My guess on OM sanctions

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.