Breaking: OU Must Forfeit Entire 2005 Season

by PB @ BON on Jul 11, 2007 2:36 PM CDT in Football Comment 28 comments

I'll add more momentarily. This is your (newest) BOMAR'D! thread...

Update [2007-7-11 15:40:20 by HornsFan]: In addition to forfeiting the entire 2005 season, Oklahoma will lose two scholarships from each of the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons. The penalties were handed down by the NCAA Wednesday as punishment for the car lot work scandal involving Rhett Bomar and JD Quinn. Lord knows there were probably others who weren't quite stupid enough to get caught.

You already knew that OU was a dirty, filthy, cheating farce of a program, but now it's official. I propose a toast to "Big Game" Bob Stoops. Hip hip - hooray!

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Coaching record

Bob Stoops' career record will be amended to reflect the forfeitures, dropping it from 86-19 in eight seasons to 78-27.

That's pretty awesome.

by trot on Jul 11, 2007 2:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

not as awesome as it could be

stoopsie is now 78-19 because the 8 wins from '05 were simply vacated and not counted as additional losses on the season, making him 80.41%.

mack brown is 93-22 (80.87%) while at texas.

bleeding orange up in nyc. get a rope.

by cwofford on Jul 11, 2007 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

bout damn time

those cheaters got what was comin to em

...til Gabriel blows his horn

by BigTexBD on Jul 11, 2007 2:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Anyone else surprised?

Typically, the NCAA has reserved embarrassing punishments for the "lesser" programs. I'm shocked about the forfeit, since it's so humiliating.

Going forward, though, OU really won't be hurting much. Couple of ships won't kill 'em.

But still, nice to see the Sooners get some punishment.

by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Jul 11, 2007 2:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

while this is certainly hilarious

what, exactly, does this accomplish? losing 2 scholarships sucks, but it's not exactly earth-shattering. and forfeiting a past season where you didn't even win anything?

i mean, if that's all they really deserved, then fine. but if they deserved real punishment and this is the NCAA's form of "real punishment" then that's crap.

by billyzane on Jul 11, 2007 2:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the significance of losing 4 ships over 2 years?

i can't decide if this amounts to a shaming, but essentially a slap on the wrist.

by cortexas on Jul 11, 2007 2:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

2 lost or 4?

actually, i can't decide what the loss of scholarships is. 1 lost in 2008-2009 and 1 lost in 2009-2010 or 2 scholarships lost in each of those years?

by cortexas on Jul 11, 2007 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 in each year

4 total

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Jul 11, 2007 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thankfully...

crying OU boy happened in 2006 and not 2005. i'd be very upset if the NCAA declared that crying OU boy never happened.

by billyzane on Jul 11, 2007 3:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

sad

what a slap on the wrist. this "punishment" amounts to a little paperwork to update the 2005 stats. the team will keep right on going without skipping a beat.

and call me skeptical, but i'd speculate the much-discussed self-imposed punishments aren't quite draconian, either.

by mikey 4 on Jul 11, 2007 3:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Really?

I think it's pretty harsh. Stoops gets hurt personally out of this, with both his career record and recruiting. The guilty players get off with nothing though.

Vince Young wins football games.

by chief on Jul 11, 2007 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

uh...

they got kicked off the team and they're playing at 1-AA schools now. that's pretty harsh... remember, what they did was against NCAA rules, not illegal. actually, bomar got caught because he dutifully reported his income so as to not commit tax fraud.

it's a harsh punishment in terms of shame, but it's not going to affect how OU goes forward.

by billyzane on Jul 11, 2007 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Players

Yeah, that sucks to move to a 1-AA school, but that punishment already happened. Today's ruling doesn't affect them much, is what I meant.

Vince Young wins football games.

by chief on Jul 11, 2007 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

give me a break

the fact that you focus on one person's harm (stoops) shows how minimal the punishment is. the team doesn't face much of a penalty at all. moreover, stoops's penalty is minor compared to just about any conceivable prospective punishment. he could have faced suspensions, television restrictions, etc., but instead, his future is almost entirely unaffected. like i said before, this requires updating the books; that's it.

by mikey 4 on Jul 11, 2007 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unvictorious in 2005?

