Oklahoma Forfeits All Wins From 2005

Smitty · July 11, 2007

NCAA: Oklahoma must forfeit 2005 season

Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The Oklahoma football program must forfeit its wins from the 2005 season and will lose two scholarships for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.

The penalties, announced Wednesday by the NCAA, stem from a case involving two players, including the Sooners' starting quarterback, who were kicked off the team for being paid for work they had not performed at a Norman car dealership.

The Sooners went 8-4 and beat Oregon in the Holiday Bowl to end the 2005 season. Records from that season involving quarterback Rhett Bomar and offensive lineman J.D. Quinn must be vacated, the NCAA said, and coach Bob Stoops' career record will be amended to reflect the forfeitures, dropping it from 86-19 in eight seasons to 78-27.

Oklahoma also will have two years of probation added to an earlier penalty, extending the Sooners' probation to May 23, 2010. Those sanctions are in addition to those already self-imposed by Oklahoma, which has banned athletes from working at the car dealership until at least the 2008-09 academic year and has moved to prevent the athletes' supervisor at the dealership, Brad McRae, from being involved with the university's athletics program until at least August 2011.

Oklahoma also will reduce the number of football coaches who are allowed to recruit off campus this fall. The Sooners also dismissed Bomar, Quinn and walk-on Jermaine Hardison from the team.

"Although this case centered on a few violations involving three student-athletes, the committee finds this case to be significant and serious for several reasons," the NCAA report said, noting the length of time of the violations and the fact that Oklahoma had appeared before the committee in April 2006 regarding violations in its men's basketball program.

On Aug. 3, the day before the Sooners began preseason practice, Stoops dismissed Bomar and Quinn from the team after the university determined they had been paid for work not performed at Big Red Sports and Imports. That led to a subsequent NCAA investigation.

The committee found that Oklahoma "demonstrated a failure to monitor" the employment of several athletes, including some football players who worked during the academic year. The NCAA said that failure led to the university not detecting NCAA rules violations.

During the investigation, the university disputed that allegation, arguing that the NCAA should applaud, not penalize, its efforts to root out violations and noted that NCAA president Myles Brand told one news outlet that the university "acted with integrity in taking swift and decisive action" in the case. Both Bomar and Quinn lost a season of eligibility.

Bomar has been ordered by the NCAA to pay back more than $7,400 in extra benefits to charity, while Quinn was told to pay back more than $8,100. Both players transferred to Division I-AA schools -- Bomar to Sam Houston State and Quinn to Montana -- where they can resume their careers this season.

Oklahoma officials also appeared before the Committee on Infractions in April 2006 following an investigation into hundreds of improper recruiting phone calls by former basketball coach Kelvin Sampson's staff.

Oklahoma escaped major sanctions in that case, as the NCAA Committee on Infractions found the university guilty of a "failure to monitor," a less severe ruling than "lack of institutional control," which had been recommended by the NCAA's enforcement staff.

The committee moved Oklahoma's self-imposed probation so it would begin in May 2006 and end in May 2008. The NCAA also issued a public reprimand and censure but otherwise accepted the university's self-imposed sanctions, which included reductions in scholarships, recruiting calls and trips and visits to the school by prospective recruits.

