The worse thing I can say about JoePa is that he turned down the offer to play in a #1 vs. #2 bowl game at least twice, I been told. Then he had the temerity to complain about some other team being voted the National Champ over the Nittany Lions. I want to say one of those chances was with a Cotton Bowl bid against a #1 DKR led UT team, but I can't say for sure.

is there a link to documentation of tu probations or an article of ncaa violations?

AlexLose,

quote:

---

And your opinion matters because...?

---

because I am an Aggie on TexAgs.com referring to a topic about a former Texas A&M coach ... WOW! you really are that delusional.

[This message has been edited by czar_iv (edited 4/23/2007 12:43p).]

Jackie isn't crazy, he's Bulldog Tough.

True story, probably. First day at MSU he lines up his team and says "Boys, if ya wanna play for me, you're gonna have to be BULLDOG TOUGH!"

From the back, the senior middle linebackers hollers, "Whattya mean by Bulldog Tough, coach?"

So ol Jackie grabs a vicious bulldog sitting in a cage nearby, he sits down on the ground, spreads his legs, pries open that bulldog's mouth and lets it CHOMP down on his "stuff".

Jackie doesn't even flinch, just lets that dog clench unyieldingly to his crotch as blood spills onto the ground. Suddenly, Coach Sherrill punches that ol bulldog in the forehead and it releases.

Jackie, bloodied but unmoved, stands up and walks up that linebacker. "THAT son - is Bulldog Tough! Think you can do that?"

The kids hesitates then looks up and smiles, answering "Coach, you know, I think I can do that...except for one thing..."

"Whats that son?"

"Um, when we're done, you don't have to punch me in the forehead"

quote:

---

THere are several "jackie" rules in the book. One of my favorites is the way he would bring stud players to the university. Via helicopter adn would land on Klye. He would also call recruits during big games.

---

I've been following recruiting over 20 years and I don't remember a recruit ever being landed at Kyle in a helicopter. Not saying it didn't happen, but you'll need to give me more information.

The "call during games" is actually the Tim Cassidy rule, A&M's former recruiting coordinator. Tim was the best, but that came up because he called recruits during the Holiday Bowl blowout against BYU. I don't remember it ever coming up before.

JS was great for Aggie football.

Beat the s h i t outta the sips...and beat them at their own game!

"...better get your licks in now, cause we're going to be great soon..."

quote:

---

because I am an Aggie on TexAgs.com referring to a topic about a former Texas A&M coach ... WOW! you really are that delusional.

---

I don't speak Russian, Czar, but I will reword again for your sake. You said you didn't think I was a honorable guy. That's an amusing comment in of itself since you know nothing about me other than what I post here, so I merely asked why on earth should I care about your opinion?

So save your indignation for another thread. You were talking about me and I called you on it. You were NOT talking about an A&M coach as you put it.

Crystal clear yet or should I get a medium to bring back Mr. Yeltsin to translate for you?

The reason for castrating the bull was not just to show that a bull could be castrated.

Sherrill told his players that he wanted them to actually see the difference between a bull and a steer, like Bevo. I believe that Sherrill lost to tu only once in his career and that was the 99 CB. I may be wrong, however.

Also, Sherrill wrote "Who let the dogs out" while at MSU.

What he actually said, after getting humiliated by SMU, was "The people better get their licks in now, because we're going to be very good, and it won't be very long." I kept that highlighted quotation, cut from the Austin-American Statesman, no less, taped to my shaving mirror for a long, long time. I am a Jackie fan and a big one. I hope to live to see a REAL biography or autobiography of the man. I guess nobody but him knows it all; it must be a hell of a saga.Starting not with football, but when he was born.

Pitt won the MNC under Johnny Majors in '76, before Sherrill became HC there. So he didn't knock Paterno off as "king of the hill."

