The NCAA Hearts Oklahoma -- And Gives Them A Kiss!

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 13, 2007 3:44 PM EDT in Commentary Comment 25 comments

I know, I know -- what does Oklahoma have to do with Kentucky? Don't worry, I'll get there.

This post is about the NCAA sanctions recently handed down to Oklahoma University due to a scandal there that broke last year. Here are the essential facts of the case:

Two players for Oklahoma's football team apparently falsified time cards to a car dealership they were working at, to the tune of more than $18,000.
Apparently, the two players worked at the dealership for less than 5 hours per week, yet turned in 40-hour per week time cards. (Clue! Students!)
The Oklahoma coach found out about this and dismissed the players from the team.
Another player was found to be driving around a car from the same dealership for approximately 3 weeks without paying for it.

For this, Oklahoma gets the following penalty:

All wins in the 2005 season are "vacated". Those 8 wins will not become losses, they will merely be considered a figment of our imagination.
Two (whole!) years of probation.
The loss of two (whole!) scholarships through the 2009-10 season.
A reduction by one of the number of coaches who can recruit off campus. (I'm serious!)
A public reprimand and censure. (Gasp!)
The university must dissociate itself from the car dealership manager (not the dealership itself) for five years.

That's it. Look, what happened here is this -- a booster found a way to slip wads of cash to players. That's what happened. The University got hit with the "failure to monitor" sanction, not the much more serious "lack of institutional control", and had the audacity to tell the NCAA that it should be proud of them for ferreting out this corruption:

The NCAA subsequently alleged that Oklahoma had failed to adequately monitor the employment of several athletes, including some football players who worked during the academic year. The NCAA said Oklahoma's "failure to monitor" led to the university not detecting NCAA rules violations.

The university has 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.

What an incredible crock of bovine excrement. How in the name of all that is good and holy could a university be blind to such an arrangement, and still only fall under the "lack of monitoring" rubric? What is even more distressing is how Oklahoma could allow scholarship athletes to work at an automobile dealership, a profession that has provided manifold recruiting violations in the past at many schools without closely monitoring what they were doing and what they were being paid.

Think about this for a second. A business paid scholarship players eight times what they earned, and nobody said "boo" until the coach found out. The car dealership is outraged that they are getting the blame, but surely they are to blame -- nobody runs a legitimate business like that. I know a lot about automotive dealerships, and I have never heard of one that paid a 40 hour ticket for 5 hours work. You are more likely to get 5 hours pay for 40 worked, in my experience.

And then there is this business of a player driving an unsecured, unfinanced automobile around for three weeks. The dealership said it was business as usual, but you just try going down to a dealership and asking them if they mind if you drive one of their cars around for three weeks, gratis. My best friend is a big shot at a dealership here in town, and even I can't get a deal like that. Sorry, Oklahoma, that excuse doesn't wash. That is an NCAA violation pure and simple, and the fact that the NCAA failed to follow their own rules doesn't change that fact.

Finally, where the heck is the local district attorney in all this mess? If the car dealership is claiming innocence, then why aren't the two youngsters in an Oklahoma jail cell for, among other things, fraud and forgery? Apparently, after being dismissed from OU, they both matriculated to Division I-AA teams, and can regain their amateur status by repaying $7,400 and $8,100 respectively -- but what is that money? Was it ill-gotten gains from criminal activity, or payola from an unscrupulous booster, as I intimated above? I guess we have to assume the latter, but who knows for sure?

What clearly saved OU is the fact that they self-reported and investigated the incident, but even that doesn't explain the feeble penalty assessed by the NCAA on the Sooners. Kyle King takes on the NCAA at Dawg Sports for the moral cowardice displayed Myles Brand and Co., but I would ask the question, "How about the obvious incompetence in their investigation?" Even the Oklahoma Blog Crimson and Cream Machine asked "Is this all the Sooners get?", but more from the perspective of what took them so long to reach the same conclusion and sanctions as OU placed on itself (but a fair question, at that).