risinggreen · July 11, 2007

NCAA: Oklahoma must forfeit 2005 season
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY -- The Oklahoma football program must forfeit its wins from the 2005 season and will lose two scholarships for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.
The penalties, announced Wednesday by the NCAA, stem from a case involving two players, including the Sooners' starting quarterback, who were kicked off the team for being paid for work they had not performed at a Norman car dealership.
The Sooners went 8-4 and beat Oregon in the Holiday Bowl to end the 2005 season. Records from that season involving quarterback Rhett Bomar and offensive lineman J.D. Quinn must be vacated, the NCAA said, and coach Bob Stoops' career record will be amended to reflect the forfeitures, dropping it from 86-19 in eight seasons to 78-27.
Oklahoma also will have two years of probation added to an earlier penalty, extending the Sooners' probation to May 23, 2010. Those sanctions are in addition to those already self-imposed by Oklahoma, which has banned athletes from working at the car dealership until at least the 2008-09 academic year and has moved to prevent the athletes' supervisor at the dealership, Brad McRae, from being involved with the university's athletics program until at least August 2011.
Oklahoma also will reduce the number of football coaches who are allowed to recruit off campus this fall. The Sooners also dismissed Bomar, Quinn and walk-on Jermaine Hardison from the team.
"Although this case centered on a few violations involving three student-athletes, the committee finds this case to be significant and serious for several reasons," the NCAA report said, noting the length of time of the violations and the fact that Oklahoma had appeared before the committee in April 2006 regarding violations in its men's basketball program.
On Aug. 3, the day before the Sooners began preseason practice, Stoops dismissed Bomar and Quinn from the team after the university determined they had been paid for work not performed at Big Red Sports and Imports. That led to a subsequent NCAA investigation.
The committee found that Oklahoma "demonstrated a failure to monitor" the employment of several athletes, including some football players who worked during the academic year. The NCAA said that failure led to the university not detecting NCAA rules violations.
During the investigation, the university disputed that allegation, arguing that the NCAA should applaud, not penalize, its efforts to root out violations and noted that NCAA president Myles Brand told one news outlet that the university "acted with integrity in taking swift and decisive action" in the case. Both Bomar and Quinn lost a season of eligibility.
Bomar has been ordered by the NCAA to pay back more than $7,400 in extra benefits to charity, while Quinn was told to pay back more than $8,100. Both players transferred to Division I-AA schools -- Bomar to Sam Houston State and Quinn to Montana -- where they can resume their careers this season.
Oklahoma officials also appeared before the Committee on Infractions in April 2006 following an investigation into hundreds of improper recruiting phone calls by former basketball coach Kelvin Sampson's staff.
Oklahoma escaped major sanctions in that case, as the NCAA Committee on Infractions found the university guilty of a "failure to monitor," a less severe ruling than "lack of institutional control," which had been recommended by the NCAA's enforcement staff.
The committee moved Oklahoma's self-imposed probation so it would begin in May 2006 and end in May 2008. The NCAA also issued a public reprimand and censure but otherwise accepted the university's self-imposed sanctions, which included reductions in scholarships, recruiting calls and trips and visits to the school by prospective recruits.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

Date Opponent Score Record Record Time Attend

---- -------- ----- -------- -------- ---- ------

Sep 03, 2005 TCU 10-17 L 0- 1- 0 0- 0- 0 3:54 84332

Sep 10, 2005 TULSA W 31-15 1- 1- 0 0- 0- 0 3:31 83877

Sep 17, 2005 at UCLA Bruins 24-41 L 1- 2- 0 0- 0- 0 3:34 56522

* Oct 01, 2005 KANSAS STATE W 43-21 2- 2- 0 1- 0- 0 3:36 84501

* Oct 08, 2005 vs #2 Texas 12-45 L 2- 3- 0 1- 1- 0 3:35 75452

* Oct 15, 2005 vs Kansas W 19-3 3- 3- 0 2- 1- 0 3:13 54109

* Oct 22, 2005 BAYLOR WO 37-30 4- 3- 0 3- 1- 0 4:12 83456

* Oct. 29,2005 at Nebraska W 31-24 5- 3- 0 4- 1- 0 3:39 77438

* Nov 12, 2005 TEXAS A&M W 36-30 6- 3- 0 5- 1- 0 3:58 84943

* Nov 19, 2005 at Texas Tech 21-23 L 6- 4- 0 5- 2- 0 3:43 52625

* Nov 26, 2005 OKLAHOMA STATE W 42-14 7- 4- 0 6- 2- 0 3:32 84875

Dec 29, 2005 vs Oregon W 17-14 8- 4- 0 6- 2- 0 3:48 65416

* indicates conference game

Damn. If we had only played them in '05 nobody could ever say that DD couldn't win the big one!

