Latest on investigation via Herald. Shalala "determined"

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I guess this is the best thread to mention this in. I know it sounds stupid and probably a little extra paranoid but I was up late just noticing that the day the news broke about the NCAA's latest **** show was the 23rd. Mark Emmert said he expected the internal investigation to be done in 7-10 days if I remember right. Assuming that's 7-10 business days, that 10th day just so happens to fall on 2/6. **** of a coincidence, right?

 

[NVA CANE]

Can USC use the Miami investigation for their case to open up their NCAA files/investigation? As in look the NCAA obtained information unlawfully against miami so they may have done the same to USC?

NCAA is in serious trouble here. For once they had a school that worked with them to resolve the issue. They in turn tried to **** on said school. That's mistake number one. Good luck with any school cooperating ever again. Not gonna happen.

They wont settle but really should IMO. The NCAA has screwed themselves big time in this one and the longer they move forward with this investigation the deeper the hole they dig themselves in

 

[CaneSuger]

Enough is enough already. Just settle this and move on.

 

[Crazy4thecanes]

What bothers me most is that we cooperated - and they still sought to nail us HARD. That won't go away, in fact, the desire to nail us will only mean that even if they are forced to settle here or we skate with something akin to time served......they'll get us eventually.

And as long as we have a fresh set of players every year, who believe they'll never get caught, it's only a matter of time. Give it a few years. The NCAA will want to save face and prove that our program is rotten and should have been destroyed. They'll be back and no program is clean enough to perennially skate.

 

[jgess305]

Am I the only one slightly concerned with the prospects of a lawsuit being filed by um? Wouldn't that enable the NCAA to begin noticing depositions of people that have otherwise not been forced to testify under oath? Not sure it would impact us negatively in terms of sanctions (don't practice in that area), but it seems like a way to force testimony that I'd rather not have to have exposed to the public. Just a thought.

This is another misconception of litigation--that you can get an answer to any questions you want to ask at a deposition. UM would frame the issues with their Complaint, and I'm pretty certain that those issues would focus solely on the NCAA's nefarious investigation. Accordingly, discovery in that case, including depositions, would have to focus on the issues on the table. The Rules of Civil Procedure forbid irrelevant questions at depositions, and deponents are not compelled to answer those irrelevant questions. We've instructed clients not to answer irrelevant deposition questions in the past and will continue to do that into the future. Hopefully, UM's attorneys would be sharp enough and on the ball enough to do the same.

No misconception, I'm familiar with the FRE. I'm also familiar with the practice of instructing a client not to answer dep questions on grounds of relevancy (as dangerous as it may be sometimes). I'm not suggesting there are not limits to discoverable info. I'm just nervous that there are questions that might be "relevant" to the ncaas defense that I might not want people having to answer under oath. That being said, I trust the folks we have on the payroll who fight the NCAA for a living.

Don't want to jack this thread and turn it into an evidence debate, especially since I don't know the breadth of our potential claims or the ncaas defenses, just a concern.