(10-14-2015 11:31 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  That is nice but vacating wins, firing a easily replaceable coach, and probation are meaningless and has zero affect.

And you know this, how?

(10-14-2015 11:31 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  Typically the infractions ULL has admitted to carry more of a penalty much less the ones still being determined. Just going by what the article stated if the COI determines there is evidence payments were that is a huge additional charge. Hope the roll of the dice works out just based on experience non P5's usually don't just get to self impose.

Uh, I believe anyone, P5 or not, under the NCAA's umbrella is allowed to self-impose and the university has done that. The original correspondence sent by the NCAA even asks the recipient to outline what sanctioning measures it believes should be applied.

I don't see the NCAA undoing any sanctions we've imposed on the program, though they certainly may apply more if they believe ours are not sufficiently strong and that the evidence requires more. Perhaps a post-season ban this year would have been the ultimate self-inflicted wound to make them go away happy, but I doubt it.

For those who have asked about what effect, if any, these allegations may have on Hud's service for the university, here's a good read.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/sport.../73871798/

I also believe the "with-cause" terms of his contract support my view from the beginning that Hud would have to have been insane to have participated in Saunder's ACT scheme or to have covered it up thereafter.

If facts later to be revealed prove otherwise, I'll gladly change my opinion of the man, but right now, more Hud for me.

(10-14-2015 11:41 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  The player in question of receiving benefits started his interview with a 4 minute rant of how pissed he was at David Saunders for screwing him over, how pissed he was that our coaching staff didn't use him correctly and ruined his career. Then claim Saunders would give him money in personal exchanges, would wait for said player to go make payment the wait for receipt... Yeah, that sounds legit. Said player said payment came from our most recognizable booster and most respected, somebody that all the players know and us around everywhere. The administration has proof this kid had the means to obtain this money, means that would destroy his credibility... To me, I take that he had a cash business going if you get what I'm saying. The administration is very confident there is no proof of payment and they have enough to discredit his story.

It depends on what the "burden of proof" the committee imposes on itself. If it is beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence then you are ok.....if it is "looks fishy to me" then you are in real trouble.

(10-14-2015 12:20 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:41 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  The player in question of receiving benefits started his interview with a 4 minute rant of how pissed he was at David Saunders for screwing him over, how pissed he was that our coaching staff didn't use him correctly and ruined his career. Then claim Saunders would give him money in personal exchanges, would wait for said player to go make payment the wait for receipt... Yeah, that sounds legit. Said player said payment came from our most recognizable booster and most respected, somebody that all the players know and us around everywhere. The administration has proof this kid had the means to obtain this money, means that would destroy his credibility... To me, I take that he had a cash business going if you get what I'm saying. The administration is very confident there is no proof of payment and they have enough to discredit his story.

It depends on what the "burden of proof" the committee imposes on itself. If it is beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence then you are ok.....if it is "looks fishy to me" then you are in real trouble.

There was a reason this kid was booted from our team, and we weren't the first to do so. From what I'm hearing, reading and putting together, the university is confident in opposing this accusation. Disgruntled, ex player with sketchy history of lying and proof he had means to obtain cash money seems like enough to doubt his story. Several inconsistencies in his story of amounts, time periods and alleged booster, he couldn't even tell the truth about why he was dismissed from the team.

(10-14-2015 12:27 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 12:20 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:41 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  The player in question of receiving benefits started his interview with a 4 minute rant of how pissed he was at David Saunders for screwing him over, how pissed he was that our coaching staff didn't use him correctly and ruined his career. Then claim Saunders would give him money in personal exchanges, would wait for said player to go make payment the wait for receipt... Yeah, that sounds legit. Said player said payment came from our most recognizable booster and most respected, somebody that all the players know and us around everywhere. The administration has proof this kid had the means to obtain this money, means that would destroy his credibility... To me, I take that he had a cash business going if you get what I'm saying. The administration is very confident there is no proof of payment and they have enough to discredit his story.

It depends on what the "burden of proof" the committee imposes on itself. If it is beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence then you are ok.....if it is "looks fishy to me" then you are in real trouble.

There was a reason this kid was booted from our team, and we weren't the first to do so. From what I'm hearing, reading and putting together, the university is confident in opposing this accusation. Disgruntled, ex player with sketchy history of lying and proof he had means to obtain cash money seems like enough to doubt his story. Several inconsistencies in his story of amounts, time periods and alleged booster, he couldn't even tell the truth about why he was dismissed from the team.

Yep, as I said via PM to another poster who gave me some background, if the university provided to the NCAA a dated report on why this individual was dismissed from the team, I have to imagine the NCAA would, in the end, be skeptical of the validity of his claims. And in this day and age, I would imagine there's a folder full of supporting documentation for any individual ever dismissed from the team.