Wikipedia is embellishing things a little. When A&M was placed on NCAA probation in '88, administrative violations were cited that fell on the responsibility of the Athletic Director who happened to be named Jackie Sherrill. So yes, he was found personally guilty of NCAA violations while at A&M.

logic according to ac....deloss has been found GUILTY more times then JS

want to rethink your sip logic

you f'n sips just hate the fact that JS had your number and beat your azzez at your own game

Come on, Jackie was clean. And dont even start to argue that Mr. Darrell K. Royal was a huge cheater, but you never hear about that do you.

This is college football!! You are supposed to push the limits. Jackie got hell because t-sips were mad they had taken a backseat to A&M football for 10 years.

Joe Pa has had his own issues which have gone unknown. My brother testified at a trial of Bobby Engram back when he went to PSU. I dont think he missed a game and he had people trying to disuade him from testifying.

If Jackie was so great then why is he still not at A&M?

quote:

---

If Jackie was so great then why is he still not at A&M?

---

There ya go!

See LJ, what you don't know is that Jackie is a nomad, a wanderer - a rebel. He can't be shackled like a domesticated animal, he's a free spirit, a lion roaming the savannah. You don't KEEP an eagle under contract, you let him fly!

It was Jackie's turn to fly and he chose to do so. We didn't lose him because he wasn't great. That which made him great called him to soar beyond our friendly realm. All we did - was unbind his wings.

And one of us gave Greg Hill this "summer job" but that's another story.

[This message has been edited by DecadePlan (edited 4/23/2007 9:52p).]

Jackie isn't still here because A&M had a weak President(Mobley) who could care less about sports, especially football.

4Zorro, you do not have a clue. If not for the actions of William Mobley during his term as President of Texas A&M, the Ag athletic department would have gotten the same treatment that SMU got.

If you repeat a lie often enough it is still a lie. The truth, while sometimes ugly and not what you want to hear or remember, is still the truth and remains unchanged by the number of times a lie is repeated.

From the 1988 Texas A&M Infractions report:

A. Significant violations of NCAA legislation.

8. During the 1986-87 academic year, a prospective student-athlete was contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on two occasions by a representative of the university's athletics interests; further, at a meeting a few days before the date for signing a National Letter of Intent, the representative offered an improper recruiting inducement (an automobile at a discount rate) to the young man, and finally, the head football coach, who also was the director of athletics, became aware of the representative's activities, but did not report this information to the NCAA enforcement staff. Although the director of athletics told another university administrator about this incident, he failed to inform the administrator of the university's duty to report this violation to the NCAA. In fact, this matter was not reported to the NCAA. [NCAA Constitution 3-2, and Bylaws 1-1-(b) and 1-2-(b)]

B. Other violations of NCAA legislation.

10. During the 1984-85 academic year, while recruiting a prospective student-athlete, the head football coach and an assistant football coach contacted the prospect in person, off campus in excess of the permissible three occasions at the young man's high school. [NCAA Bylaws 1-2-(a)-(I) and 1-2-(a)-(5)]

12. During the 1984-85 academic year, while recruiting a prospective student-athlete, the head football coach and two assistant football coaches contacted the young man in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than the permissible number of occasions at and away from the young man's educational institution. [NCAA Bylaws 1-2-(a)-(l) and 1-2-(a)-(l)-(i)]

15. During the 1986-87 academic year, the head football coach asked a representative of the university's athletics interests to invite the father of two prospective student-athletes to a luncheon, although such entertainment is not permitted under NCAA rules. This violation was self-reported by the university. [NCAA Bylaw 1-1(a)]

III. Committee on Infractions penalties.

H. The Committee on Infractions accepts and adopts the university's action regarding the head football coach, which consists of placing him on administrative probation for the period the institution is placed on probation.



NOTE: Coach Sherrill was the Head Coach and Director of Athletics and the statement "and Sherrill was never personally found guilty of any NCAA rules violations at either Mississippi State or Texas A&M." is a lie. Believing the lie to be true is a sure sign of stupidity. Relying on wikipedia is another sign of stupidity.

As to William Mobley, he was the President of Texas A&M University from September 1, 1988 to August 31, 1993. He took office a mere 8 days before the above quoted Public Infractions report was issued (9/9/88) and left office about 4 months prior to the release of the January 5, 1994 Infractions report involving Warren Gilbert's transgressions.