Does Stoops still make Mandel's list as a top 5 coach?

by mldatx on Jul 11, 2007 3:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Vacated not Forfited

Ou's 2005 record is 0-4 not 0-12. The losses to TCU, UCLA, Texas and Texas Tech will stand in the record books and the 8 games that OU won never happened. Not as bad as you are making it sound.

by MattH on Jul 11, 2007 3:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the initial AP reports

said "forfeited." i guess that was inaccurate.

by billyzane on Jul 11, 2007 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes,

That was inaccurate. The ruling from the NCAA was that the games were vacated not forfeited.

by MattH on Jul 11, 2007 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if this pushes

Stoops any closer to the edge and he considers the NFL.

He's the head coach of a college with a mascot named after cheating, his star players have all been cheating, the alumni embrace & flaunt breaking the rules, historically they hold records in cheating, he'll never be able to police the entire program and the ADs only regret is getting caught.
After a while he may get tired of living in an infestation.

He's a confident guy, but always wondering when the other shoe is going to drop probably gets old.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jul 11, 2007 3:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh well.....

All this means is that some well-deserving senior walk-ons will not receive a scholarship their final year.

Pretty much dead on what I had expected from the NCAA. Only the truly naive expected anything more.

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championships run through OU and the RRS. It's not just "another game." ---

by HornChamps on Jul 11, 2007 4:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sooners

In trying to explain to my GF the whole "cheaters" thing, I stumbled across this gem from the soonersports.com website:

http://www.soonersports.com/trads/wh...

As time went on, "Sooner" came to be a synonym of Progressivism. The Sooner was an "energetic individual who travels ahead of the human procession." He was prosperous, ambitious, competent, a "can-do" individual....

...The success of University of Oklahoma athletics teams over the years has made the nickname synonymous with winning.

by SelimSivad on Jul 11, 2007 4:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

one other thing

today is pretty much the slowest sports news day of the year (the day after the all star game almost always is) and so this story is likely to get crazy exposure on sportscenter, et al.

here's hoping some recruits are watching.

by billyzane on Jul 11, 2007 5:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I know...

I know it isn't the exact same situation, but Alabama got major scholarship cuts and two years of not going to bowl games for a booster paying a recruit (who ended up going elsewhere.) Is it worse to pay a recruit or a current player?

Roll Tide Roll!

by nico on Jul 11, 2007 5:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

slap on the wrist

Some poor Sun Belt team is gonna be made an example of in the near future.

by the other Andrew on Jul 11, 2007 5:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Poor deluded Aggies...

... are already claiming another victory in 2005.

Aggie Delusion

Officially a Limey Longhorn

by patienthornsfan on Jul 12, 2007 12:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Anyone read Mandel's take?

His entire position seems to be "What about USC?" And all of the comments (that I read) after the article contended that the punishment that the Sooners received was too harsh. They're trying to make it seem like OU is getting punished for their honesty. Talk about delusional.

by Old Tex29 on Jul 12, 2007 9:10 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

A good punishment

It's not like they could've handed out the death penalty, but I think it hurts OU where it matters most: winning record, recruiting and school reputation. Not being allowed to go to a couple of bowl games would be nice, but that's just too much to expect.

Did ESPN hype up the penalties and give it a lot of exposure?

by sharkbait101 on Jul 12, 2007 10:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

this is such a joke...

I remember many years ago, Jerry Tarkanian quoted as saying: "Kentucky keeps this up, they're going to make the NCAA so mad they're likely to put Wichita State on probation again..."

That is just so true... Basically this was just an admission that there is nothing that OU (and USC as well, let's face it) can do to get really heavy, program-altering penalties imposed on them.

The thing I wonder is: Does this just blow the doors wide open? Why wouldn't other programs step up the cheating now? If they get nailed, by something as silly as, I don't know, some random Aggie message board poster, or a player that actually claims his complete paycheck for his taxes, they'll just claim some 'compliance office restructuring delays' or some such...

What's the over/under on the aTm machine revving up again?

by agent orange on Jul 12, 2007 6:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs