsibility charge is significant enough that the COI believes it warrant max or near max penalties of the LOIC to the school because the AD, compliance, and/or administration should have, at least after violations were found while an open investigation was under way, been more diligent with oversight of the program and its head coach. But by and large the infractions committed by the individuals themselves don't cause the school penalties it's what they do and how severe that moves the Failure to Monitor charge to a LOIC and moves the needle from mitigated to standard to aggravated. It is definitely the case for this generation and they are in uncharted territory.

---

I get what you are saying, but disagree. For example, a coach coordinates with a booster to give a recruit illegal benefits. According to the above, the school was not involved, just the coach and the booster. BUT, they are both representatives of the university so the blame also falls on it. The university itself never actually pays the benefits to the SA.

ULL got probation for the act of one coach who was doing what he did prior to being at ULL because the actions of employees and boosters falls back on the school.

scheduling

The scheduling of a DP is pretty simple. OM has to void their contracts and eat the loss and pay any penalties. The crime calls for that type of punishment. The DP is set for 2019-2020 or something like that so all of their opponents can find replacements. It would actually bring a lot of intrigue to the SEC and allow for games we wouldn't otherwise see.

Remember that the SEC and the members of the SEC have a major bone to pick with OM. The SEC was shooting for a clean track record on NCAA compliance and instead OM is dragging the conference back into 1980s and 1990s mud. Georgia and Alabama were also affected by OM's cheating. No one will feel sorry for them. No one wants to see them get off easy other than their fans.

Also, some of you 30 scholarship people need to remember that according to OM they've already taking some of those scholarship hits so 30 won't be as bad as you think. The exact number they've already assessed is in their response I believe.

SUPPLEMENT NO. 3A DI Board of Directors 8/12 Page No. 2 _________ Adoption of Penalty Guidelines for Core Penalties As revised, Bylaw 19 would include penalty guidelines clearly specifying core penalties for Level I and II cases.

After determining the appropriate sublevel (aggravation, standard or mitigation) for Level I or II cases, the COI will prescribe a penalty from a range of set penalty guidelines in each of the following areas: (a) competition limitations; (b) financial penalties; (c) scholarship limitations; (d) recruiting limitations; (e) probation; (f) when applicable, show-cause orders. If extenuating circumstances are found, the COI will have discretion to depart from the core penalties. The COI will also retain discretion to apply additional penalties and to consider the impact on student athletes who were not involved in the violation. Although the COI retains some discretion to prescribe the appropriate mix of penalties for a particular case, it is expected that the penalties for these Level I and II cases will be significantly more stringent than those for the current major cases.

Looks like the normal course of action would be to look at the whole case and determine if it rises to Aggravation from Standard. So the punishment would look something like this based on the worse case.

Even if you throw out some of the level 1's there no way their case will not be elevated to Aggravation.

So here's what they face.

Competition Penalties: Postseason Ban: 2-4 years

Financial Penalties: This one is nasty.....
-Fine (5k + 3 to 5 percent of total budget for sport program) That's a 7 figure number.
-Negate revenue from sport program for years in which violations occurred. (Impose this penalty if greater
than percent of budget fine + $5,000) Now were looking at an 8 figure number.

Scholarship Reductions of Involved: (25-50 percent) "21 to 42" (Doesn't say for how long.)

Show-Cause Order: 5 to 10 years for everyone.

Head Coach Restrictions: (game suspensions via show cause.) 50 to 100 percent of season.

Recruiting Visit Restrictions:
-14 to 26 week ban on unofficial visits (No scheduled unofficial visits and no complimentary tickets.
-25 to 50% cuts in official paid visits (Based on the average number provided during the previous 4 years.)
Football: 15 to 28 visits (need to account for unused visits from the previous year, if any)

Recruiting Communication Restrictions: 25 to 50% 14 to 26 week ban on communication with all prospects (No recruits that year)

Off-Campus Recruiting Restrictions: 25 to 50% Sports with no limits: 14- to 26-week ban on all contacts and evaluations
25 to 50% cuts in Recruiting Person Days (RPD) or Evaluation Days (ED)
MFB: 11 to 21 Fall; 44 to 84 Spring (ED)

Probation: 6 to 10 years. No way they or anyone else can keep their nose clean for that long.......

OM knows the pain train is coming. But they've sold their souls to keep Freeze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1bigdawg

I get what you are saying, but disagree. For example, a coach coordinates with a booster to give a recruit illegal benefits. According to the above, the school was not involved, just the coach and the booster. BUT, they are both representatives of the university so the blame also falls on it. The university itself never actually pays the benefits to the SA.

