🏈 FSU releases the NCAA's response to its appeal

[Nothing_But_A_Winner00]

... and it seems they still may be taking away wins.

Even prior to the legal wrangling over the release of the committee’s response to FSU’s appeal, that much was clear. Now the details of the NCAA’s reply are known after FSU made available a transcript of the 23-page document on Thursday morning.The committee's response, signed by Jerry R. Parkinson who is the dean of the University of Wyoming's College of Law, said that FSU fell short of showing that the order to vacate wins was excessive.

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/...eases+NCAA+reply+in+academic-misconduct+case+

 

[psychojoe]

Interesting. FSU's best point seems to be that activities engaged in before the NCAA issued its change in policy in academic matters, should not be subject to this new standard, so academic fraud that occurred in 2006 and 2007 before the policy was changed should be penalized under the old rules. According to the article if the NCAA decides that the old policy applies instead of the new, they might get the wins restored but suffer additional scholarship losses. Since their goal is to get Papa's victories restored, maybe that is acceptable to them.

 

[shipley00]

Interesting. FSU's best point seems to be that activities engaged in before the NCAA issued its change in policy in academic matters, should not be subject to this new standard, so academic fraud that occurred in 2006 and 2007 before the policy was changed should be penalized under the old rules. According to the article if the NCAA decides that the old policy applies instead of the new, they might get the wins restored but suffer additional scholarship losses. Since their goal is to get Papa's victories restored, maybe that is acceptable to them.

I'm sorry, but their argument holds no water. I can't belive I'm siding with the NCAA, but it doesn't matter when you committed the infraction, the penalty is the penalty when you get caught.

 

[alagator]

I'm sorry, but their argument holds no water. I can't belive I'm siding with the NCAA, but it doesn't matter when you committed the infraction, the penalty is the penalty when you get caught.

I am not an attorney, but Lord knows I have to deal with them far too often, but your statement is not exactly correct in a technical legal perspective.

What you are describing would be an ex post facto situation where you would be penalized according to a standard that did not exist when you committed the crime.

To the extreme, as an example, that would be like the crime for jaywalking being a $10 fine when you committed the offense, but you were not arrested until two days later when they tracked you down from some video taken at the time you jaywalked. And penalizing you with 10-years hard labor because the penalty was changed on the day in between you action and you being apprehended.

Now, as they themselves so proudly argue, the NCAA is a private organization with members who volunteer to be governed under whatever rules the organization conjures up. So, if the NCAA rule says that the penalties to be imposed are what they are on the date of the trial and not when you committed the offense then FSU (and Alabama) has to accept that and deal with the results.

I think it is particularly telling that FSU is willing to accept and endure forward looking sanctions (mainly scholarship reductions in the future) that will hamstring their Coach-in-waiting and future players who had NOTHING to do with the academic fraud at the expense of having the players who participated in the fraud and the coaches who benefitted from the fraud going unpunished - all so their icon MIGHT retire as the winningest coach in D-1 history.

I would bet that if the NCAA gives us (UA) the option of having the past victories restored by applying the old penalty standard but having to endure future scholarship reductions according to those same standards our guys will say 'nevermind' on the appeal. Or else watch as Saban turns in his keys and jumps the first plane out of town.

 

[TerryP]

I would bet that if the NCAA gives us (UA) the option of having the past victories restored by applying the old penalty standard but having to endure future scholarship reductions according to those same standards our guys will say 'nevermind' on the appeal. Or else watch as Saban turns in his keys and jumps the first plane out of town.

When you get back to the actual infractions, I see absolutely no similarity between academic fraud at FSU and our case.

I don't know what the University plans to argue.

 

[Bamaforlife]

It boils down to Daddy wanting to make sure he doesn't lose 14 wins in his never ending quest to "one up" Joe Paterno- He would rather have the wins restored and face extreme scholarship reductions than have anything take away from his total number of wins, no matter how many were achieved @ Howard- He could care less about hamstringing Jimbo Fisher 2 or 3 years down the road- Just make sure nothing affects his win total !!!!!

I'm sick of everything about the Bowdens- The fact that Daddy wants to put himself on a level w/ Coach Bryant is, in itself, enough of a slap in the face to Alabama fans, but his approach to dealing w/ discipline issues.....or rather, NOT dealing w/ them.....if it involves a starter has worn thin- I'm tired of the media fascination w/ him and the rest of the Bowden mafia- I hope Free Shoes University loses the appeal, the 14 wins remain vacated, and he never gets within 10 of JoePa- Maybe then, we would have heard the last of his "dadgums" and country boy act.

