They answer to the world and the rest of college football. And, the way they answer is that, if they **** us, no one will ever cooperate with an NCAA investigation again. There'd be no reason or incentive to do anything but stall, stonewall or outright lie.
And yet i got attacked all day for saying maybe the cooperation strategy we pursued wasnt an unmitigated success. I'd guess Donna Shalala herself regrets it, yet her sycophants here see her every action as beyond flawless.
But what good would an adversarial approach done right off the bat? And what harm has been done by cooperating up until this point?
I'm not sure how the outcome would have been any different if UM and Shalala had come out swinging like they have now. I'm not saying the course of cooperation is an "umitigated success", but I don't see how other courses of action would have been better to this point. They were cooperative up until the point they learned about the NCAA's malfeasance. Seems like a prudent approach to a situation to me.