ULL got probation for the act of one coach who was doing what he did prior to being at ULL because the actions of employees and boosters falls back on the school.

---

The coach is an employee of the ath. department of the "said" university. At ULL the coach was caught doing the same thing with the ACT Fraud with 5 students. That is when NCAA went back to OM and started looking.... Has the NCAA investigated the ED Center in Jackson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

The impermissible benefits, recruiting violations, etc. fall under the individual(s). Those penalties will fall under what you punish individuals for in the matrix. Show Causes, Suspensions, recruiting visits, etc. It is the number and/or severity of those charges against the individuals that have brought the LOIC charge. The ACT Fraud and LOIC will be the majority of what the school will be punished for in as far as probation, scholarship reduction, postseason ban, financial penalties, etc. The HC Responsibility charge is also tied to the depth and number of staffers who have allegations. Now because of severity and/or number of infractions or being found lying, that is what slides the Level of the infraction through the different aggravated, standard, or mitigated levels. Now because of the number of individuals, staff and boosters, who were committing the most severe violations, I do believe that gets you to the Level 1 aggravated part of the matrix for the LOIC. But the aggravated level is just my guess.

---

Thanks for the break down.... Please explain what happens for the SA(Student ath.) or the parents/family/friends of the SA that is caught lying to the NCAA?

CadaverDawg a 2 year bowl ban is just the START...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

How does the NCAA get to your prediction with matrix?

Like a math problem, this is a problem that requires you to show your work

---

My line of thinking is that this is all they can do unless they want to do the DP.

It would be ridiculous to hammer them with 80 schollies lost without just basically shutting down the program for a couple of years. I don't see the NCAA doing the DP in this case so they have to make up the lack of schollies lost with other things. Show causes and bowl bans...

This is a guess. For all I know, the NCAA may come out and give them the DP or give them the max of these guidelines. I just doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdwhite

SUPPLEMENT NO. 3A DI Board of Directors 8/12 Page No. 2 _________ Adoption of Penalty Guidelines for Core Penalties As revised, Bylaw 19 would include penalty guidelines clearly specifying core penalties for Level I and II cases.

After determining the appropriate sublevel (aggravation, standard or mitigation) for Level I or II cases, the COI will prescribe a penalty from a range of set penalty guidelines in each of the following areas: (a) competition limitations; (b) financial penalties; (c) scholarship limitations; (d) recruiting limitations; (e) probation; (f) when applicable, show-cause orders. If extenuating circumstances are found, the COI will have discretion to depart from the core penalties. The COI will also retain discretion to apply additional penaltiesand to consider the impact on student athletes who were not involved in the violation. Although the COI retains some discretion to prescribe the appropriate mix of penalties for a particular case, it is expected that the penalties for these Level I and II cases will be significantly more stringent than those for the current major cases.

---

Great find.

This flies in the face of the 30 scholarship crowd. It looks like the matrix must be followed and that the COI can increase penalties but not decrease unless it is in consideration of other student athletes not involved.

From what I understand when a bowl ban is announced then the other players have freedom to transfer if they choose to. That should release the COI from this bind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstatefan91

My line of thinking is that this is all they can do unless they want to do the DP.

It would be ridiculous to hammer them with 80 schollies lost without just basically shutting down the program for a couple of years. I don't see the NCAA doing the DP in this case so they have to make up the lack of schollies lost with other things. Show causes and bowl bans...

---

Under the matrix, I don't believe they can just do a "make up." Show causes are based on the individual's issues. They cannot give one that is undeserving nor can they count giving one to a deserving person as a reason to lessen other penalties. With bowl bans, they are prescribed in the matrix. How can they say, well you deserve an 8 year bowl ban and we are going to give you that and that makes up for not giving you a scholly reduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mimi's Babies

Thanks for the break down.... Please explain what happens for the SA(Student ath.) or the parents/family/friends of the SA that is caught lying to the NCAA?

CadaverDawg a 2 year bowl ban is just the START...

---

Nothing to the family, friends, etc of a student athlete other than recommending a disassociation from the university. The student athlete, if found lying, will be suspended most likely for some certain amount of time. Dez Bryant was suspended for a year for lying to enforcement when what they were investigating ended up not being a violation at all. If he had told the truth he would have not missed any time and the case would have been dismissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1bigdawg

Under the matrix, I don't believe they can just do a "make up." Show causes are based on the individual's issues. They cannot give one that is undeserving nor can they count giving one to a deserving person as a reason to lessen other penalties. With bowl bans, they are prescribed in the matrix. How can they say, well you deserve an 8 year bowl ban and we are going to give you that and that makes up for not giving you a scholly reduction.

