Started By
Message
re: Question for A&M fans
Posted on 1/24/14 at 3:25 pm to KaiserSoze99
Posted on 1/24/14 at 3:25 pm to KaiserSoze99
Yes, all three of my examples involved "lack of institutional control" and a television ban.
Add SMU to the list in the mid-80s.
Add SMU to the list in the mid-80s.
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 3:32 pm
2
Posted on 1/24/14 at 3:31 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
the first 3 or 4 pages were fine.......then the Texas fan showed up
How telling
Posted on 1/24/14 at 3:52 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
No the first 3 or 4 pages were fine.......then the Texas fan showed up
Heh. Well that's how it goes with us. They're like that second cousin who shows up at your home and criticizes everything about your family, then asks for money. I actually have several Texas graduate friends, but don't tell anybody.
To answer your question if it hasn't been answered previously: Hopefully it goes away with the renovation, though I don't see anything dishonest about it (after "South" was added for those 2 years, or for 3-way ties in the SWC when the "champion" who went to the Cotton Bowl was the last team that went). But it's still weak, in my opinion.
ETA: "last team that went" isn't clear. What I meant was "the team that went to the Cotton Bowl longer ago than the other two".
This post was edited on 1/24/14 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 1/24/14 at 3:56 pm to finestfirst79
Yea someone explain it earlier, thanks anyways
Seein as how south was added later i don't have much of a problem with it, still pretty weak listing 2010 I wouldn't want tenn to do it but it's not like other schools don't do the same thing so that's up to y'all
Seein as how south was added later i don't have much of a problem with it, still pretty weak listing 2010 I wouldn't want tenn to do it but it's not like other schools don't do the same thing so that's up to y'all
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:00 pm to texashorn
quote:
Yes, all three of my examples involved "lack of institutional control" and a television ban.
Add SMU to the list in the mid-80s.
Involved, or was solely the result of?
Dude, read the NCAA report:
LINK
It was ONE SINGLE booster and a few athletes. It was a MUCH LOWER form of the Big Red Imports scandal at OU. The NCAA even stated that nobody employed by A&M was involved or had ANY knowledge. It was the first and ONLY time, as far as I have been able to uncover, that such an infraction resulted in application of those punishment provision, which are legislative, and which were reviewed by the Panel.
If you can show me a similar incident where the program lost a year of TV for the same type of infraction, please get me a link. The CRUX of A&M's complaint about the 1994 sanctions was the application of those punishment and the lack of precedence for such application.
See NCAA manual, section 19.5 Penalties (Major v. Secondary Violations)
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:03 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
...but it's not like other schools don't do the same thing so that's up to y'all
Well "y'all" is a little broad. If it was up to me everyone would do pushups until A&M won a NC because, quoting Army Cpt. instructor at A&M, "we can't poke sharp sticks in your eyes".
But sadly they didn't ask me.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:09 pm to finestfirst79
all of that is very truePosted on 1/24/14 at 4:11 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
Well "y'all" is a little broad. If it was up to me everyone would do pushups until A&M won a NC because, quoting Army Cpt. instructor at A&M, "we can't poke sharp sticks in your eyes".
But sadly they didn't ask me.
I would gladly second said motion, and you have my nomination as the "it's up to me" commander-in-chief of Aggies' punishment for failure to win championships.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:16 pm to KaiserSoze99
2010-11 Academic year Big 12 champions.
Regular season in football-Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State.
Postseason champion-Oklahoma
LINK
Regular season in football-Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State.
Postseason champion-Oklahoma
LINK
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:17 pm to KaiserSoze99
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:20 pm to KaiserSoze99
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:20 pm to texashorn
Looks like this thread went as intended. Even got a poor little butthurt sip caught up in the net.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:26 pm to KaiserSoze99
The harshness of your 1994 penalties were not a result of a single instance. You were deemed repeat offenders because of the previous probation in basketball that fell within the 5 years, and therefore subject to the punishment for repeat offenders, up to and including the death penalty, as noted in the probation report you posted.
You were subject to the death penalty. Let that sink in for a second.