Super highly recruited kid that doesn't amount to sht, never sniffs the NFL and of course it's all of his coaches fault he couldn't keep his nose clean...given his ability, I'm sure he was given more chances than most. His 4 minute rant in the interview along with what the university has documented of him doing before knowing any of this, will be enough to discredit his story.

(10-13-2015 06:47 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:02 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:50 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:46 PM)swampbear Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:43 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  That might be the case, but you know and I know that is where the money came from! Don't act naive!

You have no idea how dumb you just made yourself look.....

I remember David Saunders at stAte in the 90s. I know of what I speak, trust me.

Yeah sure you do...



Read the university's response to the allegations on cash payments. It's on pages B2-1 through B2-8, pages 42-49 in the PDF file. To paraphrase, the accusations of cash payments are coming from a disgruntled former athlete of disreputable character. His testimony doesn't match with the facts that are known in regards to the payments he made for his housing. Also his testimony in regards to his ACT testing doesn't match with the other athletes who were supposedly tested at the same site as him.

Like I said earlier. Some of you need to read through the allegations and the university's response before talking out of your ass.

Now why would I make that up? He was on Joe Hollis's staff.

My only comment is that the money that is being spoken of didn't come out of his own pocket. As to whether there was any money involved, I have no idea. But based on what I know about him, there probably was.

So the guy had a 1-2 year stint at your school nearly 20 years ago, and you think you know about him and all of his transgressions?

So since you're insinuating that Saunders received his money to pay this particular player from a booster and didn't take it from his own pocket based on your past experiences nearly 20 years ago, then please enlighten us on some of the illicit player payments Saunders facilitated while he was employed at A-State.

(10-15-2015 08:41 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 06:47 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:02 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:50 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 06:46 PM)swampbear Wrote:  You have no idea how dumb you just made yourself look.....

I remember David Saunders at stAte in the 90s. I know of what I speak, trust me.

Yeah sure you do...



Read the university's response to the allegations on cash payments. It's on pages B2-1 through B2-8, pages 42-49 in the PDF file. To paraphrase, the accusations of cash payments are coming from a disgruntled former athlete of disreputable character. His testimony doesn't match with the facts that are known in regards to the payments he made for his housing. Also his testimony in regards to his ACT testing doesn't match with the other athletes who were supposedly tested at the same site as him.

Like I said earlier. Some of you need to read through the allegations and the university's response before talking out of your ass.

Now why would I make that up? He was on Joe Hollis's staff.

My only comment is that the money that is being spoken of didn't come out of his own pocket. As to whether there was any money involved, I have no idea. But based on what I know about him, there probably was.

So the guy had a 1-2 year stint at your school nearly 20 years ago, and you think you know about him and all of his transgressions?

So since you're insinuating that Saunders received his money to pay this particular player from a booster and didn't take it from his own pocket based on your past experiences nearly 20 years ago, then please enlighten us on some of the illicit player payments Saunders facilitated while he was employed at A-State.

How about we all just agree that there appears to be enough evidence against Saunders in this case that he should be barred from coaching at the college level ever again?

As I've said before, everyone's aware that recruiting is a blood sport with coaching staffs constantly testing the legal boundaries allthewhile lying their asses off about the opposition, sugar-coating all of their program's warts, and tossing their own mothers under the bus if it means that special kid will just sign on with their team.

We'll soon need a draft.......both the beer and the other kind.

Here is the "new" penalty guidelines..

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Figure19-1.pdf

By looking at the chart, Standard Lvl 1 violations should be equal to:

1-2 year post season ban

Fine of 1-3% of the Football budget

0-25% scholarship reductions (hard to gauge here, but there is this "For cases in which financial aid overages have occurred, a minimum 2-for-1 reduction in financial aid awards shall apply up to at least 20% of the team financial aid limit"

2-10 year show cause order is most likely for the coach directly involved

0-25% recruiting visit reduction

2-6 years of probation

Now do you think what UL has currently enforced is close to these limits under the new penalty structure? This is why it was such a big deal that UNC is on the old penalty structure and that SMU was not..

Something tells me that Ole Miss will be on old structure but ULL will be on the new one....

If the violations were in 2011 would that be on the new or old structure? Is it when the violations occurred or when the investigation began?

(10-15-2015 11:03 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  If the violations were in 2011 would that be on the new or old structure? Is it when the violations occurred or when the investigation began?

ACT exam violations occurred in February 2011, June 2012, and June 2013. Investigation started around December 2013.

