forums

Article: NCAA Charges Miami With Lack of Institutional Control

View as article
RiDLer80 said:
minus13 said:
Here's what I said about the matter, but on the issue of ethical violations on the part of Maria Elena Perez:

minus13 said:
1/23/13

If Ms. Perez used her subpoena power to call depositions immaterial to her bankruptcy case for the sole purpose of gaining profit - that is a clear ethical violation (and maybe even a misdemeanor for abuse of process). At a minimum, she would have had to disclose the purpose of the deposition to some extent. If the deponent showed up thinking they were answering questions about bankruptcy proceedings when, in fact, it was a ploy to illicit information from individuals who refused to speak to the NCAA, that would be a clear ethical violation. An attorney can't subpoena a deponent with the heading or caption of a filed action when in fact the attorney is subversively trying to illicit information on an unrelated matter while being paid to do it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Good post. I hope she rots.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA3TEDE98hg
 
Advertisement
weownfsu said:
" In addition, please email a copy of your response in
Microsoft Word or Word Perfect format to Mr. McGormley (jmcgormley@ncaa.org) and Mason
Pike, assistant director of enforcement/operations manager (mwpike@ncaa.org"


I hope Haith mails it as a .pdf or notepad file in wingdings font.
Click to expand...

As if we didn't need any more evidence the NCAA was the most backward of *** organizations.

Word Perfect? You ******* kidding me?

And who the **** won't accept a .pdf? No way am I sending those ***** a read/write copy so some morally bankrupt staffer can change my wording around to take the teeth out of my reply and water down the file.

**** all those ***** with a ******* ****.

Oh, and, I can haz emails of enforcement staff now? kthxbye

//quietly plans raid for September
 
Biscuits said:
weownfsu said:
" In addition, please email a copy of your response in
Microsoft Word or Word Perfect format to Mr. McGormley (jmcgormley@ncaa.org) and Mason
Pike, assistant director of enforcement/operations manager (mwpike@ncaa.org"


I hope Haith mails it as a .pdf or notepad file in wingdings font.
Click to expand...

As if we didn't need any more evidence the NCAA was the most backward of *** organizations.

Word Perfect? You ****ing kidding me?

And who the **** won't accept a .pdf? No way am I sending those ****s a read/write copy so some morally bankrupt staffer can change my wording around to take the teeth out of my reply and water down the file.

**** all those ****s with a ****ing ****.

Oh, and, I can haz emails of enforcement staff now? kthxbye

//quietly plans raid for September
Click to expand...

They sent their letter in a .pdf LOL. You know those scumbags are going to creep on all the metadata.

There's tons of addresses and e-mail addresses in the link posted to Haith's NOA.
 
Problem2 said:
Wow

"As if the NCAA hasn’t done enough already to aggravate UM, add this to the list: Last week, UM and the NCAA engaged in serious settlement talks, and several UM people expected a deal because president Mark Emmert seemed initially supportive. UM wanted a settlement and likely would have accepted modest scholarship reductions.

But a source said the NCAA then informed UM there would be no deal and suggested to UM the enforcement staff and two key boards were against it because of concerns about “not deviating from the rules.”

### Also, UM tried to convince the NCAA to not use the words “lack of institutional control” – and was hopeful at one point it might be changed to the less serious “failure to monitor” – but the NCAA wouldn’t back down."
Click to expand...

And in not agreeing to a settlement, stepped in a big, hot, nasty, steaming PILE OF DOG SHT!! NCAA gonna need new shoes after this one unfolds................. fcking dumb azzes :ibisroflmao:
 
SebastianTheIbis said:
One of the guys from CBS sports pointed out that the law firm hired by the NCAA to investigate themselves was also still litigating on the NCAA's behalf for another matter that's been drawn out for years. Clearly not objective.
Click to expand...

I've been searching all over for this article. Do you have a link for it? If its true, its a massive conflict of interest.
 
Advertisement
Biscuits said:
weownfsu said:
" In addition, please email a copy of your response in
Microsoft Word or Word Perfect format to Mr. McGormley (jmcgormley@ncaa.org) and Mason
Pike, assistant director of enforcement/operations manager (mwpike@ncaa.org"


I hope Haith mails it as a .pdf or notepad file in wingdings font.
Click to expand...