Harry · July 11, 2007

Date Opponent Score Record Record Time Attend
---- -------- ----- -------- -------- ---- ------
Sep 03, 2005 TCU 10-17 L 0- 1- 0 0- 0- 0 3:54 84332
Sep 10, 2005 TULSA W 31-15 1- 1- 0 0- 0- 0 3:31 83877
Sep 17, 2005 at UCLA Bruins 24-41 L 1- 2- 0 0- 0- 0 3:34 56522
* Oct 01, 2005 KANSAS STATE W 43-21 2- 2- 0 1- 0- 0 3:36 84501
* Oct 08, 2005 vs #2 Texas 12-45 L 2- 3- 0 1- 1- 0 3:35 75452
* Oct 15, 2005 vs Kansas W 19-3 3- 3- 0 2- 1- 0 3:13 54109
* Oct 22, 2005 BAYLOR WO 37-30 4- 3- 0 3- 1- 0 4:12 83456
* Oct. 29,2005 at Nebraska W 31-24 5- 3- 0 4- 1- 0 3:39 77438
* Nov 12, 2005 TEXAS A&M W 36-30 6- 3- 0 5- 1- 0 3:58 84943
* Nov 19, 2005 at Texas Tech 21-23 L 6- 4- 0 5- 2- 0 3:43 52625
* Nov 26, 2005 OKLAHOMA STATE W 42-14 7- 4- 0 6- 2- 0 3:32 84875
Dec 29, 2005 vs Oregon W 17-14 8- 4- 0 6- 2- 0 3:48 65416
* indicates conference game
Damn. If we had only played them in '05 nobody could ever say that DD couldn't win the big one!

LOL!

good_ken · July 11, 2007

Forfeiting a season that was played 2 years a go is a little weak. That is unless they made OU give back all the stadium revenues that they netted as a result of 2005. That would be a penalty.

CorinthEagle · July 11, 2007

So does this make anyone on their schedule retro-actively bowl eligible? I'd sue to get my $750K in bowl money! :lol:

greenjoe · July 11, 2007

According to my hasty research, 3 teams are now bowl eligible for the 2005 season.

Kansas State 5-6 (+1)

Baylor 5-6 (+1)

Texas A & M 5-6 (+1)

Now how does the NCAA propose to fix this problem ?

Harry · July 11, 2007

Key excerpt:

"...Oklahoma escaped major sanctions in that case, as the NCAA Committee on Infractions found the university guilty of a "failure to monitor," a less severe ruling than "lack of institutional control," which had been recommended by the NCAA's enforcement staff."

As always, the rich get richer even if they choose to cheat their way to the top...this penalty is a pittance given what transpired.

UNTflyer · July 11, 2007

"...Oklahoma escaped major sanctions in that case, as the NCAA Committee on Infractions found the university guilty of a "failure to monitor," a less severe ruling than "lack of institutional control..."

Which is not quite a severe as "BAD! Very bad school!"

UNTFan23 · July 11, 2007

Oklahoma also will have two years of probation added to an earlier penalty, extending the Sooners' probation to May 23, 2010. Those sanctions are in addition to those already self-imposed by Oklahoma, which has banned athletes from working at the car dealership until at least the 2008-09 academic year and has moved to prevent the athletes' supervisor at the dealership, Brad McRae, from being involved with the university's athletics program until at least August 2011.

The fact that Oklahoma was already on probation (self-imposed or not) and merely got a literal slap on the wrist for this just shows how maligned the priorities really are for the NCAA.

meangreendork · July 12, 2007

This is a fluff punishment. We already know that unless the NCAA gives them a sudden-death penalty, they'll be able to recruit as they please based on program prestige. Also, they already have bowl money and the emotional impact from the wins as well as any other intangible rewards. Worthless words from the NCAA, I think. They were almost better off just letting them go, it'd be a whole lot more honest than this.

UNT_playmaker · July 12, 2007

Oklahoma got off easy....... If it was a mid-major they would have gotten the DEATH PENALTY

Just ask SMU

FirefightnRick · July 12, 2007

This billboard needs an update: SOONER OR LATER YOU GET CAUGHT!

Rick

untbowler · July 12, 2007

Funny how we see it as a fluff penalty and OU President is crying that it is excessive. Wow guess he has his head in the sand.

Thanks NCAA for actually taking a stand <_<

KingDL1 · July 12, 2007

What did the Crimson Tide get several years ago?

Is OU still bowl eligible while on probation? Does it reduce TV games or scholarships?

Is there any teeth at all to any of this?

GreenN'walinsVet · July 12, 2007

Yes forfeiting the 2005 season is a fluff penelty becasue it really means nothing

but did you notice that they are losing two scholorships this year and two next year?

