Oklahoma State said it's believed to be the first time a school has received a postseason ban despite no violations in the areas of institutional control, failure to monitor, recruiting, head coach accountability, participation of an ineligible athlete or academic fraud.
"It was a single NCAA violation. One player received $300. One player. Not a recruit. Not a future recruit. Not a family member. One current player received $300. And in and of itself, because it was self-reported by us, it's a secondary violation. So the punishment is you pay the money back, serve your suspension -- which the kid did -- and you move on.
Here is what South Carolina got....
Two years of probation.
A $5,000 fine (self-imposed by the university).
A reduction of men’s basketball official visits to 25 during the 2020-21/2021-22 rolling two-year period (self-imposed by the university).
A prohibition of unofficial visits in men’s basketball for a total of four weeks during the fall of 2021 and/or 2022 (self-imposed by the university).
A prohibition of men’s basketball telephone recruiting for a six-week period during the 2020-21 and/or 2021-22 academic years (self-imposed by the university).
A reduction in the number of men’s basketball recruiting person days by 17 during the 2020-21 and/or 2021-22 academic years (self-imposed by the university).
No post season ban and considered a level 1 infraction....
While Lamont Evans was at South Carolina....
2015: According to court documents, Lamont Evans began communication with Christian Dawkins and a cooperating witness. Dawkins tells the cooperating witness that Evans is willing to receive bribes in exchange for steering athletes to the witness’s services, according to the court documents. Court documents also state that Dawkins was an employee of a sports management company.
On or around March 3, 2016: Evans, Dawkins and Munish Snood meet in South Carolina to discuss a player Evans could steer toward services of Snood and a cooperating witness.
Lamont Evans was credited with being responsible for South Carolina's run to the Final Four.
If they ncaa members don't want bad emails and text messages maybe they should think twice about making stupid decisions that effect the futures of kids who had nothing to do with what they are being 'punished' for. I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest...they made a unfair and biased decision that effected kids in an adverse way...deal with it...
I applaud Weiberg and Boynton for their approach by calling out those on the committee who need to be held accountable and explain their unequal and unjust distribution of penalties administered from school to school...specifically as they relate to criminal activities.
As a fan and alumni, I am expecting a response from our university that supports the statements of both Weiberg and Boynton while challenging the NCAA infractions committee to provide clarity to their reasoning in applying penalties which obviously appear unequally from school to school.
1. Unequal penalties for South Carolina vs. OSU? Key elements that were evaluated...lack of institutional control and head coach responsibility. Lamont Evan has been carried from school to school by Frank Martin and Brad Underwood, why has Brad Underwood (coach who brought Evans to Stillwater) not been held accountable for his efforts in bringing him to Stillwater and then conveniently leaving him here. It's not like Boynton went out and found Evans hired him and then brought him to Stillwater. Who is ultimately responsible for failure to monitor and head coach responsibilities...Martin? ( Evans was key recruiter for his Final 4 team in 2017 but left to join Underwood's staff in 2015)...hmm how convenient. Underwood? (they were on the same staff together at several programs and Underwood hired him to his staff at OSU in 2017), Boynton?(of the 3 coaches it's very hard for me to make the bold leap that Boynton was the one with the most lack of control given he wasn't the one who brought him to Stillwater. Underwood goes unscathed, moves on to a high paying job and leaves Evans here...hmmm your best recruiting coach with a successful track record? You leave him in Stillwater? That one issue has always bothered me.
2. If this was truly a criminal investigation and HYPOTHETICALLY the issue would have been the sale of drugs for those outside the program by a coach for a fee and players were distributors who were getting paid, would the NCAA have been involved? Criminal activity is criminal activity...right?
I obviously don't condone or agree with those who have made threats against any member of the committee. However, there needs to be much much more clarity and communications as to penalties that were administered, their unequal nature, and the totality/depth of the investigation.
Comments by Oklahoma State personnel regarding its infractions case resulted in NCAA volunteer committee members and staff receiving threatening and offensive messages after being identified by name. This is unacceptable.
This George White clown is a self-professed recruiting consultant with 114 followers. He just posted an article someone else wrote for Yahoo Sports ... If you read the article, it's a fairly unbiased report.