If this debacle had occurred in Lexington, the NCAA Death Penalty would surely have fallen from the skies, along with another front-page Sports Illustrated article with a player in an embarrassed pose. I don't necessarily think the Sooners deserve that, but I'm with Kyle King that this silly business of "vacating" wins should not be a substitute for other sanctions, such as loss of televised games, no post season play, or even [shock!] forfeiting the games instead of pretending they never happened.

I am sorely tempted to question the veracity of the Oklahoma coaching staff in this matter, but I have no evidence to support such an allegation -- merely an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach. I want to believe the coaching staff was simply negligent, but as in all situations like this, it isn't easy.

This should be a cautionary tale to Kentucky as well. We can't afford any foolishness like this -- remember the Rondo car driving incident of a few years back? That explanation was at least semi-plausible, but that kind of nonsense needs to stop. Universities should forbid their scholarship athletes from going anywhere near a car dealership for any other reason than to purchase or sell an automobile. Car dealerships and scholarship athletes are like oil and water, and a recipe for disaster. I hope UK understands that better than OU apparently did.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Oklahoma

I thought vacating all of their wins from last season was pretty tough but the rest of their penance was rediculous. I would like to see their wins restored and much harsher penalties layed on the school, the dealership, and the kids. They knew they were doing was wrong and are legally adults.

On the rondo comment, it was totally Derek Anderson's car who has a prior relationship with rondo. I dont see how that wasnt ok but I did agree with UK's decision to have Rondo cease driving it.

by davw83 on Jul 13, 2007 5:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like Coach K's method....

he doesn't allow a freshman players to even have a car in the city for their entire freshman year. Not only does this provide a little safety net for things like this, it also boosts team unity because the only people the freshman are allowed to ride with are Senior players.

by blueblood on Jul 13, 2007 6:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

OU

I found the penalties to be severe considering what occured and how OU dealt with it. Stoops seems to be a class act.

This type of violation would never result in a death penalty for any program. Now if the coaches knew about it and sanctioned it that would be different.

by Catfan on Jul 13, 2007 6:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Freshman

The kids at Oklahoma were not freshman and a lot of schools don't allow freshman to have cars on campus.
I dont see how them being freshman have anything to do with it. It seems to me like most players taking illegal money are not freshman. Im not saying freshman dont do this Im just saying I dont think the class of the student matters.

by davw83 on Jul 13, 2007 10:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Sooner Mischief

The penalties leveled against Oklahoma in this particular situation seem to me to be even- handed, and fair. Regardless of what a few journalists have written.

If I may, I think a misinterpretation has occurred: Truzenzuzex writes that the "car dealership is outraged that they are getting the blame, but surely they are to blame..." The people who OWNED the dealership have sold it to a new group. The new owners have nothing to do with the improprieties involving the Sooner athletes. The ESPN article you reference in your second paragraph mentions the new ownership and provides quotes from them. DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? Simply put, the new ownership is taking the brunt of the criticism the former owners should be enduring. I am sure the former owners cut bait, because they new the firestorm was headed their way.

Two, out of how many Olkahoma football players, were invloved with obvioulsy unscrupulous businessmen? Swift action was taken, there was evidently no attempt to cover-up the activity, the number of players involved is incredibly small. Gnashing teeth over this pimple of a "problem" seems to me to be a bit reaching.

Yes, I am a UK fan. I have been all of my 42 years, but just because the NCAA has been harsh with UK doesn't mean, we as fans, should expect the same treatment for Oklahoma, or anyone else for that matter, from a different regime in Indianapolis. The NCAA has become an out of control monster that needs to reevaluate its purpose. But in this instance I believe the punishment fits the crime. It would be a different story if the coaching staff knew of the activity, but as of yet, no evidence of this nature has emerged.

As far as Truzenzuzex being unsatisfied with the outcome of this case: What punishment should have been meted out to UK in the Claude Bassett embarrassment? Bassett, along with Mumme, were rogue agents at best. They perpetuated a myriad of frauds over a significant period of time, and attempted to cover-up the infractions. Yes, they were both dismissed, but under your punishment scale, I would think UK would have merited much worse sanctions than they received.