---

As long as each institutional penalty for that Level and sublevel falls within that guideline that can weigh them differently. Example, the give the school the min of probation for a Level 1 aggravated, that's 6 years but give a 3 year postseason ban which is in the middle of the 2 year min and 4 year max, they can absolutely do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CadaverDawg

I keep seeing "2 year bowl ban" by our fans.....I will be severely disappointed if they only get a 2 year bowl ban. I want every D1 level player to look at that place as a wasteland for the next 10 years. If they can't fully follow the matrix due to the amount of infractions...then the NCAA should makeup for scholly losses with bowl ban years and show causes.

Any penalty to this amount of cheating that allows OM the chance at postseason play within the next 5-6 years at a bare minimum, is getting off light in my opinion.

Not saying it won't be only 2 years...just saying the NCAA failed the bowl ban portion of punishment if it's only 2 years in my opinion

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Nothing to the family, friends, etc of a student athlete other than recommending a disassociation from the university. The student athlete, if found lying, will be suspended most likely for some certain amount of time. Dez Bryant was suspended for a year for lying to enforcement when what they were investigating ended up not being a violation at all. If he had told the truth he would have not missed any time and the case would have been dismissed.

---

This one should be GONE.... money, cars, lying to the NCAA, etc.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1bigdawg

I get what you are saying, but disagree. For example, a coach coordinates with a booster to give a recruit illegal benefits. According to the above, the school was not involved, just the coach and the booster. BUT, they are both representatives of the university so the blame also falls on it. The university itself never actually pays the benefits to the SA.

ULL got probation for the act of one coach who was doing what he did prior to being at ULL because the actions of employees and boosters falls back on the school.

---

Your example though is putting penalties on the school for the infraction dealing with an individual. That is penalized separately using just the portion of the matrix dealing with individuals. What that infraction is used for however, is to help set the overall level of infraction to the school. The first NOA had the school tagged with Failure to Monitor (Level II) because of the number and severity of the infractions of the case. With the addendum, the enforcement staff moved that charge to LOIC (Level 1) because what was added and the severity. But the school is not penalized by the institutional portion of the matrix for each infraction dealing with individuals.

ULL had 4 infractions total. 3 were directly tied to Saunders and were Level 1's. The other infraction was what they charged the school with (it was also a mitigated infraction) and what they based the penalties on by the matrix. Otherwise, using what many are trying to do by stacking more than what is chargeable to the school, they should have 4 times the penalties they received. Does anybody honestly think they should have received 44 scholarship reductions? 12 years probation and postseason ban that would have to be automatic since Saunders committed some aggravated Level 1 infractions?

[QUOTE=Really Clark?;760993]Your example though is putting penalties on the school for the infraction dealing with an individual. But the school is not penalized by the institutional portion of the matrix for each infraction dealing with individuals. QUOTE]

I hear you, but does that mean the only violation of the school and the only one that can incur bowl bans and scholarship reductions is the LOIC? Every other violation was "done by an individual or group of individuals."

[QUOTE=1bigdawg;760994]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Really Clark?

Your example though is putting penalties on the school for the infraction dealing with an individual. But the school is not penalized by the institutional portion of the matrix for each infraction dealing with individuals. QUOTE]

I hear you, but does that mean the only violation of the school and the only one that can incur bowl bans and scholarship reductions is the LOIC? Every other violation was "done by an individual or group of individuals."

---

The ACT Fraud issue also has to do with amateurism and ineligible student athletes and happened outside of the matrix so that could also add to the institutional penalties. I am also interested to see if the HC responsibility charge sticks, the Level it is final determined to be at (mitigated, standard, aggravated) and if they also either add to penalties because of lack of department oversite or if it moves the LOIC penalties higher or if they keep it seperate. It's the first major case with that also as part of the charges.

And I am not saying that the other individual charges don't or can't move the needle on the penalties, but those charges are taken as a whole to determine the level of the schools infraction and penalty.

Really Clark? Thanks for your information.... I wish that we could take all of the questions and answers and post them on one page. Your answers have answered questions and have made the new matrix much easier to understand... Thank You very much... Mimi




You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Really Clark? again. REALLY??????????/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgology

Exactly. If you are the NCAA you have to make a decision between following the rules you created here and sending a clear message or backing off and getting to do this many many more times because smaller schools will see that it's worth it.

---

I think you will see them drop some of the violations to cover them when they only hand out 30 scholly losses and a 3 year bowl ban.

That being said that is more than enough to set them back 10+ years.