Quote Originally Posted by Really Clark? View Post
This response is to you and the poster you responded to. The "repeat offender" stipulation has to do with infractions occurring after the COI has handed out penalties to any sport in the atheletic department. For UNM, that happened in Oct. 2016. Any infractions found AFTER that date triggers the repeat offender clause. It doesn't matter if is an addendum to the first NOA, if is a part of a 2nd or 3rd NOA. They are already on probation so in infraction that occurs after that date for the next several years is subject to repeat offender, regardless of where the NCAA decides to attach those those infractions to whichever NOA. So far as we know right now, anything discovered to have occurred after last Oct is not with the additional allegations that have been received and are awaiting a response, supposedly. But we know how forthcoming they are with facts so until its made public we can't say for certain. Best guess is the COI completes the penalty phase from the addendum 1st NOA and if these rumors are true a 2nd NOA includes the new infractions occurring after Oct.
I concur, but my larger point is that this thing is bigger than anyone on either side could have imagined.

Players talking to agents and fighting with family members at home they couldn't afford.
Public drug use
Former players Openly admitting to taking money
Academic fraud going back to 2007
Coaches fired
Pay for visits
Recruits lying to investigators
Burner phones

Their new penalty structure just didn't account for all of this. Additionally the death penalty sounds bad but if they were given that for next year and were told to "start over" it might not have the lasting impact the SMU case had.

Somehow the NCAA needs to bring this thing home with a don't let this happen to you message attached.

Of course the new defense of everyone will be "well we cheated some, but not like Ole Miss did."

I just don't see the NCAA allowing this to be anything but a "we're back" moment.