Ncaa To Announce Ou Decision On Possible Sanctions Today

gangrene · July 11, 2007

ESPN - NCAA to announce decision on Sooners' football infraction

Green Mean · July 11, 2007

I'd be SHOCKED if anything major happened.

gangrene · July 11, 2007

I'd be SHOCKED if anything major happened.

Me too...but I'm holding out hope that they'll make OU forfeit their first game of the 2007 season!

Charlie NT 73 · July 11, 2007

No more than a verbal repremand --by the NCAA

Zero U will be directed to send players to Carmax, where there is no haggel pricing.

I wounder if Perterson bought the 2007 Lexus he was test driving for six months?

greenjoe · July 11, 2007

I don't want them to forfit to us. I want to beat them on the field. Boise is my new hero. If they can do it, certainly North Texas can do it.

Reference the post below, who did Oklahoma beat (or not beat, in fact) in 2005 ?

Edited July 11, 2007 by greenjoe

LongJim · July 11, 2007

DMN.com

************************************************8

OU must forfeit wins from '05

Football program penalized by NCAA in pay-for-work-not-performed scheme

02:03 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Associated Press

The University of Oklahoma must vacate its football victories during the 2005 season, including a bowl game, as part of the penalties imposed by the NCAA in a pay-for-work-not-performed scheme involving a Norman auto dealership, Big Red Sports/Imports.

OU finished 8-4 in 2005 and beat Oregon, 17-14, in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl.

The major violations, called "significant and serious" by the NCAA, involved three players – including quarterback Rhett Bomar of Grand Prairie and offensive lineman J.D. Quinn of Garland -- who received about $17,000 in unearned wages, the NCAA said Wednesday.

Other penalties include:

• Two additional years of probation, extending to May 2010. The school already was on probation for basketball violations.

• The loss of two football scholarships for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons.

• The banishment of former Big Red manager Brad McRae from association with the University until at least August 2011.

• A reduction in the number of football coaches who can recruit off campus this fall by one.

This is Oklahoma's sixth major NCAA infractions case involving football and seventh overall. Only Arizona State and SMU, each with eight, have more overall major cases.

OU officials appeared before the NCAA infractions committee on April 14 in Indianapolis. It was the school's second appearance in less than a year. In May 2006, the NCAA sanctioned OU for major violations in its men's basketball program, involving hundreds of improper telephone calls by coaches to recruits.

The basketball decision came five weeks after the infractions hearing. The football decision came more than 12 weeks after the Indianapolis hearing. It's rare for a major college athletic program to face such official scrutiny of its top two revenue sports in such a short span.

Coach Bob Stoops dismissed Bomar and Quinn in early August last year, just before fall practice began. Both players competed during 2005 while they took money that they didn't earn from Big Red, which is why OU must forfeit those victories, the NCAA said.

"Any public reference to these vacated contests, including the bowl game, won during this time shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum," the NCAA said.

BonfireBrian · July 11, 2007

DMN.com
************************************************8
OU must forfeit wins from '05
Football program penalized by NCAA in pay-for-work-not-performed scheme
02:03 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Associated Press
The University of Oklahoma must vacate its football victories during the 2005 season, including a bowl game, as part of the penalties imposed by the NCAA in a pay-for-work-not-performed scheme involving a Norman auto dealership, Big Red Sports/Imports.
OU finished 8-4 in 2005 and beat Oregon, 17-14, in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl.
The major violations, called "significant and serious" by the NCAA, involved three players – including quarterback Rhett Bomar of Grand Prairie and offensive lineman J.D. Quinn of Garland -- who received about $17,000 in unearned wages, the NCAA said Wednesday.
Other penalties include:
• Two additional years of probation, extending to May 2010. The school already was on probation for basketball violations.
• The loss of two football scholarships for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons.
• The banishment of former Big Red manager Brad McRae from association with the University until at least August 2011.
• A reduction in the number of football coaches who can recruit off campus this fall by one.
This is Oklahoma's sixth major NCAA infractions case involving football and seventh overall. Only Arizona State and SMU, each with eight, have more overall major cases.
OU officials appeared before the NCAA infractions committee on April 14 in Indianapolis. It was the school's second appearance in less than a year. In May 2006, the NCAA sanctioned OU for major violations in its men's basketball program, involving hundreds of improper telephone calls by coaches to recruits.
The basketball decision came five weeks after the infractions hearing. The football decision came more than 12 weeks after the Indianapolis hearing. It's rare for a major college athletic program to face such official scrutiny of its top two revenue sports in such a short span.
Coach Bob Stoops dismissed Bomar and Quinn in early August last year, just before fall practice began. Both players competed during 2005 while they took money that they didn't earn from Big Red, which is why OU must forfeit those victories, the NCAA said.
"Any public reference to these vacated contests, including the bowl game, won during this time shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum," the NCAA said.

Wow, looks like the NCAA came down harder than I thought!

Green to the Bone · July 11, 2007

Some of these things OU had already done voluntarily, hoping to stave off more serious penalties. They already gave up the 2 scholarships, cut ties with the car guy for a while, and restricted the number of coaches who could recruit off-campus.

The other stuff is new.

Question, though: Do they have to return their 2005 bowl payout money? Frankly, if there's not a financial penalty, giving up wins from two years ago seems pretty tame.

LongJim · July 11, 2007

I'm surprised at this verdict--that's all I'm going to say. It will not hinder or hurt OU in the least, and is not much of a punishment.