Mobley forced Coach Sherrill out of his positions at Texas A&M and, in return, that and other Mobley actions to clean up the Sherrill culture were used as the primary reason for not dropping the Death Penalty bomb on Texas A&M for Major Infractions revealed in the 1991 and 1994 Public Infractions reports.

From the November 4, 1991 Public Infractions Report:

When rumors and then newspaper reports surfaced in late 1990, the president moved swiftly to investigate the situation. The university athletics compliance officer conducted the initial interviews and a full investigation was begun by the vice-president for finance and administration operating at the specific direction of the president. The director of athletics immediately terminated all recruiting with any prospects with whom the representative had had contact. In March 1991, the university accepted the resignations of the head basketball coach and the assistant coach named in the findings in this report and terminated the employment of the rest of the staff.

By their actions, the two coaches who were involved not only tarnished their own reputations and that of the basketball program, but they did serious damage to the university by exposing the institution to the possible penalties required by NCAA Bylaw 19.4.2.3 ("death-penalty" legislation) since the university was found by the Committee on Infractions to have committed major violations in its football program on September 8, 1988, and warned that it would be subject to the repeat-violator provisions if a major violation was found within five years of that date. [Page 3]

In response to the committee's infractions report in 1988, the president took substantial actions to gain full presidential control over the intercollegiate athletics program. Later, he separated the positions of director of athletics from that of any head coaching position, and then accepted the resignation of the head football coach whose program had been the subject of the September 1988 sanctions. Under his leadership, a substantial commitment was made to compliance and education, to presidential leadership within the conference and the NCAA, and to making clear to all coaches, players and supporters of the university's adherence to NCAA rules and regulations. These decisive actions taken following the 1988 sanctions combined with the swiftness, thoroughness and decisiveness of institutional response to the matters involved in these findings were important factors in the committee's decision to determine that this was a unique case meriting less than the full range of penalties required of a repeat-major violator as set forth in Bylaw 19.4.2.3. Had the president not responded as he had, the committee would have imposed a broader range of penalties than it did.

The Committee on Infractions also determined that the university, having received major sanctions from the committee on September 8, 1988, was subject to the provisions of Bylaw 19.4.2.3 [Repeat Violators]. These provisions require: a prohibition against outside competition in the sport and a prohibition against members of the coaching staff from any coaching activities at the institution during that period; elimination of all initial grants-in-aid and all recruiting activities in the sport for a two-year period; resignation of all university participants on any Association committee or commission, and loss of institutional NCAA voting privileges for a four-year period.

The Committee on Infractions determined that this case was a "unique" case in which the institution should receive less than the full set of minimum penalties otherwise required by NCAA legislation. The factors included: prompt and thorough investigation and reporting of violations to the NCAA; cooperation in the processing of the case; initiation of strong disciplinary and corrective actions (including the establishment of administrative procedures designed to ensure that the institution would comply with the principles of institutional control and rules compliance in the future), determined action by the president to assert his control over the total intercollegiate athletics program (including separating the position of director of athletics and head football coach, and seeking and receiving from the institution's board of regents a clear delegation of accountability for intercollegiate athletics), and the limited, although serious, violations of this case involving the coaching staff and one representative of the university's athletics interests. [Page 7]

F. Had the university not already taken actions against those members of the men's basketball coaching staff found to have been in violation of the ethical conduct provisions of Bylaw 10, the committee would have issued a show-cause action to the university in accordance with Bylaw 19.4.2.1-(l) as to why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it did not take actions to limit the athletics responsibilities and duties of those persons.

From the January 5, 1994 Public Infractions Report:

This case is one that involves a university that has attempted to bring its athletics program into compliance with NCAA rules, but whose efforts have been thwarted by the actions of one representative of the university's athletics interests and a number of student-athletes. The university has made great strides in its compliance program since it was placed on probation on September 20, 1988. However, even though there has been a significant commitment on the part of the president and the administration of the university, there have been those who were not committed to compliance.

