Dghustla, typically I don't descend on an individual sentence in a post like this, but your statement that "to prove to the NCAA we have changed our stance on compliance" does not reconcile well with the reality of what occurred. Perhaps I am mis-understanding your intent. In any case, institutionally, we have one of the best compliance departments in the country. Our compliance - as a university - was what it should have been. Think about it - the ncaa hired Paul Dee to run their show. Presumably, they at one time thought we were doing things by the numbers. What happened - and most here already know - was that a few rogue employees acting on their own broke rules and did so without the knowledge of our compliance department, our senior administrators, or even our then head coach (Shannon), which is why the whole "loss of institutional control" is such a slap in the face. Mind you that of the initial avalanche of alleged wrong doing they have only been able to substantiate a few of the minor claims though it appears they might try to hold us accountable for claims they have not been able to substantiate, which is why as SFBAYCANE mentioned in a post in this forum recently that an army of attorneys has previously been convened at UM to discuss our options in responding to the ncaa when they do finally hand down their ruling. Assuming it can be substantiated, as I see it, the athletic department and administration colluding to cover their tracks of the wrong doings at Penn State is a textbook example of loss of institutional control for all the obvious reasons.
Canes as far as Ray Ray is concerned, I'm not even sure if going out to eat and spending an evening with his girlfriend at a hotel is in fact an award or extra benefit - even if she did pay. (See here [
http://www.hurricanesports.com/pdf9/1804185.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=28700] for the NCAA official definition of an extra benefit.) If somehow it had been then I imagine that it would have been reported as a minor transgression with the anticipation of our compliance department of receiving an equally minor penalty, perhaps warning, from the NCAA. However, Ray Ray lying about his night out in the midst of an ongoing investigation
of which he was a part increased exponentially the severity of his later lying about it. This leads me to believe that Ray Ray was dismissed because of his combined acts of poor judgment; the final straw being that he lied to the university and to Coach Golden. Also, his girlfriend being a promoter is eyebrow raising but would be incidental to receiving an extra benefit, again if it was an extra benefit. What she could not be in taking him to dinner or paying for a hotel room - as I interpret the rule (again see the NCAA definition above) - is an employee of the university or a booster of our program.
Ray Ray was given soo many chances here but he refuse to buy into Golden and didn't take Golden seriously. He thought he was too good to be dismissed from the team. Al Golden didn't want to boot Ray Ray, look at how many chances Seantrell has gotten. If Ray Ray would have kept his nose cleaned from the NCAA mess he would have been able to stay on the team. Ppl saying the university was looking for a reason to boot him is just silly talk. He was becoming a liability to our efforts to prove to the NCAA we have changed our stance on compliance.