As if we didn't need any more evidence the NCAA was the most backward of *** organizations.

Word Perfect? You ****ing kidding me?

And who the **** won't accept a .pdf? No way am I sending those ****s a read/write copy so some morally bankrupt staffer can change my wording around to take the teeth out of my reply and water down the file.

**** all those ****s with a ****ing ****.

Oh, and, I can haz emails of enforcement staff now? kthxbye

//quietly plans raid for September
Click to expand...

When a judge or arbitration panel asks you to send your response in Microsoft Word it is because if they agree with what you state, they will cut and paste it into the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We want the panel to basically take our (the accused) response, scratch out the letterhead at the top and insert "Order" with a signature line for the judges at the bottom.
 
Peachycarnahan said:
Biscuits said:
weownfsu said:
" In addition, please email a copy of your response in
Microsoft Word or Word Perfect format to Mr. McGormley (jmcgormley@ncaa.org) and Mason
Pike, assistant director of enforcement/operations manager (mwpike@ncaa.org"


I hope Haith mails it as a .pdf or notepad file in wingdings font.
Click to expand...



As if we didn't need any more evidence the NCAA was the most backward of *** organizations.

Word Perfect? You ****ing kidding me?

And who the **** won't accept a .pdf? No way am I sending those ****s a read/write copy so some morally bankrupt staffer can change my wording around to take the teeth out of my reply and water down the file.

**** all those ****s with a ****ing ****.

Oh, and, I can haz emails of enforcement staff now? kthxbye

//quietly plans raid for September
Click to expand...

When a judge or arbitration panel asks you to send your response in Microsoft Word it is because if they agree with what you state, they will cut and paste it into the findings of fact and conclusions of law. We want the panel to basically take our (the accused) response, scratch out the letterhead at the top and insert "Order" with a signature line for the judges at the bottom.
Click to expand...

You can copy and paste from a .pdf as well...
 
Advertisement
**** no! Hurtt gotta be banned so Louisville could not take many players from State of Miami!
 
djh said:
**** no! Hurtt gotta be banned so Louisville could not take many players from State of Miami!
Click to expand...

Miami will never lose a commit to Louisville or USF or Arkansas or even be battling them for kids once this NCAA stuff is over with.

Those days are over when Golden has nothing hanging over his head.
 
Feldman

One of the most contentious pts for ex Miami FB coaches charged in NCAA's NOA is "impermissible lodging" charge, per source.
10:59am - 22 Feb 13

Lolz
 
Whitlock


"We act like no one gets hurt while the NCAA and its volunteer media enforcement staff unethically uphold rules of amateurism that have long outlived their effectiveness, integrity and morality.



It’s OK for the University of Miami to get screwed. The Canes deserve it. For years "The U" got away with winning football games and championships by providing opportunities to arrogant, preening athletes from the wrong Florida zip codes, with the wrong SAT scores and (allegedly) holding the wrong what-is-in-it-for-me attitude.

Yeah, ***** U. That’s our mindset.

The fact the NCAA collaborated with an incarcerated, convicted ponzi schemer (Nevin Shapiro) — a congenital liar looking for infamy so he could make a behind-bars movie/book $core — and funneled him and his lawyer money to make its case against Miami is completely irrelevant.

No one feels sorry for Miami. It must hang for what we believe it got away with that others did not. It must hang to protect an institution (amateurism) that we know is outdated and immoral. The U must hang even though we know the institution (NCAA) building the gallows, tying the noose and rendering the verdict is every bit as criminal as The U.

This mindset says something frightening about all of us, the witnesses, and our society at large. Among other things, it says we don’t recognize the human consequence. The U is not a human. It’s an institution, like hundreds of others, voluntarily participating in the NCAA’s shamateurism scam.

However, within these institutions there are human beings suffering.

The unscrupulous tactics used to hang The U are not new or an aberration. It’s standard operating procedure. Awash in television money and in bed with the mainstream media for half a century, the NCAA has been crushing its subjects without fear for decades. This is the worst kind of dictatorship, one that is supported by the media not out of fear, but out of an irrational and biased belief the NCAA is right and just.


Trust me, it’s not. It’s like any other institution drunk on power and wealth.

How else do you explain the NCAA’s treatment of Todd McNair?

He is not an institution. He’s not a millionaire head coach such as Jim Calhoun, Kelvin Sampson or Bruce Pearl. McNair was the USC running backs coach during the Reggie Bush era. McNair earned a good living at USC, raking in around $200K to $250K per year as one of the best recruiters in college football.

A former NFL running back, McNair connected with Bush. They were close. McNair, along with then-head coach Pete Carroll, was part of the process of helping Bush choose an agent when the All-American left USC.

As you know, members of the NCAA’s volunteer media enforcement staff unearthed evidence that two wannabe marketing agents financially supported Bush’s parents in San Diego while Reggie starred in Los Angeles. This financial support cost Bush his Heisman Trophy and justified the NCAA severely sanctioning USC.

You may also know it eventually cost McNair his job. Based on the word of Lloyd Lake, a convicted drug dealer and repeat felon, the NCAA concluded McNair knew of Bush’s dealings with Lake and another associate, the two wannabe marketing agents. McNair was hit with a one-year show-cause, meaning a school that wanted to employ McNair would have to convince the NCAA it had a **** good reason for hiring McNair. Show-cause is basically a death penalty for a coach.


McNair hasn’t coached in three years. He has a rather impressive resume. He played in the NFL. He coached for the Cleveland Browns before coaching at USC. He was regarded as one of the top recruiters in college football.

McNair made a good living in the NFL and as a coach. But he was never an NFL star. He is not financially set. Like most other grown men, he has family that depend on him. He’s 47. His career stopped on a dime. He’ll likely never be a head coach.

Based on the flimsy “testimony” of Lloyd Lake. Really?

Please go to this web site ncaainjustice.com and examine the evidence used to convict McNair. Its lack of credibility is absolutely breathtaking. It’s so hard to believe that a judge in Los Angeles said the NCAA demonstrated “ill will” and “hatred” toward McNair. Judge Frederick Shaller, a USC grad, said the NCAA had a “reckless disregard for the truth.”

At some point, it is likely that Judge Shaller or some other judge will make available to the public and media the emails exchanged between NCAA members involved in the demolition of McNair’s coaching career. The emails are believed to be highly embarrassing for the NCAA. The NCAA is fighting frantically to keep the emails sealed. The NCAA doesn’t want you to fully grasp its lack of ethics.

McNair is suing the NCAA for libel and defamation. In a few years, he’ll probably reach a settlement with the NCAA. He’d rather earn a living and take care of his family coaching football. His life has been destroyed so that the NCAA can pretend there’s some value in amateurism.

Do we have to pretend? People are getting hurt. This scam needs to end. The NCAA enforcement staff leaks “information” about excessive phone calls/text messages and illicit relationships with street agents to its most trusted members of the volunteer media enforcement staff (this doesn't include CBSSports.com's Dennis Dodd, who's done a good job of writing about McNair's situation). The volunteers cobble together a story and sit back and wait for the NCAA to use its unethical tactics to rubber stamp the salacious stories printed in the media.

It’s all done to protect the honor of amateurism! Meanwhile, everyone involved in the scam asks for (and likely receives) a pay raise.

But The U and the kids with the wrong zip codes, SAT scores and attitude are the low-character bad guys. OK."
 
Advertisement
Mandel


The NCAA's case against Miami always figured to be juicy. Allegations of an unchecked booster lavishing athletes with cash, yacht parties and other debaucherous benefits made for the type of salacious scandal long whispered about but rarely exposed at a major college football program. And of all programs, Miami's -- "The U" -- was already viewed as the bad boys of the sport. No sooner had Yahoo!'s August 2011 exposé hit the web than bloodthirsty fans and media were screaming for the NCAA to bring back the Death Penalty.

Eighteen months later, Miami received its Notice of Allegations this week, and the case has indeed evolved into a bombshell. What no one could have predicted, however, is that the NCAA would widely be seen as the villainous party; that Miami's expected Lack of Institutional Control charge would be held up as a symbol of hypocrisy; and that the university's president, Donna Shalala, would publicly lambaste the organization well before any sanctions have been decided, defying the long-held understanding that schools awaiting NCAA justice should be subservient and remorseful.

Of course, it's easy for Shalala to play the victim card right now. The NCAA has publicly admitted to investigative misconduct in the case and fired its head of enforcement. It's also convenient that Shalala would issue a statement that includes the line, "Many of the allegations included in the Notice of Allegations remain unsubstantiated," when Miami -- as is its right as a private institution -- is not sharing that document publicly. Bits and pieces have filtered out, but as of now it's Shalala's word that, "Most of the sensationalized media accounts of [Nevin] Shapiro's claims are found nowhere in the Notice of Allegations."

Still, it's clear that Shalala, the former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bill Clinton administration, is taking full advantage of the NCAA's admitted missteps and accompanying p.r. backlash to fight back in a manner unlike any accused school in recent memory. She has asked that the Committee on Infractions not levy any additional sanctions beyond the two-year bowl ban, scholarship reductions and player suspensions the school has already self-imposed. "We have been wronged in this investigation, and we believe that this process must come to a swift resolution," she said on Monday.

Given her stance, if the Committee on Infractions does eventually hammer Miami ... will it lead to Miami v. NCAA?

"Reading between the lines, they've made it clear they're going to fight this after the hearing," said B. David Ridpath, a sports administration professor at Ohio University and outspoken critic of the NCAA's enforcement process. "It wouldn't surprise me if Shalala is positioning herself for a post-sanctions lawsuit, or, she may get them hauled up to Capitol Hill. I don't think it would take her more than a couple phone calls to make that happen."

It's not uncommon for individuals sanctioned by the NCAA -- mostly coaches -- to fight back via litigation. The NCAA is currently defending itself in multiple such cases, including ex-USC running backs coach Todd McNair's defamation suit. In 2005, ousted Washington coach Rick Neuheisel won a $4.5 million settlement when it was revealed during his wrongful termination suit that investigators failed to follow their own procedural rules when questioning him about a gambling allegation. Or, a related party might choose to sue, as the state of Pennsylvania is currently attempting in the wake of last summer's Penn State sanctions. When SMU received the Death Penalty in 1987, an alumnus, David R. McCormack, tried unsuccessfully to file an antitrust suit on behalf of the Mustangs community.

But for a school itself to fight the NCAA over perceived unfairness by the organization's enforcement arm? That's virtually unheard of. One likely has to go back to 1975, when Howard University alleged the NCAA violated its due process rights in levying sanctions against its soccer team. Two courts deemed one of the NCAA's bylaws regarding foreign students at the time unconstitutional, but they upheld the sanctions and enforcement process behind them. A 1988 Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Tarkanian affirmed that the NCAA is not a "state actor" and thus did not violate the UNLV coach's right to due process in suspending him.

Meanwhile, the NCAA has been called before Congress on three occasions, most recently 2004, to defend its enforcement process. Each instance prompted various procedural changes on the NCAA's part, but each mostly affirmed the organization's "immunity to due-process standards," as stated on the NCAA's official site.

Miami, therefore, would seemingly face long odds if it chose to fight the NCAA in court or in Congress. After all, the school is a voluntary member of a private organization, and as such helped establish and maintain the regulatory system by which it's being prosecuted. Shalala herself has played a role in implementing NCAA various NCAA policies. Could she really sue an entity in which she and her school are active participants?

"I think Miami would have a case," said SI.com legal expert Michael McCann, a Vermont sports law professor. "For one, there's the potential for a defamation claim by the named individuals in the NCAA report and by the University of Miami itself, and the upside there is that, like in Vilma v. Goodell, it could force the defendant to offer more evidence or certainty than it is willing to do voluntarily. It would also put the NCAA on the defensive in a situation in which they have clearly been compromised by their own corruption and poor judgment."

Other potential means of recourse include a breach of contract suit, if Miami feels the NCAA failed to live up to expectations of conduct that come with its membership; or, less likely, an abuse of process claim, if the school can prove the enforcement staff's botched protocol caused it undue damage. The discovery phase in such a suit -- or, for that matter, sworn testimony in a Congressional hearing -- could expose even more NCAA dirty laundry than Monday's self-commissioned report.

STAPLES: Miami report highlights need for NCAA transparency

"I'm not sure the NCAA would be up for a fight where it has to prove itself, not to satisfaction of the Committee on Infractions, but to the satisfaction of a judge and jury," said John Infante, a former compliance officer and author of the Bylaw Blog. "If you're the NCAA, you don't want them deposing [investigators] Richard Johanningmeier or Ameen Najjar. Even if there was no rule broken, it still doesn't sound good."

It may be that the case never goes that far. It may be that Shalala is just posturing in advance of the school's Committee hearing this summer. And it may be that the Committee takes pity on Miami given its unique circumstances and renders the issues moot.

"My guess is the penalty the institution imposed and the Committee penalty won't be significantly different," said Chuck Smrt, president of The Compliance Group, which represents schools in infractions cases. "I think they'll give them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some mitigating factors, and one of the mitigating circumstances is this staff misconduct."

But it's virtually impossible to predict a Committee on Infractions decision, especially without having seen the Notice of Allegations. Committee members change from case to case, and sanctions are often wildly inconsistent from one case to the next.

"The other possibility is the [Committee] is like, we knew something rotten was going on here for years before, and we're not going to let these bumbling idiots in Indianapolis ***** this up," said Infante. "This is our chance to get our man and show how valuable the Committee on Infractions is. We're serious about taking a continued aggressive stance toward cheaters."

Under normal circumstances, that may well be the correct path the Committee should take, given Miami's alleged institutional culpability in Shapiro's exploits. If they do, however, they risk placing the NCAA in an extended fight with the politically connected Shalala. And they'll do so in an overwhelmingly unsympathetic climate.

Even before this enforcement fiasco, the NCAA had suffered noticeable erosion in confidence, not just publicly but within its membership. Certain university presidents and athletic directors feel alienated from the staff in Indianapolis, where president Mark Emmert and a small cadre of senior advisors seem bent on imposing their will and squashing dissenters. Emmert drew praise for showing transparency with the Miami report but bewilderment over his cavalier insistence on proceeding with the rest of the case, as though tossing out a couple of crooked depositions solved everything.

"It's an open question among some people about whether he can still do the job," a president "active in NCAA leadership" told the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Meanwhile, the hovering threat of an eventual NCAA breakoff by the power-conference football schools gains steam with each new crisis. A high-profile trial over the enforcement process -- on top of the potentially seismic Ed O'Bannon antitrust case set for next year -- would certainly not help matters.

"For all we know, there's an AD at a school right now itching for the catalyst to go to his president and say, 'We need to leave the NCAA,'" said Infante. "There's probably at least one AD sitting out there waiting for a chance to say, 'See, I told you, we've got to get out of here,' and this Miami thing could be that."

Miami has 90 days to respond to the Notice of Allegations, and its Committee hearing will likely come this summer, followed by a decision in the fall. Should the school appeal, the case could drag on for another half-year. The inordinate length of these investigations is another reason why most schools don't belabor the point by going to court.

"Once you go to that hearing and it's done, the pervading thought is let's get this behind us," said Ridpath. "I'm sure [Miami coach] Al Golden, the last thing he'd want is a lawsuit or an appeal."

Back when all this broke 18 months ago, the biggest question was just how severely Shapiro might affect the future of Golden's program. Now, Shapiro, his lawyer and the investigators that hired her -- not to mention the powerful university president they incensed -- may well play a more consequential role in determining the future of the NCAA.
Click to expand...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...mi-investigation-donna-shalala/#ixzz2LeQ9oyCS
 
Problem2 said:
Mandel


The NCAA's case against Miami always figured to be juicy. Allegations of an unchecked booster lavishing athletes with cash, yacht parties and other debaucherous benefits made for the type of salacious scandal long whispered about but rarely exposed at a major college football program. And of all programs, Miami's -- "The U" -- was already viewed as the bad boys of the sport. No sooner had Yahoo!'s August 2011 exposé hit the web than bloodthirsty fans and media were screaming for the NCAA to bring back the Death Penalty.

Eighteen months later, Miami received its Notice of Allegations this week, and the case has indeed evolved into a bombshell. What no one could have predicted, however, is that the NCAA would widely be seen as the villainous party; that Miami's expected Lack of Institutional Control charge would be held up as a symbol of hypocrisy; and that the university's president, Donna Shalala, would publicly lambaste the organization well before any sanctions have been decided, defying the long-held understanding that schools awaiting NCAA justice should be subservient and remorseful.

Of course, it's easy for Shalala to play the victim card right now. The NCAA has publicly admitted to investigative misconduct in the case and fired its head of enforcement. It's also convenient that Shalala would issue a statement that includes the line, "Many of the allegations included in the Notice of Allegations remain unsubstantiated," when Miami -- as is its right as a private institution -- is not sharing that document publicly. Bits and pieces have filtered out, but as of now it's Shalala's word that, "Most of the sensationalized media accounts of [Nevin] Shapiro's claims are found nowhere in the Notice of Allegations."

Still, it's clear that Shalala, the former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bill Clinton administration, is taking full advantage of the NCAA's admitted missteps and accompanying p.r. backlash to fight back in a manner unlike any accused school in recent memory. She has asked that the Committee on Infractions not levy any additional sanctions beyond the two-year bowl ban, scholarship reductions and player suspensions the school has already self-imposed. "We have been wronged in this investigation, and we believe that this process must come to a swift resolution," she said on Monday.

Given her stance, if the Committee on Infractions does eventually hammer Miami ... will it lead to Miami v. NCAA?

"Reading between the lines, they've made it clear they're going to fight this after the hearing," said B. David Ridpath, a sports administration professor at Ohio University and outspoken critic of the NCAA's enforcement process. "It wouldn't surprise me if Shalala is positioning herself for a post-sanctions lawsuit, or, she may get them hauled up to Capitol Hill. I don't think it would take her more than a couple phone calls to make that happen."

It's not uncommon for individuals sanctioned by the NCAA -- mostly coaches -- to fight back via litigation. The NCAA is currently defending itself in multiple such cases, including ex-USC running backs coach Todd McNair's defamation suit. In 2005, ousted Washington coach Rick Neuheisel won a $4.5 million settlement when it was revealed during his wrongful termination suit that investigators failed to follow their own procedural rules when questioning him about a gambling allegation. Or, a related party might choose to sue, as the state of Pennsylvania is currently attempting in the wake of last summer's Penn State sanctions. When SMU received the Death Penalty in 1987, an alumnus, David R. McCormack, tried unsuccessfully to file an antitrust suit on behalf of the Mustangs community.

But for a school itself to fight the NCAA over perceived unfairness by the organization's enforcement arm? That's virtually unheard of. One likely has to go back to 1975, when Howard University alleged the NCAA violated its due process rights in levying sanctions against its soccer team. Two courts deemed one of the NCAA's bylaws regarding foreign students at the time unconstitutional, but they upheld the sanctions and enforcement process behind them. A 1988 Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Tarkanian affirmed that the NCAA is not a "state actor" and thus did not violate the UNLV coach's right to due process in suspending him.

Meanwhile, the NCAA has been called before Congress on three occasions, most recently 2004, to defend its enforcement process. Each instance prompted various procedural changes on the NCAA's part, but each mostly affirmed the organization's "immunity to due-process standards," as stated on the NCAA's official site.

Miami, therefore, would seemingly face long odds if it chose to fight the NCAA in court or in Congress. After all, the school is a voluntary member of a private organization, and as such helped establish and maintain the regulatory system by which it's being prosecuted. Shalala herself has played a role in implementing NCAA various NCAA policies. Could she really sue an entity in which she and her school are active participants?

"I think Miami would have a case," said SI.com legal expert Michael McCann, a Vermont sports law professor. "For one, there's the potential for a defamation claim by the named individuals in the NCAA report and by the University of Miami itself, and the upside there is that, like in Vilma v. Goodell, it could force the defendant to offer more evidence or certainty than it is willing to do voluntarily. It would also put the NCAA on the defensive in a situation in which they have clearly been compromised by their own corruption and poor judgment."

Other potential means of recourse include a breach of contract suit, if Miami feels the NCAA failed to live up to expectations of conduct that come with its membership; or, less likely, an abuse of process claim, if the school can prove the enforcement staff's botched protocol caused it undue damage. The discovery phase in such a suit -- or, for that matter, sworn testimony in a Congressional hearing -- could expose even more NCAA dirty laundry than Monday's self-commissioned report.