Additionally, the NCAA Infractions Committee has a separate appeals committee, appropriately named the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, which reviews appeals of infractions committee findings that are under NCAA bylaws NOT under the purview of the Administrative Review Panel, as proven previously.
You were subject to the death penalty. Let that sink in for a second.
Additionally, the NCAA Infractions Committee has a separate appeals committee, appropriately named the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, which reviews appeals of infractions committee findings that are under NCAA bylaws NOT under the purview of the Administrative Review Panel, as proven previously.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:26 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
More shite that sip won't respond to.
No, he won't. But to me this isn't really the question. It isn't like A&M has been perpetually clean. I just don't understand why the doofus is here. Maybe some Aggies here post on shaggybevo or the BU sites, I dunno. But I really don't get it. What's the point?
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:27 pm to finestfirst79
Come on, we all know WHY he's here....
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:30 pm to texashorn
Looks like the football violations that followed the 1988 probation also contributed to your status under NCAA bylaws as repeat offenders, for which you are subject to tougher penalties, up to and including the death penalty.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:35 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
Come on, we all know WHY he's here....
I thought I did until he called attention to his "Member since" entry. And now I have no idea. Sports junkie who recently found a reason to post (Aggies)? I dunno. But it's very weird to me.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:38 pm to finestfirst79
Don't be so daft.
There are LOTS of different schools represented on this website, which includes many boards. To think that only SEC people read this board is delusional.
There are LOTS of different schools represented on this website, which includes many boards. To think that only SEC people read this board is delusional.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:53 pm to texashorn
quote:
The last time the NCAA's Committee on Infractions imposed a television ban on an FBS program was nearly 20 years ago. Ironically, it was an SEC school that received the last television ban when Ole Miss received a one-year ban in 1994 and was not allowed to appear on television in 1995.
More shite.
LINK
The one right before that was A&M.
quote:
You were subject to the death penalty. Let that sink in for a second.
So was Ole Miss, and the NCAA doesn't even mention it, and Ole Miss had MUCH more severe infractions involving several members of the football staff. Wright's fingers were in all of that shite well after 1983. He was the go-to guy.
quote:
Additionally, the NCAA Infractions Committee has a separate appeals committee, appropriately named the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, which reviews appeals of infractions committee findings that are under NCAA bylaws NOT under the purview of the Administrative Review Panel, as proven previously.
I can tell you weren't around for all this shite when it went down. This is where you fail to see the difference and we keep talking past each other. How the NCAA determines the level of a violation is not the same issue as how the NCAA applies punishment.
The NCAA used the prior basketball infractions to aggravate secondary infraction of the football program and apply applicable "major" punishments NOT TO THE BASKETBALL program, which wasn't beating the shite out of t.u., but the FOOTBALL program, which was.
Do you see the difference between application of rules v. application of punishment? Which program should have received the aggravated "major" infraction findings? Basketball or football?
Who do you think reviews the appeal said violation designations and application across institutions?
Why was A&M the only one to receive a major infraction and TV ban and the second to last program to get a TV ban EVER AGAIN for infractions that would have resulted in must lower available penalties, and the ONLY time the NCAA allow such a twist in the application across different sports?
TO THIS DAY, I have NEVER seen major infractions applied to the sport of choice by the NCAA in a similar fashion, across different sports.
Would the Infractions Appeals Committee hear this complaint? No. They didn't. But, I am with you!! I think it SHOULD have been heard by the INFRACTIONS committee, because then your boy would have had less influence over the outcome.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 4:58 pm to KaiserSoze99
Repeated football violations within the 5-year time span for which you can be subject to the death penalty most certainly did influence the outcome.
The NCAA chose not to give you the death penalty, but they could have, because of repeated FOOTBALL violations, in addition to basketball.
Moreover, Charles Alan Wright had ZERO influence over the outcome of A&M's case.
But this man did:
Roy Kramer, SEC commissioner and member of the NCAA infractions committee.
The NCAA chose not to give you the death penalty, but they could have, because of repeated FOOTBALL violations, in addition to basketball.
Moreover, Charles Alan Wright had ZERO influence over the outcome of A&M's case.
But this man did:
Roy Kramer, SEC commissioner and member of the NCAA infractions committee.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News