I know that doesnt seem like alot and it really isnt, but it means that that is four less stud players that they will have on the roster for the next 5 to 6 years. Not to mention that they are on probabation until 2011, so if they get caught again it will be worse. Considering it was only two players that were caught and there was no real evidence to suggest that OU knew of the deal (right or not, but that is what was found) i think losing four scholorships over a two year period is fairly severe.

Also remember that they lost one of the top rated QB's in the nation in Bomar over this for the next two years as well.

Quoner · July 12, 2007

Oklahoma got off easy....... If it was a mid-major they would have gotten the DEATH PENALTY
Just ask SMU

SMU wasn't a mid-major when they got the death penalty... they are a mid-major because they got the death penalty

LongJim · July 12, 2007

For those who have been following this from either news reports or casually, there is more to this case than meets the eye, and the following is a VERY LONG post from OB.com that sums up the timeline of events, and puts forth some pretty good water-cooler perspective--(and for purposes of disclosure, that perspective is quite orange-tinted, so apply grains of salt if you want)--if you don't know all the details.

After you read this, take a look at the punishment OU received (and the punishment CU received for their transgressions last month) and see if they fit.

*****************************************************************************

"Here is a full timeline of events from the public interactions between the university of Oklahoma and the auto dealership, Big Red Sports and Imports (BRSI). The timing of some of these events, and what transpired leaves some open questions.

SEP/OCT 2005 Adrian Peterson is reported to be in possession of a Lexus belonging to Big Red Sports and Imports, partially owned by Brad McRae, a publicly known OU booster.

NOV 2005 Oklahoma launches an internal investigation of Adrian Peterson and the dealership.

APR 03, 2006 An anonymous tip via email is received by University of Oklahoma president David Boren that players are being paid for work not performed.

APR 07, 2006 A purchase offer from the Hudiburg Auto Group is accepted by Big Red Sports/Imports partial owner Mike Donohue

APR 19, 2006 Oklahoma completes investigation of Peterson and dealership and releases outcome that no violations occurred; OU also states that the employment of student athletes was also investigated, but no violations occurred.

AUG 02, 2006 Oklahoma officials announce that Bomar and Quinn have been dismissed from the team for accepting money for work they did not perform at Big Red Sports and Imports.

FEB 12, 2007 Oklahoma announces self-imposed penalties as a recourse for Bomar and Quinn's actions.

FEB 12, 2007 NCAA releases document disclosing accusation that an unnamed third player took improper benefits, and announces date for OU to appear before infractions committee (April 14th, 2007).

This timeline poses a few thoughts and questions.

1) Why was Oklahoma investigating the employment of football players by the dealership in the original investigation?

The "whistle-blowing" allegedly occurred on April 3rd. Oklahoma was wrapping up a 5 month long investigation into the interactions between Adrian Peterson and the Norman dealership involved with the "purchase" of a used Lexus. Oklahoma released their findings (no violations occurred) that included a brief, cryptic quote at the end of the release:

"Oklahoma also investigated the employment of football players by the dealership but found no violations."

No more details were given into why this was included or what was actually being investigated. Given that this release was made within two weeks of the anonymous email to Boren, the timing of these events would suggest one of the following:

A) OU was wrapping up the investigation when Boren received the email, and he instructed the investigators to nose around for anything suspicious about player payment. Possibly expecting a hoax, he never really pursued the issue, and by having the investigators aware of the accusation, they would be cleared by "piggy-backing" this new issue on top of the Peterson-Lexus investigation.

Someone else had tipped OU off that there was something going on with the player payment... before the anonymous email to Boren. From comments made, Bomar was allegedly somewhat vocal and "open" about the overpayments - therefore it might be possible that OU had been made aware of the situation and was investigating interactions with Big Red from the start of the investigation.

Either scenario bring forth the following complication.

2) If the Peterson/Lexus investigation was altered to include investigation of student athlete employment, how was no payment discrepancy found?

Having made publicly known in their release that they had investigated the employment of football players at BRSI, how is it possible that Oklahoma did not uncover the truth? What could OU have possibly "investigated" about the situation that would not have unearthed the paycheck/timecard discrepancy? Confirmation of any of the following items would have led to the truth:

- analysis of player timecards

- analysis of paychecks

- analysis of tax forms

How can the released quote in early April that OU "found no violations" be released when there was no analysis done on these items? Did the dealership deny OU access to them? Were they destroyed before OU could see them? Were they "lost in ownership transition" of BRSI? Oklahoma is not claiming any of those things occurred during the original investigation, are they?