The Committee on Infractions gave serious consideration to the penalties required under Bylaw 19.5.2.3 to be imposed on an institution that commits a major violation within the five-year period following the starting date of a major penalty. The violations in this case and the violations found in the 1991 case occurred within the five-year time period required under the "repeat violator" or so-called "death penalty" rule. In the 1991 case, the committee determined that even though the repeat violator rule could have been imposed, there were unique circumstances that led the committee not to do so. In this case, although the penalties called for under the repeat violator rule could again have been imposed, several factors existed that caused the committee to refrain from taking such action.

Equally important were the actions taken by the Texas A&M regents and the president of the university. In 1991, President William H. Mobley created a task force to examine the university's athletics programs. The task force returned recommendations on institutional control, fiscal control and integrity, and academic integrity. In keeping with the recommendations made by this task force, the regents placed the responsibility of supervising the athletics program in the hands of the president of the university in an effort to ensure appropriate institutional control. The president carried out those responsibilities. As a result of his directives, a comprehensive program for compliance was created and implemented in most areas of the athletics program. Another important factor was that the institution made a prompt and thorough investigation when the violations were brought to the attention of the president and athletics department administration.

-----------------

I'll make the big assumption that many on here are capable of reading and, therefore, the only reasonable conclusion as to why the lies continue to be repeated in regard to William Mobley and Jackie Sherrill is that those who can read, refuse to read so as not to be confronted with facts contradictory to the lies they are hanging on to. Without the actions of William Mobley in cleaning up the NCAA mess created by Jackie Sherrill the Ag athletic department would still be recovering from the NCAA Death Penalty.

Jackie Sherrill indeed turned the Ag program around, especially in regard to beating tu, but Jackie Sherrill did so while knowingly operating his program (he did so at Pittsburgh and at MSU) outside of the NCAA regulations in order to gain a competitive advantage. To continue to believe otherwise is a lie in and of itself and flies in the face of the facts.










[This message has been edited by navyag86 (edited 4/24/2007 9:55a).]

It is my understanding that Coach Sherrill told the MSU players that just like he took away the bull's manhood, MSU was going to take away tu's manhood out on the field!

Man just thinking about that makes me want to go out on the field and hit somebody!

I have no problem saying that ALL schools cheated during that era. Some were caught, some were not. Texas and Texas a$m were no different.

Here is the problem I have. YOU guys are the ones who constantly try to claim some sort of moral highground by saying "aggies don't lie, cheat or steal, yada yada yada", yet the vast majority of you will not even admit that JS cheated.

I guess the aggie code of honor is just lip service.

quote:

---

I guess the aggie code of honor is just lip service.

---

Using your logic, you would come up with this. It was never proven that Jackie cheated - and he WAS investigated. But evidently, we don't uphold the code because of a generalized statement from you that "everyone cheated"?

I suppose we oughta try harder to impress you. Maybe if you hang around our board longer, we'll finally understand our code better.

quote:

---

It was never proven that Jackie cheated - and he WAS investigated.

---

What a truly weak argument. A&M WAS BUSTED FOR LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. JACKIE SHERRILL WAS THE ATHLETIC DIRECTOR. WHO THE HELL ELSE WOULD YOU BLAME. Did you not read the NCAA findings posted by one of your fellow ags above. Just how hard to you have to be hit with a 2x4 before it sinks in.

He left his last two jobs in shame, leaving the school to deal with major rules infractions. I guess a$m and Miss St were hit with major infractions under his watch only because the NCAA had an axe to grind against him.

Anybody who truly believes Jackie Sherrill never knowingly broke any NCAA rules is naive at best, and a complete idiot at worst.

Please.

I guess OJ is innocent too.



[This message has been edited by Office Linebacker (edited 4/24/2007 4:20p).]

quote:

---

I suppose we oughta try harder to impress you.

---

No, you should drop the "holier than thou" attitude.

I would drop it. Except for one thing.