STAPLES: Miami report highlights need for NCAA transparency

"I'm not sure the NCAA would be up for a fight where it has to prove itself, not to satisfaction of the Committee on Infractions, but to the satisfaction of a judge and jury," said John Infante, a former compliance officer and author of the Bylaw Blog. "If you're the NCAA, you don't want them deposing [investigators] Richard Johanningmeier or Ameen Najjar. Even if there was no rule broken, it still doesn't sound good."

It may be that the case never goes that far. It may be that Shalala is just posturing in advance of the school's Committee hearing this summer. And it may be that the Committee takes pity on Miami given its unique circumstances and renders the issues moot.

"My guess is the penalty the institution imposed and the Committee penalty won't be significantly different," said Chuck Smrt, president of The Compliance Group, which represents schools in infractions cases. "I think they'll give them the benefit of the doubt. There will be some mitigating factors, and one of the mitigating circumstances is this staff misconduct."

But it's virtually impossible to predict a Committee on Infractions decision, especially without having seen the Notice of Allegations. Committee members change from case to case, and sanctions are often wildly inconsistent from one case to the next.

"The other possibility is the [Committee] is like, we knew something rotten was going on here for years before, and we're not going to let these bumbling idiots in Indianapolis ***** this up," said Infante. "This is our chance to get our man and show how valuable the Committee on Infractions is. We're serious about taking a continued aggressive stance toward cheaters."

Under normal circumstances, that may well be the correct path the Committee should take, given Miami's alleged institutional culpability in Shapiro's exploits. If they do, however, they risk placing the NCAA in an extended fight with the politically connected Shalala. And they'll do so in an overwhelmingly unsympathetic climate.

Even before this enforcement fiasco, the NCAA had suffered noticeable erosion in confidence, not just publicly but within its membership. Certain university presidents and athletic directors feel alienated from the staff in Indianapolis, where president Mark Emmert and a small cadre of senior advisors seem bent on imposing their will and squashing dissenters. Emmert drew praise for showing transparency with the Miami report but bewilderment over his cavalier insistence on proceeding with the rest of the case, as though tossing out a couple of crooked depositions solved everything.

"It's an open question among some people about whether he can still do the job," a president "active in NCAA leadership" told the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Meanwhile, the hovering threat of an eventual NCAA breakoff by the power-conference football schools gains steam with each new crisis. A high-profile trial over the enforcement process -- on top of the potentially seismic Ed O'Bannon antitrust case set for next year -- would certainly not help matters.

"For all we know, there's an AD at a school right now itching for the catalyst to go to his president and say, 'We need to leave the NCAA,'" said Infante. "There's probably at least one AD sitting out there waiting for a chance to say, 'See, I told you, we've got to get out of here,' and this Miami thing could be that."

Miami has 90 days to respond to the Notice of Allegations, and its Committee hearing will likely come this summer, followed by a decision in the fall. Should the school appeal, the case could drag on for another half-year. The inordinate length of these investigations is another reason why most schools don't belabor the point by going to court.

"Once you go to that hearing and it's done, the pervading thought is let's get this behind us," said Ridpath. "I'm sure [Miami coach] Al Golden, the last thing he'd want is a lawsuit or an appeal."

Back when all this broke 18 months ago, the biggest question was just how severely Shapiro might affect the future of Golden's program. Now, Shapiro, his lawyer and the investigators that hired her -- not to mention the powerful university president they incensed -- may well play a more consequential role in determining the future of the NCAA.
Click to expand...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...mi-investigation-donna-shalala/#ixzz2LeQ9oyCS
Click to expand...



This little douche just couldn't let that go. He tweeted it the other day. Someone tweeted back that he didn't mind taking Shapiro's word back in 2011 before blasting The U. Now he doesn't want to take Shalala's word? ******* little Subway Jared looking prick.
 
Advertisement
According to Mandel...

He can give his opinion, without standing, and that is fine.

Shalala can't give her opinion, even though she has standing, because it is unfair to take advantage (tell me how this ridicule for 2+ years is an advantage) of the NCAA's embarrassment.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top