NCAA committee reinstates 8 Sooners wins

by Bruins100NCAA on Feb 26, 2008 2:31 PM PST

Or "The NCAA looses every last bit of credibility it has and falls on its sword for the TrOJays"

Great news for the TrOJays! Apparently all those "connections" of which they are so fond of telling everyone about have paid off. However, it seems to me more like all the money paid off.

The Associated Press reports that a committee will reinstate the 8 University of Oklahoma 2005 football wins that--as part of a punishment for infractions due to players working at a car dealership--were recorded as losses.

The Sooner Coach Bob Stoops tells us that we should be happy because the players not involved get their wins back:

"This decision is a great thing for those individuals involved with our 2005 team," Sooners coach Bob Stoops said in a statement. "Most of the players on our current roster were not on that team, but I know those victories mean a lot to the players and coaches who were here at that time."

Of course he's happy, the team gets its wins back but isn't that the point of sanctions--to punish the institution for letting such things go unnoticed? The NCAA cited cooperation as the key to this ruling:

The NCAA said in its news release that the "the university's cooperation was a significant factor in the ultimate determination of the violations," but the infractions committee did not acknowledge that in its decision.

This drastic change in NCAA policy begs a number of questions:

Was this decision for the benefit for the TrOJays who are facing some serious problems over the Bu$h affair?
Is the NCAA sending subtle hints to $C to cooperate?
Does the NCAA have any credibility left after such a blatant and unexplained reversal of a previous ruling?

My take is that they are letting $C off the hook because of the money they generate. Instead of being happy with the decision, OU should realize that they are being used. The NCAA is paving the way for $C, in that they would look like hypocrites doing what they did to OU initially and then letting $C skate.

This, at least to me, seems unimaginably contrived and crooked. NCAA is a sham, having no moral authority over anything. They are supposed to make sure that college athletics have at least some semblance of respectability. Now they are willing to trade their credibility and ideals so that $C can sell a few more jerseys to gang-bangers. This is disgraceful if true and I for one am going to write the NCAA and tell them. Then I'm going to write the politicians.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't think

this has anything to do with SC. Oklahoma appealed the decision (as they have the right to do through NCAA rules) and had it overruled. The committee which heard the appeal decided that while rules were broken, Oklahoma was not responsible because it fell outside of "institutional control." Based on what I've heard it was the right decision because the boosters who provided money to Sooner players did so off campus and were not granted any special access to players.

We know Lake and other agents were on the sidelines and in the locker rooms at SC, proving a lack of institutional control, however that wasn't the case at Oklahoma. Oklahoma did what they can, but at some point the responsibility falls on the individual.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 26, 2008 4:26 PM PST reply actions

Agreed

It all comes down to "institutional control" and it was clear from pretty much the beginning if I recall correctly that Stoops and the administration had no knowledge of anything ongoing.

With that being said...sure looks like the NCAA doesn't want to have any part in punishing stupidity.

by bruinhopeful on Feb 26, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions

That's one reading of this but I'm forever

Suspicious...

Allowing the agents into an "open" practice and into the locker rooms is probably easier to defend than allowing your players to work for a booster. The thing that gets the TrOJays worried is the work Bu$h and other players did for Mike Orenstein "Douche-bag Agent to the Stars" at his office. Depending on your definition of "booster," this is directly analogous to the OU situation

Does this decision not directly relate to the Orenstein allegations?

We all know that Bu$h is going to get nailed. He's a bad man. What we are waiting for is that crooked institution in South Central to finally get their comeuppance. Seems to me that this isn't going to happen because $C is going to play stupid. "We didn't see anything." "We wouldn't notice a tricked out Impala in the midst of all our opulence..." (Like BMW 325s and MB 100s are a big deal). Or "We had open practices, which are allowed, we really didn't card people when they came in..." The list goes on and on.

Furthermore, why is it fine to take the games out of the win column and then reinstate them? Either OU did something wrong in relation to the rules or they did not. What is the justification for the reversal now? Perhaps we will never know.

The only way to really nail them is for a lack of institutional control and that just got a lot weaker in my mind after this OU reversal. Oh Well.

by Bruins100NCAA on Feb 26, 2008 4:54 PM PST up reply actions

They reverse their decision

because there is an appeals process and only in that appeals can the university defend themselves. The NCAA investigates then hands down a punishment, however they do not always get all the information. That's why there's an appeals process. In the appeal, Oklahoma likely proved that they did everything within their power to keep a clean program, but they can't monitor their players' every move. If they did everything within their power then the player is reprimanded and the school is not.