"Oklahoma also investigated the employment of football players by the dealership but found no violations."

It is a curious thing that Oklahoma would release a public, absolute statement like this without checking any of the documents mentioned above, that would have inevitably led them to the truth.

3) Is it a coincidence that the timing of the sale of BRSI occurred immediately (within a week) of the email tip to Boren?

This is an interesting one. The timing of the ownership change of BRSI is extremely convenient for both the dealership's former owners and OU. It provides a means by which important paperwork and evidence (that can't be reprinted or forged) - which could prove guilt or innocence of players, boosters, and anyone else involved, as well as how extreme or minor any payments might have been - can be removed from scrutiny by both Oklahoma and the NCAA. If important documents that would unveil the truth and implicate the dealership can be dismissed because "they were misplaced" or "lost" during the ownership transition, it would be in the best interest of the ownership to do that.

THEORETICALLY, in the same way, any documents made available to Oklahoma by the dealership during the original investigation that might have implicated the university in the scandal (meaning they were either directly involved in the situation, or they were simply aware of some details) can now be "misplaced" or "lost" because of this transition of administration at BRSI so that they are unavailable when the NCAA comes a knockin'. That is speculation, but the timing definitely would have provided a convenience to both parties.

4) Given the above point, THEORETICALLY, if Oklahoma or BRSI had destroyed any evidence to cover up the violations, why would they have kicked Rhett Bomar and JD Quinn off of the team?

Yes. This is the big argument. If OU/BRSI could dispose of any implicating evidence of their players being on the take from the dealership, why would they have outed their star quarterback months later? The Oklahoma fan's answer is that the compliance department did its job, and found the violations... eventually. Never mind that they had previously released that the dealings at the dealership were squeaky clean with no violations to be found after a five month long investigation. I mean - it might have taken them a few months afterwards, but they found it and self reported it, right? No harm, no foul.

Had that been the case, OU would have found the problems much earlier. The truth of the matter is probably something else altogether. I want to disclaim right now, that the following is entirely SPECULATION.

An aggie (as has been reported) blew the whistle on April 3rd. OU and BRSI hustle to remove the paper trail in damage control mode. Both parties rid themselves of all documentation that could bring to light the violations that occurred and any computer or other evidence linking the ownership or the university with the problem. A week later, the dealership is sold, providing a legitimate means by which those items could have "disappeared". Brad McRae relocates to another dealership to remove the notorious booster from the situation. The evidence has been disposed of and OU is in the clear. Two weeks later on the 19th, Oklahoma officially announces that any employment of Oklahoma football players by BRSI is legitimate and there are no (traceable) problems. Problem solved, right?

Wrong. After the statement has been released, and the OU administration (or compliance department) is double checking all of their records and doing any remaining clean up, Bob Stoops and company are horrified to find that Rhett Bomar and JD Quinn have declared their booster payments on their recently submitted federal tax forms. It has been reported that the tax returns were what raised the red flag for OU... not timecards or pay stubs. See the quote below:

Bomar had a job at a Norman, Okla., car dealer at which he’d work about five hours a week, but claimed, for tax purposes, that he earned $18,000 a year, Schad reported.

What I believe is possible, is that Bomar, Quinn, and possibly this walk on player, Hardison, were the only players to request a W-2 form with their actual payments. Maybe they were afraid that the IRS would find out and hammer them... maybe they didn't think the IRS would pick up on any pay irregularities. For whatever the reason, they requested an "accurate" W-2 forms with gross incomes matching what they had actually been paid. The naive receptionist/employee either altered or "fixed" the error in the computers, or saw the updated information or paperwork and thought it was irregular. She told her aggie boyfriend about this, much to his surprise. He questioned his texags friends about the situation, sat on it for a while, and decided to pull the trigger. He emailed a brief anonymous message to Boren with the information, names, and irregular payments he had heard about.