Lastly, UK, in the 1988 Basketball season, was forced to remove from its record three NCAA Tournament games. Two wins and a loss. These games did not happen according to the NCAA, just as with Oklahoma, they were not counted as losses. I agree with you as far as this part of the sanctions are concerned. Any game that an ineligible athlete plays in, should be forfeited.

I have just recently discovered this site, and have enjoyed the commentary very much. I just happen to disagree with your viewpoint on this issue. This though, is an issue reasonable people can disagree on.

Thanks for your service!

by Ken Howlett on Jul 14, 2007 12:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Old Ownership vs. New

I tend to lean towards the "too lenient" side of things. As to your comment on the New Ownership taking the heat for the Old... that's kind of the risk you run when buying an existing business. By purchasing a business, you also purchase "good will" and rely on the fact that old customers will return to you... unfortunately, that sword cuts both ways. If the previous owners have established a less-than-savory reputation, then the new ownership often carries over any ill will (rightly or wrongly... this is how it pans out). In my opinion, the new ownership group knew the previous transgressions and should not now express outrage at any ramifications.

I also am not naive enough to believe that this was an isolated incident with just two players. Nor am I one to think that this only goes on at Oklahoma. All across the country and at all levels of athletics, these sorts of things happen. Heck, a little over a decade ago, I had a friend who played basketball at little-bitty Asbury College here in Kentucky and he told me about the point guard having a job mowing the lawn for the mayor of the town... for $100/hour.

by chirop1 on Jul 14, 2007 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Awesome dissent ...

and very much appreciated. Thanks for reading.

To the substance of your remarks:

First, did the dealership dismiss the culpable employee(s) involved in the scandal? If so, there was no hint of that in the report, and no mention of that by the new owners. I see no public accounting of actions that the new owners took in response to the failure of previous management, other than not employing any players.

An important part of recovering from a scandal it taking actions to ensure it doesn't happen again, and being accountable to the public for those actions. The new guys, if nothing else, are guilty of incompetent public relations. An infant could have done better.

Second, you are correct that only two players were involved that we know of. But said unscrupulous businessman was a well known Oklahoma booster. Such people very often, but admittedly not always, have contacts deep within the ranks of the athletic department.

Even though no evidence of involvement by the coaching staff has emerged, and I'm not alleging any even though I have some doubts -- surely they knew of the young men's employment there.

The dealership involved supplies cars to the athletic department, so where is the investigation of athletic department culpability? I have serious doubts there was one.

Yes, Oklahoma looks like a victim on the surface, but were all those involved identified? My gut tells me probably not. You don't get those types of business relationships without personal relationships.

Third, you are exactly right that harsh treatment of us by the NCAA should not necessarily mean that OU gets the same treatment. This is the fan in me coming out, I very often see UK as picked on. Cognitive dissonance.

Fourth, in Re: Bassett and Mumme - UK got punished for major violations, which it deserved. OU should have been punished for the major violation of "lack of institutional control", in my opinion, rather than the minor violation of "failure to monitor". Your mileage may vary on that opinion.

Finally, the ruling that the player who was allowed to drive a car from the dealership around for three weeks not being a violation is an absolute farce. It should have been ruled one, and OU punished accordingly. The explanation offered isn't just implausible, it is an offense to reason, in my opinion.

You are correct again that reasonable people can disagree, and I really appreciate those who do. Bloggers like me are able to hold forth on many subjects, and sometimes we are way wrong, although I think everybody intends to put forth a defensible position.

That's why I appreciate intelligent dissent -- it makes me accountable to my reasoning. That is very desirable, and important to our mission of being a different kind of blog.

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 14, 2007 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Coaches

The idea that their coaches had no idea this was going on is rediculous even if no evidence of it has come to light so far. As a coach of a major D-1 program you have a duty to know where your kids are working and what they are doing at said job. If you are even half aware of what's going on in college athletics you have a responsibility to safeguard your program to the best of your ability and these coaches were clearly negligent in that.

by davw83 on Jul 14, 2007 10:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

See ...

that bothers me, too. This dealership, IMHO, had contacts deep within the OU athletic administration, if not within the coaching staff.