:a: :a: :a: :a: :a:

 

[alagator]

When you get back to the actual infractions, I see absolutely no similarity between academic fraud at FSU and our case.

I don't know what the University plans to argue.

I had pretty much the same thoughts.

But, page 12 of the COI response (as numbered by the report header - page 14 I think of the link) is not good for us. Offhand, it states that if ANY of a group of about seven or eight conditions exist then the default conclusion is the COI acted within its authority - and the new standard is a successful appeal must demonstrate they exceeded their statutory authority as a beginning. Two of those conditions are an excessive number of individuals included in the offense (and 201 would qualify as excessive) and an uncontested finding of Failure to Monitor (something we freely admitted to). I actually think we conceded to one or two more of those conditions too. (I know too we conceded that vacating records was in fact within their discresion in our initial response.)

I would have to re-read the report, but I did find something that sounded like a great argument foundation for our team. I just cannot remember it now, but will look back again. In fact, as I read the report, this point, raised by the COI itself in the FSU case, sounded like it should be the primary point on which we build our case. The COI said this would have been effective for FSU but it did not apply, and it seemed spot on to us and the facts of our case. I think it had something to do with the purpose of an institution is to educate - and can anyone argue that putting textbooks in the hands of more student-athletes is anything BUT advancing educating the individuals, especially when the players who facilitated the process do not profit individually (even though we know they did or had to have done so to a small degree).

It would have helped our case if we had actually gone so far as to terminate someone - anyone. Moore or Dever or Almond - or the second string janitor.

 

[Bamadrill]

Papa Bowden will be there on that sideline as long as it takes to overcome Coach Paterno's accomplishments. Even if that means some flunky rolling him around in a wheel chair.

 

[TerryP]

I had pretty much the same thoughts.

But, page 12 of the COI response (as numbered by the report header - page 14 I think of the link) is not good for us. Offhand, it states that if ANY of a group of about seven or eight conditions exist then the default conclusion is the COI acted within its authority - and the new standard is a successful appeal must demonstrate they exceeded their statutory authority as a beginning. Two of those conditions are an excessive number of individuals included in the offense (and 201 would qualify as excessive) and an uncontested finding of Failure to Monitor (something we freely admitted to). I actually think we conceded to one or two more of those conditions too. (I know too we conceded that vacating records was in fact within their discresion in our initial response.)

I would have to re-read the report, but I did find something that sounded like a great argument foundation for our team. I just cannot remember it now, but will look back again. In fact, as I read the report, this point, raised by the COI itself in the FSU case, sounded like it should be the primary point on which we build our case. The COI said this would have been effective for FSU but it did not apply, and it seemed spot on to us and the facts of our case. I think it had something to do with the purpose of an institution is to educate - and can anyone argue that putting textbooks in the hands of more student-athletes is anything BUT advancing educating the individuals, especially when the players who facilitated the process do not profit individually (even though we know they did or had to have done so to a small degree).

It would have helped our case if we had actually gone so far as to terminate someone - anyone. Moore or Dever or Almond - or the second string janitor.

In our conversations about this I've referred a few times to the difference between this being an institutional matter and a NCAA matter. It was along the same line of thinking you just mentioned. (institutional = administrative)

Earlier, in another thread, I made the comparison of a bureaucracy to our Athletic Dept.

I've got to go back to that because it seems to be something lost here.

You said, "It would have helped our case if we had actually gone so far as to terminate someone" as if it was a viable option.

Two things on this.

One, if there is any group of people that understand that really wasn't feasible it was the COI.

I say that because...

I spoke with a former professor and department head a few days ago about this situation. I wanted to get his feel for how the University operates and use him as a sounding board to verify what I thought.

For someone to get fired from their position (like that of Dever, Almond, and Shreve - I think that's the Supe Store managers name) they would literally have to commit a heinous act. Well, that might not be the best choice of words. A class A misdemeanor might do it, a felony would for sure.

It's not as easy as "you screwed up, you're gone." Do I like that? No, I don't - but it's the case.

Now, we are in a position where Dever, Almond, and Shreve know if they sneeze without covering their mouth they are gone. All due to that letter of reprimand.

Bottom line - it really wasn't a choice available to fire them...and whether it was discussed openly or not I'm sure those sitting on the COI knew it.