(10-14-2015 11:33 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:01 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  Why wouldn't go ahead and do a self imposed post season ban this year and get at least one year out of the way? I don't see how it is not going to be a multiple year ban and not doing it this year will have a bad affect on future recruiting classes.

Because you don't know what you are talking about

Sensitive bunch,

Yes because vacated wins, losing minor coaches and being on probation are program killers....just ask FSU....

(10-15-2015 11:03 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  If the violations were in 2011 would that be on the new or old structure? Is it when the violations occurred or when the investigation began?

It's whenever the NCAA wants ti to be to fit their decision making.

(10-15-2015 11:19 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:33 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:01 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  Why wouldn't go ahead and do a self imposed post season ban this year and get at least one year out of the way? I don't see how it is not going to be a multiple year ban and not doing it this year will have a bad affect on future recruiting classes.

Because you don't know what you are talking about

Sensitive bunch,

Yes because vacated wins, losing minor coaches and being on probation are program killers....just ask FSU....

Because they aren't gonna take back self imposed punishment, so if the things we have admitted to don't call for a bowl ban, why would we give ourselves one? That's why you don't know what you are talking, I know it upsets you that this won't be the death of our program.

(10-15-2015 11:10 AM)TechAlum05 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:03 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  If the violations were in 2011 would that be on the new or old structure? Is it when the violations occurred or when the investigation began?

ACT exam violations occurred in February 2011, June 2012, and June 2013. Investigation started around December 2013.

Right, got confused there. Violations occurred over 3 years, but 2011 is the only year UL is voluntarily vacating as that was the one that used an ineligible player from the exam violations in 2011. They are saying that other seasons shouldn't be vacated despite sparing use of ineligible players where the outcome of games were already decided. Any players who were ineligible in 2011 became eligible in subsequent season by passing their required 24 hours of coursework.

ULL seemed to be aggressive in their own punishment for their "possible" competitive advantage in 2011.However,NCAA may want to be more punitive for the intent represented by the pattern of actions for the whole three years.Reading the guidelines I don't understand if each infraction is a violation.Like someone posted above it may be what they want it to be.

(10-15-2015 11:45 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:10 AM)TechAlum05 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:03 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  If the violations were in 2011 would that be on the new or old structure? Is it when the violations occurred or when the investigation began?

ACT exam violations occurred in February 2011, June 2012, and June 2013. Investigation started around December 2013.

Right, got confused there. Violations occurred over 3 years, but 2011 is the only year UL is voluntarily vacating as that was the one that used an ineligible player from the exam violations in 2011. They are saying that other seasons shouldn't be vacated despite sparing use of ineligible players where the outcome of games were already decided. Any players who were ineligible in 2011 became eligible in subsequent season by passing their required 24 hours of coursework.

And only 2 of the 6 kids in question ever made it to campus

(10-15-2015 11:54 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:45 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:10 AM)TechAlum05 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:03 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  If the violations were in 2011 would that be on the new or old structure? Is it when the violations occurred or when the investigation began?

ACT exam violations occurred in February 2011, June 2012, and June 2013. Investigation started around December 2013.

Right, got confused there. Violations occurred over 3 years, but 2011 is the only year UL is voluntarily vacating as that was the one that used an ineligible player from the exam violations in 2011. They are saying that other seasons shouldn't be vacated despite sparing use of ineligible players where the outcome of games were already decided. Any players who were ineligible in 2011 became eligible in subsequent season by passing their required 24 hours of coursework.

And only 2 of the 6 kids in question ever made it to campus

Maybe 2 of the 6 made the field, but I believe all 6 made it to campus. Re-read UL's response, particularly pages B1-9 through B1-29. Seems like for each case it says that the person enrolled at the University.

(10-15-2015 11:27 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:19 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:33 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:01 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  Why wouldn't go ahead and do a self imposed post season ban this year and get at least one year out of the way? I don't see how it is not going to be a multiple year ban and not doing it this year will have a bad affect on future recruiting classes.

Because you don't know what you are talking about

Sensitive bunch,

Yes because vacated wins, losing minor coaches and being on probation are program killers....just ask FSU....

Because they aren't gonna take back self imposed punishment, so if the things we have admitted to don't call for a bowl ban, why would we give ourselves one? That's why you don't know what you are talking, I know it upsets you that this won't be the death of our program.

Doesn't upset me at all. Just saying vacating games that have already been played, probation and firing some low level coach has no effect. If faking that many ACT test scoreS does not warrant a bowl ban it should. Not to mention if players were paid, which is just a wild accusation I guess. You can make me out to be whatever evil strawman you want if it makes you feel better. Good luck