Also, Oklahoma was said to have not known they had been working for a booster. it was not a job set up by the program. In the appeal, it is likely that they said they didn't know Bomar was working for the booster and that they had nothing to do with him getting the job.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 26, 2008 5:00 PM PST up reply actions

With the NCAA

I don't think you can assume that anyone proved anything. The inconsistent application of NCAA rules is a known fact. Whatever Oklahoma proved is not.

Beyond that, I think it's very dangerous to assume that a university "did everything within their power to keep a clean program" - at least in the absence of facts. Is it doing everything when you periodically hold seminars on NCAA rules, or if you coaches say the right things in the press? Or is doing everything keeping tabs on your players and asking where (and for whom) they work, who they are hanging with, and why their family is suddenly enjoying trappings of wealth beyond their prior circumstances.

Of course, maybe Oklahoma really "did everything." If they did, which I doubt, great. But, the decision to reverse the sanctions, standing alone, doesn't give me much comfort.

I also think you are engaging in some dangerous thinking. It's not 9or shouldn't be) necessary to show that the university set up the job, or directly knew that anyone had done anything specifically wrong. Willful blindness, particularly when there are reasons to be concerned, should be enough for institutional accountability.

Granted, I object in part because your view, if shared by the NCAA, would seemingly inoculate USC from sanctions. But, I also think that is how the rules should be enforced.

by Menelaus on Feb 26, 2008 5:15 PM PST up reply actions

For the most part

I think the NCAA usually is a pile of crap, however based on what i've heard, I think they handled this correctly. You can't blame programs when players do the wrong thing. As long as the program does everything possible to keep from breaking the rules, I think that's all you can ask. At some point, responsibility falls on the individual. A program can't follow a player around everywhere they go to make sure they're doing everything right.

Now I'm not saying that Oklahoma did everything possible because I'm not that well informed on the situation, however from what I've heard, I think they did. Based on what I've heard, I think the NCAA came to a decision too quickly and did not have evidence to prove whether or not the program was responsible. Regarding jobs, the program has to collect papers signed by the employer and get copies of checks to make sure the amount of work and pay are correct. The booster that was paying Oklahoma players had someone else signing the papers and paid the players under the table. The program did everything the way the NCAA mandates it be done and the booster and players found a way around it. Of course this is just from what I've heard and it may be false, but based on what I've heard it is tough to hold Oklahoma responsible.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 26, 2008 5:26 PM PST up reply actions

justsc "generates money"

I have heard that before, but I can't figure out how justsc is getting unfairly protected by the NCAA. If justsc got put on probation as it so richly deserves (and as it has so richly deserved since the Herbert Hoover administration), wouldn't some other team move up a notch and thus generate the same TV revenue and bowl revenue, etc?

As a result of my not understanding the "justsc generates revenue for the ncaa," I assume there has to be another reason why the ncaa doesn't see the obvious cheating that everyone else in the world sees. I can't figure out that reason either, unless it's just more of the same justsc "tradition" - the payment of cold hard cash (and lots of it) to the investigators.

by Fox 71 on Feb 27, 2008 10:21 PM PST reply actions

My take

South Central generates money, to be true, but not just for themselves. When a team does as well as their recent National Championship plus the Heisman campaigns it creates a snowball effect that broadcast networks, advertisers, and memorabilia vendors can profit from immensely. Fans and bandwagon fans will snap up every little trinket, T-shirt, DVD, etc. Networks not only broadcast the games, and sell airtime to advertisers, they sell DVD retrospectives of the season. They promote their various line ups to the increased viewership, thus making more money for their network and bringing more eyes to their advertisers. The NCAA is in reality a governing body of the same businessmen that make up the body of College Athletics. They want the network contracts, the corporate sponsorships for Teams (Nike, Adidas) Events (Pac Life Pac Ten Tournament) and venues (already in the pros, coming soon to a college venue near you)

I would imagine the NCAA believes that a stain like the one USC has brought upon itself by the actions of one greedy individual will smear more than that one university. I can see the NCAA wanting to swipe it under the rug so as to not scare away the big corporate checks it can reap among its member institutions.

I'm probably not making any sense, but that's how I see it.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Mar 1, 2008 1:01 PM PST up reply actions

Does the ncaa get a cut of everything?

Is the ncaa getting a cut from all the Bruin stuff I buy? If so, I think I'll just make it myself. I guess that's another question - where does the ncaa get its funding?

by Fox 71 on Mar 1, 2008 8:19 PM PST up reply actions