Bob Stoops said that the kids lied to him... i believe Stoops is telling the truth there. I bet the athletes were asked if any of them had submitted their tax refunds/forms for the year yet, and if so, if any of the shady overpayments were declared on their returns. I'm sure Bomar and Quinn stayed silent and hoped for the best. But eventually, maybe even months later after investigation, it somehow came out. This is not a missing timecard document or paycheck that can be altered and reproduced or attributed to the dealership purchase paperwork chaos. This is a hard piece of evidence in the hands of the federal government.

What does OU do? Do they take a chance and hope that the IRS doesn't smell anything fishy? Maybe they won't throw a red flag, and it will just go by the wayside. No, OU has to act. There is a piece of hard evidence out of OU or BRSI's control. The alternative would be far too consequential... they must act. In response, they prepare a release that they have uncovered improprieties with the payment of two OU football players working at a local dealership. Bomar and Quinn take the fall. They are the only active players that have hard evidence associating them with the shady ongoings at BRSI; the submitted tax refunds including the extra pay in their gross income. Everything else can be doctored and reprinted, reproduced, or discounted due to the missing paperwork from the management change at BRSI.

Hardison is an afterthought... nobody in the public even knows who he is. They use a curfew/team rules excuse to kick him off the football team a week after Bomar and Quinn. I mean... it's better to only have two players involved. Don't waste the infamy of a third paid player if he's just a walk on nobody recruited and nobody even knows is on the team. I mean, if the public knows that a walk-on is getting paid, they will suspect the whole football team is on the take. Besides, the pay amounts reported to the feds can probably be explained through his work during the summer months to provide for his two kids... and an overpayment of $2000 is much less substantial than Bomar's and Quinn's (approximated at $7406 and $8137 respectively).

Much of the above is speculation, but the definite truth is the following:

The original investigation by OU of employment allegations at BRSI released in April was a FARCE. Oklahoma DID NOT analyze the timecard, paycheck, or tax form documents during the original investigation. Had they done it, they would have easily seen the pay discrepancy. Those items are standard documentation when logging student athlete employment with a compliance committee. The fact that those items were not scrutinized shows that one of the following situations occurred:

A) the student athlete employment was either not really investigated in the first place as publicly stated

it was a sham investigation in which they only breifly questioned the players and management, and never really took it seriously

C) or that it was plain and simply a cover up and damage control.

If the NCAA has brains and balls, those details (not my earlier speculations) will be obvious."

Edited July 12, 2007 by LongJim

Buford_Julep · July 12, 2007

This is the seventh major NCAA rules violation for OU. Only SMU and Arizona State have been caught eight times.

In 1988 the NCAA gave OU three years probation, a two-year ban on TV and bowl appearances and a reduction in scholarships from 25 to 18. That is genuine punishment. An habitual, serial criminal should get a tougher sentence each time he is convicted.

Interesting are the below comments that were cut and pasted fom the DMN:

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

"Vacate does not mean forfeit," explained Paul Dee, acting chair of the NCAA committee, which issued the findings and assessed the penalties. The teams that Oklahoma beat wouldn't get credit for victories. The Sooners' record for 2005 would be 0-4.

Dee, athletic director at the University of Miami, said in a conference call that Oklahoma would not have to return any bowl money.

Recruiting expert Bobby Burton said Wednesday that the penalties, if upheld, would have little impact on the Sooners' recruiting. "I just don't see it as that big a deal," he said.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

KingDL1 · July 12, 2007

Well I guess a football team must have a name associated with Indians to get into real trouble, then you would see the sh#t hit the fan. Just amazing!

centex eagle · July 13, 2007

and the USC players stayed in school and played on after taking at least as much or more. Jarrett got about 18 and paid back about 7, I think.

FirefightnRick · July 13, 2007

Not to mention that they are on probabation until 2011, so if they get caught again it will be worse.

Weren't they already in trouble in sort of way from their recent basketball scandal?

Rick

NT80 · July 13, 2007

Weren't they already in trouble in sort of way from their recent basketball scandal?
Rick

Yes, this is OU's second major sports violation in less than a year (basketball in 2006). I think only because this was initiated by a booster that they were given a softer penalty than if coaches had been involved.

GangGreen · July 14, 2007

Forfeiting wins is about as useless as tits on a bull. Everyone still knows that Michigan won the NCAA Tourney when they received the same penalty. Two scholarships? Whoopty doo. So, instead of taking the best 25 players out of Texas, they'll only take 23.