NT80 · July 11, 2007

Only Arizona State and SMU, each with eight, have more overall major cases.

See, they are leaders in something in sports!

DeepGreen · July 11, 2007

Question, though: Do they have to return their 2005 bowl payout money? Frankly, if there's not a financial penalty, giving up wins from two years ago seems pretty tame.

My uneducated guess is, yes. Whatever the amount, zero U will just cut a check from the general "petty stuff" fund. Will not hurt them whatsoever.

greenminer · July 11, 2007

Question, though: Do they have to return their 2005 bowl payout money? Frankly, if there's not a financial penalty, giving up wins from two years ago seems pretty tame.

Interesting question. Anyone know?

adman · July 11, 2007

DMN.com
************************************************8
OU must forfeit wins from '05
Football program penalized by NCAA in pay-for-work-not-performed scheme
02:03 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Associated Press
The University of Oklahoma must vacate its football victories during the 2005 season, including a bowl game, as part of the penalties imposed by the NCAA in a pay-for-work-not-performed scheme involving a Norman auto dealership, Big Red Sports/Imports.
OU finished 8-4 in 2005 and beat Oregon, 17-14, in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl.
The major violations, called "significant and serious" by the NCAA, involved three players – including quarterback Rhett Bomar of Grand Prairie and offensive lineman J.D. Quinn of Garland -- who received about $17,000 in unearned wages, the NCAA said Wednesday.
Other penalties include:
• Two additional years of probation, extending to May 2010. The school already was on probation for basketball violations.
• The loss of two football scholarships for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons.
• The banishment of former Big Red manager Brad McRae from association with the University until at least August 2011.
• A reduction in the number of football coaches who can recruit off campus this fall by one.
This is Oklahoma's sixth major NCAA infractions case involving football and seventh overall. Only Arizona State and SMU, each with eight, have more overall major cases.
OU officials appeared before the NCAA infractions committee on April 14 in Indianapolis. It was the school's second appearance in less than a year. In May 2006, the NCAA sanctioned OU for major violations in its men's basketball program, involving hundreds of improper telephone calls by coaches to recruits.
The basketball decision came five weeks after the infractions hearing. The football decision came more than 12 weeks after the Indianapolis hearing. It's rare for a major college athletic program to face such official scrutiny of its top two revenue sports in such a short span.
Coach Bob Stoops dismissed Bomar and Quinn in early August last year, just before fall practice began. Both players competed during 2005 while they took money that they didn't earn from Big Red, which is why OU must forfeit those victories, the NCAA said.
"Any public reference to these vacated contests, including the bowl game, won during this time shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum," the NCAA said.

Who was the third player and what happened to him?

UNTLifer · July 11, 2007

These are weak, weak sanctions.

CaribbeanGreen · July 11, 2007

These are weak, weak sanctions.

these are sanctions??

gangrene · July 11, 2007

So this means OU lost to TCU and SMU in the same season? :rolleyes:

I hate when ruling parties implement the "forfeit the entire season" penalty...especially when it's after the fact. Who does that punish and how does that penalize a program?? :blink:

untStein · July 11, 2007

So this means OU lost to TCU and SMU in the same season?
I hate when ruling parties implement the "forfeit the entire season" penalty...especially when it's after the fact. Who does that punish and how does that penalize a program??

It appears that it really doesn't. The NCAA just wants to put something down on paper to make it look like they're punishing someone.

LongJim · July 11, 2007

One of the best comments I've seen: "Open up your wallets boys, the Texas 100 is officially for sale."

Eagle1855 · July 11, 2007

So this means OU lost to TCU and SMU in the same season?

OU didnt play SMU in '05. But it does mean that they lost to Tulsa, Baylor, and Kansas... and they re-lost to Tech, even though they didn't actually lose to them the first time...

Edited July 11, 2007 by Eagle1855

gangrene · July 11, 2007

OU didnt play SMU in '05. But it does mean that they lost to Tulsa, Baylor, and Kansas... and they re-lost to Tech, even though they didn't actually lose to them the first time...

Right. I was thinking of TCU that played OU and SMU that season.

Charlie NT 73 · July 11, 2007

Over on the sooner board, their comments are all about they got screwed by the NCAA

and that USC should receive equal if not more punishment for the Reggie Bush incentatives.

And-so what, take away the wins and Stoops is still 91-10.

Green to the Bone · July 11, 2007

Who was the third player and what happened to him?

He was a walk-on and I believe he got booted. Therefore, there was no scholarship to give up.

Agreed, byt the way, that they will just pull the change out of their couch cushions to pay back any bowl payout, if they have to.

Even so, if they don't have to pay it back, it will be a further insult to all who obey the rules.

Eagle1855 · July 11, 2007

Over on the sooner board, their comments are all about they got screwed by the NCAA
and that USC should receive equal if not more punishment for the Reggie Bush incentatives.
And-so what, take away the wins and Stoops is still 91-10.

you know, I was honestly wondering the same thing... but that doesnt mean they are absolved for their stupidity.

LongJim · July 11, 2007

My uneducated guess is, yes.

Nope. Bowl games are not "regulated" by the NCAA. Won't have to give back a dime of their portion of the payout.

CMJ · July 11, 2007

It's always sorta wierd when they vacate games seasons later. I mean....it's not like the kids lost 12 games. Just like when Michigan had to vacate their Final Four run in 1993 and take down their banners.

Actually from what I just read, OU's wins are vacated...as in the games were never played. So those schools aren't Bowl eligible...they're .500 officially.

Edited July 11, 2007 by CMJ