It's not an attitude. I am holier than thou.

Office Linebacker loves to come on here and stir up trouble. He rarely adds anything meaningful.

Exactly, rwtx. By the way, what's lost in all this is at least we HAVE a code of honor we try to live by (yes, even when we fall short).

That's the thing about having NO codes, you never let anyone down.

There ya go.

Attack the messenger.

Never mind that EVERYONE outside the aggie nation sees the man for who he really is.

Whats the last part of the aggie honor code, "nor tolerate those who do"?

Obviously not true, you not only tolerate them, you worship them.

Messenger....riiigghhtt.

Bud, I sure want to thank you for bringing up something NOBODY on here has EVER heard before.

I stand by my original statement that OL loves to come on here and kick up dirt. I can't ever remember anything positive he's added to any discussion here.

We have a "nation?" That's outstanding!

Hey ******** linebacker, why so effing bitter. Every school has it's *******s. The one you associate yourself with is certainly no different. If you want to argue with a few people then fine but don't paint with such a broad brush, asshat.

I did not start this thread, BUD.

It was started by an aggie talking trash about how Jackie Sherrill was never found guilty by the NCAA.

I am merely countering his argument. Take it up with him if you don't care to see this tired old argument again.

Thanks for your personal interest though, BUD.

Starting to see a trend in OL's posts??

Loves to talk trash. Rarely contributes anything meaningful.

There are a bunch of tu folks who come on here and add a lot to what gets talked about, and I think the general feeling is they are appreciated for the most part. I think most Ags appreciate constructive outside viewpoints. Too bad OL isn't one of them.

Why not run along back to hornfans or one of those other profanity laced trash talking BBS's.

BUD? How old are you?

I'm not the one on an AGGIE FOOTBALL BOARD (not rivalries) labeling all aggies as hypocrits because of a few. Since the argument is so old, why don't you get the hell off of the board. Aggies will police themselves (for the most part - see navyags post). Your help is not needed BUD.

BTW, I think the BUDs were meant for me.

I believe the quote was that "Jackie Sherrill was never personally found guilty"

You have, in fact, countered nothing because this is an absolute FACT.

Show proof, not your C- Psych 101 logic class essay - but proof that he was personally found guilty.




(See what I did there folks? Asked OL for actual support for his case and stuff? Seriously, I typed that with a straight face!)

Decade, how do you function in the real world.

Jackie Sherrill was found to have violated both the NCAA Constitution and NCAA regulations while wearing the hats of Director of Athletics and Head Football Coach at A&M. To deny he wasn't is a bald-faced lie. This continued lying is, or at least should be, embarrassing to all Ags. Jackie Sherrill was found to be personally guilty, he ran a program rife with violations and one would have to be a vegetable to not conclude that he was responsible for the environment of cheating.

When the 1988 Infractions report states things like:

"Texas A&M University has one individual serving as both its head football coach and director of athletics. Although there is nothing inherently improper in this organizational structure, such an arrangement does not diminish the university's responsibility to exercise institutional control over its football program. If such an administrative structure is continued, the university must ensure that there is adequate administrative supervision and monitoring of the football program to prevent a recurrence of violations in that program."

and,

"The violations found in this case regarding enrolled student-athletes or prospects who later enrolled at the university, when coupled with the university's lack of institutional control over its football program, resulted in a significant competitive advantage for the university's football team. Further, if the university and its director of athletics had adequately monitored the football program, many of the violations found in this case would have been discovered and self-reported. The university then would have had to declare certain football team members ineligible to compete for Texas A&M University in both regular and postseason competition. One of these team members who received substantial extra benefits was instrumental to the team's successes in recent years."

Those statements precede the listing four separate violations involving Jackie Sherrill in his role as Director of Athletics and Head Football Coach.

Knowing the truth and acknowledging it won't make you less of an Aggie and ignoring the truth and repeating lies and idiocies likewise doesn't make your more of an Ag. Why choose to be a buffoon?

Abraham Lincoln said there's no difference between the man who can't read and the man who won't read.