Major college coaches are trained to pay attention to the lives of their charges. Did the fact that these two young men had an excess of spending money escape their notice? You know these guys had to brag about the fact that they were scamming thousands of bucks out of the dealership, which is probably how it eventually got back to the coach.

I have doubts.

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 14, 2007 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMHO

This dealership had deep ties to Billy G. I hope UK does not feel the wrath of the NCAA too.

OK, absurd, but so is pretending to know the what was going on at the dealership and OU and pretending to have a clue on the law and NCAA policy is even more absurd. I hope this message board is more impressive come basketball season. I will be back in a few months after midnight madness because this is silly.

by Catfan on Jul 14, 2007 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry you find us unimpressive ...

but then, we write for ourselves, not for you or anyone else. I personally could care less if you never dial up our URL again. You certainly didn't add anything to the discussion by this post.

But to respond to your point -- well, I can't seem to find one. What does an Oklahoma dealership have to do with Billy G.?

I don't pretend to know what went on there, but what I do know is this, because it is public record: Two scholarship players were paid $18,000 for work they did not do. If the dealership knew about it and did it anyway, it is a violation of NCAA by-laws. If they didn't know about it, the recruits are clearly implicated in fraud against, and stealing money from, the automobile dealership.

From all appearances, it was a scheme by a booster to get money to recruits, which is a violation of NCAA by-laws. Furthermore, the school should have known what was going on. Even further, the dealership in question is providing automobiles to the OU athletic department, and therefore must be tied into the athletic administration at some level, most likely a high one. And finally, any coach that allows his players to work for an automotive dealership connected to the University in this way either has rocks in his head, or is doing something wrong.

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 14, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Confused...

I'm so confused by this post...

by chirop1 on Jul 14, 2007 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

History

suggests that the NCAA did a poor job with this case. Here is a link to the 2003 reporting of Arkansas' violations for the same thing...http://www.ncaa.org/releases/infractions/2003041702in.htm

I think you might find this to be very interesting.

GO BIG BLUE!!!

by bluecrip on Jul 14, 2007 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stiff penalty...

My first reaction was that it was too harsh considering the school immediately banished the players involved from the program.

But Oklahoma has a history for this sort of thing, and I think that played a role.

I would not have vacated the victories, but it's a punishment which is close to appropriate given the circumstances surrounding Oklahoma. The scholarship reductions are right on.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Jul 14, 2007 12:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Violations

davw83--You are right when you write a coach "has a duty to know where your kids are working". The only problem with that analysis is that the kids WERE NOT working.They were simply collecting cabbage.

I understand the outrage exhibited by many over this unfortunate situation, but the infractions of today don't hold a candle to the hooliganism of Brian Bosworth's day. Switzer basically did not care what his players did, either on campus, or off. Maybe the NCAA is giving bonus points to Oklahoma for not being as extreme in their lawlessness as they were two decades ago. Possibly there is something to be said for being less felonious.

John Clay makes a couple of good points in his column today relevent to this discussion. One of which are the infractions Kelvin Sampsom committed as Head Basketball Coach. "Phone Gate", although a basketball infraction, should have impacted the Infraction Committee's deliberation on the football matter. Both of these "indiscretions" occurred in a relatively small time-frame, both violations rise above the level of minor, especially the 1,000+ phone calls made by the basketball staff. These facts seem to lend credibility to the argument put forth here by many. There are precedents for imposing harsh sanctions onto athletic departments for infractions involving two or three sports, when the violations occurred at roughly the same time. The NCAA seems to have looked the other way regarding that potential disaster for Sooner athletics.

I failed to touch on the Adrian Peterson version of cargate: It is wrong, it is an extra benefit, but dealerships have wide discretion when deciding who can, or can't, drive a car prior to financing being secured. This type of thing used to be rampant in major college athletics. Today, I don't believe it occurrs as much. Obviously, the person, or persons who owned the dealership were open to any underhanded, dishonest, and illegal activity they could perpetuate to further ensure the happiness of Sooner athletes. The fact that this particular dealership provided vehicles to the athletic department employees, which is also common practice, just adds some spice to the conspiracy argument.

If people want to be outraged, research the UL/Larry Gay debacle of the late '90's. UL should have been slapped with major sanctions, but were merely slapped on the proverbial wrist. That situation makes the Oklahoma infractions look miniscule by comparison.

As long as athletes are allowed to covort with alumni, and boosters, this type of thing will go on. Pitino had it right when he took the UK job. He did not allow any boosters, or anyone who seemed unscrupulous, anywhere near his players. They basically lived in a cocoon, shut off from outside influences. Sadly, that may be what athletic departments are relegated to doing. At least those athletic departments who want no part of cheating.

Everyone have a great weekend.

by Ken Howlett on Jul 14, 2007 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Working

The "only problem is they weren't working" These kids were employed by the dealership and spent as many as 5 hours per week their. It doesnt matter that they were paid for much more work than they did they were employees of the dealership. The coach should have known about it, he probably did and didn't do anything about it and therefore he failed in his responsiblities as leader of that team.

by davw83 on Jul 14, 2007 1:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Working

davw83--I was being facetious. I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote.

by Ken Howlett on Jul 14, 2007 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I do believe...

that is the first time that I have seen that word in print. Facetious....it makes much more sense now... many faces...

by blueblood on Jul 17, 2007 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

type

My bad. Sometimes I dont catch those things in type.

by davw83 on Jul 14, 2007 1:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: davw83 Response

I should have made my comment clearer, as the sarcasm is concerned. You are right, that type of commentary can be difficult to decipher in print.

Take care.

by Ken Howlett on Jul 14, 2007 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They would have punished Kentucky......

much much harder if we had done the same thing.

Some programs can get by with anything:

Duke, Notre Dame, Southern Cal, and Va. Tech can do absolutely no wrong as far as the NCAA is concerned.

Sadly we might have to add Oklahoma to that list as well.

Oh that ol' double standard again. Sadly it is 100 percent true.

Sadly it seems the NCAA is still harder on U of Kentucky and SEC schools than anybody else.

Alabama Crimson Tide fans would gladly "amen" that. If they sneeze the wrong way they get a violation. And look at how it's caused great damage to a once proud program.

Sad but true....

by ukcatfan191 on Jul 14, 2007 10:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: NCAA punishment

catfan--While I completely agree that the NCAA, historically, has been hard on Kentucky, please, shed no tears for the Tide. Their most recent trouble was the result of a booster paying a player, (Albert Means) and the players coach. The exact amount excapes me, but it was significant. The investigation into that particular impropriety is what uncovered the Claude Bassett extravaganza of violations. Which of course snowballed into a series of major violations at UK.

If you give the NCAA reason to smack you down, they will. So be clean. Kentucky has been justifiably punished, the punishment at times though, has been a tad harsh.

by Ken Howlett on Jul 15, 2007 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In general ...

Kentucky has earned harsh penalties via cover ups and circling the wagons.

I just hope if we ever do run into a serious problem, we are forthcoming and act aggressively to address the cause. If we had done that more effectively in the past, the sanctions may not have been as harsh as they were.

by Truzenzuzex on Jul 15, 2007 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

instead of "violation" i meant ....

"probation"

sorry about that

by ukcatfan191 on Jul 15, 2007 5:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I guess Alabama was dirtier than I thought....

You all know more about Bama's history than I do.

You're right Tru about U of Kentucky needing to move quicker and nip things in the bud as soon as possible. We have failed to do that many times in the past, and it has cost us dearly....

Mr. Howlett, I can see your points. I still think though that if U of Kentucky had done the same things that Oklahoma did, we would have received a much stiffer penalty for tsose same violations.

I respectfully agree to disagree with you Mr. Howlett.

I don't know Oklahoma's history as far as self-investigations and recruiting violations in the past are concerned. Maybe they did a better job than us in the past. That could have been the reason they weren't punished as harshly as we would have been.

I still believe though that the U of Kentucky would have gotten a much stiffer penalty for those same violations everything being equal.

That's just my take on the situation....

by ukcatfan191 on Jul 16, 2007 11:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs