My take on what's going on behind the scenes

[IndayArtHauz]

From what I can glean from recent NCAA actions and commentary from its President, and knowing how Donna operates, I think this is what may be happening.

I think UM has been working behind the scenes to negotiate a consent decree or settlement (whatever you want to call it) with the NCAA. I think UM already has the letter - no requirement to disclose it. Emmert has already shown that he's willing to circumvent the regular protocol and enter into consent decrees - see PSU. He's also, repeatedly, emphasized that the focus needs to shift to punishing the perpetrators, especially the coaches involved, rather than the athletes who were not involved in the transgressions - see Pearl and Tressel show cause orders. Donna is a political beast. I can see her, at the beginning of this process, telling Emmert that she will set a new standard in cooperation, but that she wants a quick resolution (i.e., agreement) on sanctions after the fact-finding process is over. I also think the NCAA has not only sent the letter, but has also, through back channels, suggested to Donna what may be coming down the pike. And I think right now her goal is to negotiate with the NCAA on an agreement, one which may lay the groundwork for future investigations. We shall see.

Emmert had to get authority for what happened with PSU from a joint motion by the NCAA Executive Committee and the Division I Board of Directors. You can see how that was done by looking at this:

http://ncaa.s3.amazonaws.com/files/20120723/BOARD_EC MOTION.pdf

That is not happening again any time soon.

The only way for UM to get the quick resolution to which you refer is via a summary disposition, which requires all involved parties to agree. Given the "shift" to punishing coaches, it is extremely unlikely that all involved individuals agree to summary disposition along with UM.

The NCAA has no way to communicate what is coming down the pike. The investigation is done by NCAA Enforcement. Enforcement has no say in sanctions. Sanctions are determined by the COI. The COI has no way to say what is coming down the pike because they know less than UM does about the investigation on an ongoing basis.

Emmert also has zero involvement in sanctions. Everyone likes to just say "NCAA" this or that, but there are different subdivisions of the NCAA, and each has its own job. Enforcement are full time employees. The COI is made up of volunteers - they are not likely to feel pressured into doing anything. The NCAA does not sign their checks.

I do believe UM may be rewriting how to conduct these investigations, and I am pleased that they have had the courage to do things differently from how others have done them. If all clients had that same ability to think, my job as an attorney would be far easier.

Hold up. You speak as if there is an iron wall between NCAA Enforcement and COI. Are you saying that these guys dont talk to each other, even informally? That COI has no idea what the allegations are likely to be? I find this extremely unlikely. I've worked in an organization that spans thousands, including work that is deemed "confidential" and yet I hear things from "subdivisions" that have nothing to do with what my job. And yes, even volunteers and interns at that place were privy to "inside" information.

BTW, How is the COI chosen? Who nominates these "volunteers"?

I also find it extremely unlikely that Emmert has "zero involvement" or that he can't exert influence.

You have probably outlined the de jure structure of what is "supposed" to be. But is this real life?

It is astonishing to me that someone opens a door to a world upon which many of you have never gazed or even drawn a breath, and your only response is to offer ignorant accusations of increduality and suppose a general air of equal footing.

Alas, the internet.

 

[DapperSlapper]

From what I can glean from recent NCAA actions and commentary from its President, and knowing how Donna operates, I think this is what may be happening.

I think UM has been working behind the scenes to negotiate a consent decree or settlement (whatever you want to call it) with the NCAA. I think UM already has the letter - no requirement to disclose it. Emmert has already shown that he's willing to circumvent the regular protocol and enter into consent decrees - see PSU. He's also, repeatedly, emphasized that the focus needs to shift to punishing the perpetrators, especially the coaches involved, rather than the athletes who were not involved in the transgressions - see Pearl and Tressel show cause orders. Donna is a political beast. I can see her, at the beginning of this process, telling Emmert that she will set a new standard in cooperation, but that she wants a quick resolution (i.e., agreement) on sanctions after the fact-finding process is over. I also think the NCAA has not only sent the letter, but has also, through back channels, suggested to Donna what may be coming down the pike. And I think right now her goal is to negotiate with the NCAA on an agreement, one which may lay the groundwork for future investigations. We shall see.

Emmert had to get authority for what happened with PSU from a joint motion by the NCAA Executive Committee and the Division I Board of Directors. You can see how that was done by looking at this:

http://ncaa.s3.amazonaws.com/files/20120723/BOARD_EC MOTION.pdf

That is not happening again any time soon.

The only way for UM to get the quick resolution to which you refer is via a summary disposition, which requires all involved parties to agree. Given the "shift" to punishing coaches, it is extremely unlikely that all involved individuals agree to summary disposition along with UM.

The NCAA has no way to communicate what is coming down the pike. The investigation is done by NCAA Enforcement. Enforcement has no say in sanctions. Sanctions are determined by the COI. The COI has no way to say what is coming down the pike because they know less than UM does about the investigation on an ongoing basis.

Emmert also has zero involvement in sanctions. Everyone likes to just say "NCAA" this or that, but there are different subdivisions of the NCAA, and each has its own job. Enforcement are full time employees. The COI is made up of volunteers - they are not likely to feel pressured into doing anything. The NCAA does not sign their checks.

I do believe UM may be rewriting how to conduct these investigations, and I am pleased that they have had the courage to do things differently from how others have done them. If all clients had that same ability to think, my job as an attorney would be far easier.

Thanks for the insight. I was aware of the separate duties of Enforcement and COI, but you brought some clarity to the subject. I have not, however, seen to date any NCAA rule that would prevent a summary disposition in this case; nor do I think that a summary disposition must include final disposition of actions against individuals no longer employed by the university, e.g. Frank Haith, Aubrey Hill and Clint Hurtt.

I also think it's somewhat naive to think that there's no way for the NCAA to communicate what is coming down the pike in terms of findings, which are inextricably linked to sanctions. As a lawyer (and I'm sure you're a very good one), you know that back channel communication happens in almost every space, whether or not it is ostensibly prohibited, often as a means of rewarding courtesies and cooperation. I think you're off if you think that the NCAA could not or would not give Donna a heads up on Enforcement's findings as the process unfolded and prior to receiving the letter.

And I also think that this is a new era for the NCAA, which very recently approved additional stipends for players and multi-years scholarships. If recent history has taught us anything, it has taught us that Emmert is willing and capable of working within the ambiguities of NCAA protocol to come up with unique resolutions and platforms. So, while there may not be a "consent decree" in form, the end result of what might be happening is similar in effect.

This is of course just pure conjecture, though informed conjecture to some extent. Knowing Donna as I do professionally, I would be absolutely shocked if she didn't at least try to reach some type of tacit agreement in terms of reciprocal cooperation and confidential disclosure.

Pursuant to Bylaw 32.7.1, all parties have to agree to summary disposition. If involved individuals are not participating, then they do not need to agree. In this case, considering involved individuals are still coaching, they will be participating.

It was a joint investigation by the NCAA and UM - UM is aware of what the investigation uncovered. No one will give them a heads up on sanctions. They are on their own to project sanctions based on what the investigation uncovered. They are probably in a better spot to determine probable sanctions than anyone at the NCAA at this point.

Back in 1995, after UM had already appeared before the COI for its infractions hearing, UM was trying to decide as the season was ending whether to self impose a bowl ban. Foote publicly and privately asked for guidance from the COI on what the sanction would be (or for an expedited public report) to no avail. That was AFTER the hearing. This is before the NOA has been sent.

At this stage, there is more than likely no one who could give UM a heads up on sanctions. The COI members have full time jobs. They do not keep up to speed on investigations like that. They receive the response(s) to the NOA, and the pre-hearing report from Enforcement. They do not make up their minds on sanctions until after the hearing. Any institution or individual has an opportunity to dispute allegations. It is not rare for some allegations to be successfully disputed and not find their way into the Public Report.

 

[DapperSlapper]

From what I can glean from recent NCAA actions and commentary from its President, and knowing how Donna operates, I think this is what may be happening.

I think UM has been working behind the scenes to negotiate a consent decree or settlement (whatever you want to call it) with the NCAA. I think UM already has the letter - no requirement to disclose it. Emmert has already shown that he's willing to circumvent the regular protocol and enter into consent decrees - see PSU. He's also, repeatedly, emphasized that the focus needs to shift to punishing the perpetrators, especially the coaches involved, rather than the athletes who were not involved in the transgressions - see Pearl and Tressel show cause orders. Donna is a political beast. I can see her, at the beginning of this process, telling Emmert that she will set a new standard in cooperation, but that she wants a quick resolution (i.e., agreement) on sanctions after the fact-finding process is over. I also think the NCAA has not only sent the letter, but has also, through back channels, suggested to Donna what may be coming down the pike. And I think right now her goal is to negotiate with the NCAA on an agreement, one which may lay the groundwork for future investigations. We shall see.

Emmert had to get authority for what happened with PSU from a joint motion by the NCAA Executive Committee and the Division I Board of Directors. You can see how that was done by looking at this:

http://ncaa.s3.amazonaws.com/files/20120723/BOARD_EC MOTION.pdf

That is not happening again any time soon.

The only way for UM to get the quick resolution to which you refer is via a summary disposition, which requires all involved parties to agree. Given the "shift" to punishing coaches, it is extremely unlikely that all involved individuals agree to summary disposition along with UM.

The NCAA has no way to communicate what is coming down the pike. The investigation is done by NCAA Enforcement. Enforcement has no say in sanctions. Sanctions are determined by the COI. The COI has no way to say what is coming down the pike because they know less than UM does about the investigation on an ongoing basis.

Emmert also has zero involvement in sanctions. Everyone likes to just say "NCAA" this or that, but there are different subdivisions of the NCAA, and each has its own job. Enforcement are full time employees. The COI is made up of volunteers - they are not likely to feel pressured into doing anything. The NCAA does not sign their checks.

I do believe UM may be rewriting how to conduct these investigations, and I am pleased that they have had the courage to do things differently from how others have done them. If all clients had that same ability to think, my job as an attorney would be far easier.

Hold up. You speak as if there is an iron wall between NCAA Enforcement and COI. Are you saying that these guys dont talk to each other, even informally? That COI has no idea what the allegations are likely to be? I find this extremely unlikely. I've worked in an organization that spans thousands, including work that is deemed "confidential" and yet I hear things from "subdivisions" that have nothing to do with what my job. And yes, even volunteers and interns at that place were privy to "inside" information.

BTW, How is the COI chosen? Who nominates these "volunteers"?

I also find it extremely unlikely that Emmert has "zero involvement" or that he can't exert influence.

You have probably outlined the de jure structure of what is "supposed" to be. But is this real life?

The COI does not keep up to speed on investigations like that. These are people who have full time jobs. They receive the NOA, response(s), and a report from Enforcement. Even after reviewing that information, they will not have decided on sanctions yet. That does not happen until after the hearing. These are people who try to be fair, contrary to public opinion.

Coincidentally, Paul Dee was not the only person from UM to be on the COI. M. Minnette Massey (former law school professor at UM for decades) was not only on the COI, she was on the COI that gave SMU the death penalty.

When spots are opening up on the COI, the NCAA solicits nominations. For example, one can be nominated here: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/selection.jsp

There are presently 5 nominees to the Division I COI: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/display_committees.jsp

Emmert can try to do what he wants, but the COI has no reason to listen to him. They will try to do their best with the case.

 

[dycane]

From what I can glean from recent NCAA actions and commentary from its President, and knowing how Donna operates, I think this is what may be happening.

I think UM has been working behind the scenes to negotiate a consent decree or settlement (whatever you want to call it) with the NCAA. I think UM already has the letter - no requirement to disclose it. Emmert has already shown that he's willing to circumvent the regular protocol and enter into consent decrees - see PSU. He's also, repeatedly, emphasized that the focus needs to shift to punishing the perpetrators, especially the coaches involved, rather than the athletes who were not involved in the transgressions - see Pearl and Tressel show cause orders. Donna is a political beast. I can see her, at the beginning of this process, telling Emmert that she will set a new standard in cooperation, but that she wants a quick resolution (i.e., agreement) on sanctions after the fact-finding process is over. I also think the NCAA has not only sent the letter, but has also, through back channels, suggested to Donna what may be coming down the pike. And I think right now her goal is to negotiate with the NCAA on an agreement, one which may lay the groundwork for future investigations. We shall see.

Emmert had to get authority for what happened with PSU from a joint motion by the NCAA Executive Committee and the Division I Board of Directors. You can see how that was done by looking at this:

http://ncaa.s3.amazonaws.com/files/20120723/BOARD_EC MOTION.pdf

That is not happening again any time soon.

The only way for UM to get the quick resolution to which you refer is via a summary disposition, which requires all involved parties to agree. Given the "shift" to punishing coaches, it is extremely unlikely that all involved individuals agree to summary disposition along with UM.

The NCAA has no way to communicate what is coming down the pike. The investigation is done by NCAA Enforcement. Enforcement has no say in sanctions. Sanctions are determined by the COI. The COI has no way to say what is coming down the pike because they know less than UM does about the investigation on an ongoing basis.

Emmert also has zero involvement in sanctions. Everyone likes to just say "NCAA" this or that, but there are different subdivisions of the NCAA, and each has its own job. Enforcement are full time employees. The COI is made up of volunteers - they are not likely to feel pressured into doing anything. The NCAA does not sign their checks.

I do believe UM may be rewriting how to conduct these investigations, and I am pleased that they have had the courage to do things differently from how others have done them. If all clients had that same ability to think, my job as an attorney would be far easier.

Thanks for the insight. I was aware of the separate duties of Enforcement and COI, but you brought some clarity to the subject. I have not, however, seen to date any NCAA rule that would prevent a summary disposition in this case; nor do I think that a summary disposition must include final disposition of actions against individuals no longer employed by the university, e.g. Frank Haith, Aubrey Hill and Clint Hurtt.

I also think it's somewhat naive to think that there's no way for the NCAA to communicate what is coming down the pike in terms of findings, which are inextricably linked to sanctions. As a lawyer (and I'm sure you're a very good one), you know that back channel communication happens in almost every space, whether or not it is ostensibly prohibited, often as a means of rewarding courtesies and cooperation. I think you're off if you think that the NCAA could not or would not give Donna a heads up on Enforcement's findings as the process unfolded and prior to receiving the letter.

And I also think that this is a new era for the NCAA, which very recently approved additional stipends for players and multi-years scholarships. If recent history has taught us anything, it has taught us that Emmert is willing and capable of working within the ambiguities of NCAA protocol to come up with unique resolutions and platforms. So, while there may not be a "consent decree" in form, the end result of what might be happening is similar in effect.

This is of course just pure conjecture, though informed conjecture to some extent. Knowing Donna as I do professionally, I would be absolutely shocked if she didn't at least try to reach some type of tacit agreement in terms of reciprocal cooperation and confidential disclosure.

Pursuant to Bylaw 32.7.1, all parties have to agree to summary disposition. If involved individuals are not participating, then they do not need to agree. In this case, considering involved individuals are still coaching, they will be participating.

It was a joint investigation by the NCAA and UM - UM is aware of what the investigation uncovered. No one will give them a heads up on sanctions. They are on their own to project sanctions based on what the investigation uncovered. They are probably in a better spot to determine probable sanctions than anyone at the NCAA at this point.

Back in 1995, after UM had already appeared before the COI for its infractions hearing, UM was trying to decide as the season was ending whether to self impose a bowl ban. Foote publicly and privately asked for guidance from the COI on what the sanction would be (or for an expedited public report) to no avail. That was AFTER the hearing. This is before the NOA has been sent.

At this stage, there is more than likely no one who could give UM a heads up on sanctions. The COI members have full time jobs. They do not keep up to speed on investigations like that. They receive the response(s) to the NOA, and the pre-hearing report from Enforcement. They do not make up their minds on sanctions until after the hearing. Any institution or individual has an opportunity to dispute allegations. It is not rare for some allegations to be successfully disputed and not find their way into the Public Report.

Thanks for your insight. Points well taken.

 

[CaneDaddy]

From what I can glean from recent NCAA actions and commentary from its President, and knowing how Donna operates, I think this is what may be happening.

I think UM has been working behind the scenes to negotiate a consent decree or settlement (whatever you want to call it) with the NCAA. I think UM already has the letter - no requirement to disclose it. Emmert has already shown that he's willing to circumvent the regular protocol and enter into consent decrees - see PSU. He's also, repeatedly, emphasized that the focus needs to shift to punishing the perpetrators, especially the coaches involved, rather than the athletes who were not involved in the transgressions - see Pearl and Tressel show cause orders. Donna is a political beast. I can see her, at the beginning of this process, telling Emmert that she will set a new standard in cooperation, but that she wants a quick resolution (i.e., agreement) on sanctions after the fact-finding process is over. I also think the NCAA has not only sent the letter, but has also, through back channels, suggested to Donna what may be coming down the pike. And I think right now her goal is to negotiate with the NCAA on an agreement, one which may lay the groundwork for future investigations. We shall see.

Emmert had to get authority for what happened with PSU from a joint motion by the NCAA Executive Committee and the Division I Board of Directors. You can see how that was done by looking at this:

http://ncaa.s3.amazonaws.com/files/20120723/BOARD_EC MOTION.pdf

That is not happening again any time soon.

The only way for UM to get the quick resolution to which you refer is via a summary disposition, which requires all involved parties to agree. Given the "shift" to punishing coaches, it is extremely unlikely that all involved individuals agree to summary disposition along with UM.

The NCAA has no way to communicate what is coming down the pike. The investigation is done by NCAA Enforcement. Enforcement has no say in sanctions. Sanctions are determined by the COI. The COI has no way to say what is coming down the pike because they know less than UM does about the investigation on an ongoing basis.

Emmert also has zero involvement in sanctions. Everyone likes to just say "NCAA" this or that, but there are different subdivisions of the NCAA, and each has its own job. Enforcement are full time employees. The COI is made up of volunteers - they are not likely to feel pressured into doing anything. The NCAA does not sign their checks.

I do believe UM may be rewriting how to conduct these investigations, and I am pleased that they have had the courage to do things differently from how others have done them. If all clients had that same ability to think, my job as an attorney would be far easier.

Hold up. You speak as if there is an iron wall between NCAA Enforcement and COI. Are you saying that these guys dont talk to each other, even informally? That COI has no idea what the allegations are likely to be? I find this extremely unlikely. I've worked in an organization that spans thousands, including work that is deemed "confidential" and yet I hear things from "subdivisions" that have nothing to do with what my job. And yes, even volunteers and interns at that place were privy to "inside" information.

BTW, How is the COI chosen? Who nominates these "volunteers"?

I also find it extremely unlikely that Emmert has "zero involvement" or that he can't exert influence.

You have probably outlined the de jure structure of what is "supposed" to be. But is this real life?

The COI does not keep up to speed on investigations like that. These are people who have full time jobs. They receive the NOA, response(s), and a report from Enforcement. Even after reviewing that information, they will not have decided on sanctions yet. That does not happen until after the hearing. These are people who try to be fair, contrary to public opinion.

Coincidentally, Paul Dee was not the only person from UM to be on the COI. M. Minnette Massey (former law school professor at UM for decades) was not only on the COI, she was on the COI that gave SMU the death penalty.

When spots are opening up on the COI, the NCAA solicits nominations. For example, one can be nominated here: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/selection.jsp

There are presently 5 nominees to the Division I COI: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/display_committees.jsp

Emmert can try to do what he wants, but the COI has no reason to listen to him. They will try to do their best with the case.

So Dapper, where do the NCAA middlemen like Mike Glazier come in? Miami is paying for his service and he has negotiated some lighter penalties in the past and have downright had sanctions thrown out. Is he talking to the NCAA or the COI?

 

[DapperSlapper]

You two take this **** to the WEZ. You are ruining a pretty good thread.

Dapper, please continue to drop knowledge in this thread.

I don't really have more to add... If someone posts a question, to the extent I can answer it, I will.

I do not have any idea what will be in the NOA, and I do not have any idea of what the sanctions may end up being. I am curious about whether the NOA will include things more than four years before UM notified Enforcement of the potential violations (may have been March of 2011? I don't remember, though I'm pretty sure the notice of inquiry was sent in August of 2011). The rule on that is Bylaw 32.6.3:

Allegations included in a notice of allegations shall be limited to possible violations occurring not earlier than four years before the date the notice of inquiry is provided to the institution
or the date the institution notifies (or, if earlier, should have notified) the enforcement staff of its inquiries into the matter. However, the following shall not be subject to the four-year limitation: (Revised: 10/12/94, 4/24/03, 10/27/11)

(a) Allegations involving violations affecting the eligibility of a current student-athlete;

(b) Allegations in a case in which information is developed to indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period; and

(c) Allegations that indicate a blatant disregard for the Association’s fundamental recruiting, extra-benefit, academic or ethical-conduct regulations or that involve an effort to conceal the occurrence of the violation. In such cases, the enforcement staff shall have a one-year period after the date information concerning the matter becomes available to the NCAA to investigate and submit to the institution a notice of allegations concerning the matter.

Assuming the NOA does contain such allegations, UM can obviously challenge them. This issue also makes this case a somewhat unlikely candidate for summary disposition, but might make for an interesting Public Report.

 

[IndayArtHauz]

I shall desist. But in my defense, Indy butted into this thread and attacked me for daring to question Dapper (which i did in the most nicest of ways, if I say so myself). lol.

No debate here. Rude on my part. Sorry. Very inconsiderate.

No need to apologize, bro. I'm sorry for reacting so harshly.

At the risk of ruining this thread with affections, I thought you were very poised and well-mannered while I insulted your family, upbrining and intelligence.

Looks like we could get a lot done in the real world. Lulz.

 

[DapperSlapper]

From what I can glean from recent NCAA actions and commentary from its President, and knowing how Donna operates, I think this is what may be happening.

I think UM has been working behind the scenes to negotiate a consent decree or settlement (whatever you want to call it) with the NCAA. I think UM already has the letter - no requirement to disclose it. Emmert has already shown that he's willing to circumvent the regular protocol and enter into consent decrees - see PSU. He's also, repeatedly, emphasized that the focus needs to shift to punishing the perpetrators, especially the coaches involved, rather than the athletes who were not involved in the transgressions - see Pearl and Tressel show cause orders. Donna is a political beast. I can see her, at the beginning of this process, telling Emmert that she will set a new standard in cooperation, but that she wants a quick resolution (i.e., agreement) on sanctions after the fact-finding process is over. I also think the NCAA has not only sent the letter, but has also, through back channels, suggested to Donna what may be coming down the pike. And I think right now her goal is to negotiate with the NCAA on an agreement, one which may lay the groundwork for future investigations. We shall see.

Emmert had to get authority for what happened with PSU from a joint motion by the NCAA Executive Committee and the Division I Board of Directors. You can see how that was done by looking at this:

http://ncaa.s3.amazonaws.com/files/20120723/BOARD_EC MOTION.pdf

That is not happening again any time soon.

The only way for UM to get the quick resolution to which you refer is via a summary disposition, which requires all involved parties to agree. Given the "shift" to punishing coaches, it is extremely unlikely that all involved individuals agree to summary disposition along with UM.

The NCAA has no way to communicate what is coming down the pike. The investigation is done by NCAA Enforcement. Enforcement has no say in sanctions. Sanctions are determined by the COI. The COI has no way to say what is coming down the pike because they know less than UM does about the investigation on an ongoing basis.

Emmert also has zero involvement in sanctions. Everyone likes to just say "NCAA" this or that, but there are different subdivisions of the NCAA, and each has its own job. Enforcement are full time employees. The COI is made up of volunteers - they are not likely to feel pressured into doing anything. The NCAA does not sign their checks.

I do believe UM may be rewriting how to conduct these investigations, and I am pleased that they have had the courage to do things differently from how others have done them. If all clients had that same ability to think, my job as an attorney would be far easier.

Hold up. You speak as if there is an iron wall between NCAA Enforcement and COI. Are you saying that these guys dont talk to each other, even informally? That COI has no idea what the allegations are likely to be? I find this extremely unlikely. I've worked in an organization that spans thousands, including work that is deemed "confidential" and yet I hear things from "subdivisions" that have nothing to do with what my job. And yes, even volunteers and interns at that place were privy to "inside" information.

BTW, How is the COI chosen? Who nominates these "volunteers"?

I also find it extremely unlikely that Emmert has "zero involvement" or that he can't exert influence.

You have probably outlined the de jure structure of what is "supposed" to be. But is this real life?

The COI does not keep up to speed on investigations like that. These are people who have full time jobs. They receive the NOA, response(s), and a report from Enforcement. Even after reviewing that information, they will not have decided on sanctions yet. That does not happen until after the hearing. These are people who try to be fair, contrary to public opinion.

Coincidentally, Paul Dee was not the only person from UM to be on the COI. M. Minnette Massey (former law school professor at UM for decades) was not only on the COI, she was on the COI that gave SMU the death penalty.

When spots are opening up on the COI, the NCAA solicits nominations. For example, one can be nominated here: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/selection.jsp

There are presently 5 nominees to the Division I COI: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/display_committees.jsp

Emmert can try to do what he wants, but the COI has no reason to listen to him. They will try to do their best with the case.

So Dapper, where do the NCAA middlemen like Mike Glazier come in? Miami is paying for his service and he has negotiated some lighter penalties in the past and have downright had sanctions thrown out. Is he talking to the NCAA or the COI?

Glazier is the most experienced attorney in the country for NCAA investigations, and UM appears to be a dream client right now. Representing institutions in these cases is a lot of work (read "billable hours"), but perhaps "easier" than things many would think of as analogous. UM is fully cooperating with Enforcement, so Glazier is much like a co-investigator, rather than being like a criminal defense attorney. An institution might do less than completely open itself to investigators, but they'd be risking what happened to Ohio State, with other violations being found. The risk is outweighed by the reward for cooperating.

At this point the investigation must be just about over. Glazier's job would be to advise on potential outcomes and on strategy. I assume it was Glazier's strongly worded advice that resulted in the self imposed ban this season. Once the investigation is over, his role switched to advocate as the school responds to the NOA. As I mentioned, the limitations period could become a hotly contested issue in this case. He will also want to dispute any allegations in the NOA that have not been proven or have been debunked. He takes the same role in the hearing, and will probably end by pointing out UM's cooperation, corrective actions (something that has not been discussed too much on this board), and self imposed sanctions. In my mind, this is the rare case where those things could warrant relief from the sanctions to be imposed. That would mean the COI would state that the violations would result in (for example) a 2 year postseason ban, 30 scholarships over 3 years, etc., but UM's actions will result in a 2 year postseason ban and 18 scholarships over 3 years - or something to that effect.

 

[CaneDaddy]

Emmert had to get authority for what happened with PSU from a joint motion by the NCAA Executive Committee and the Division I Board of Directors. You can see how that was done by looking at this:

http://ncaa.s3.amazonaws.com/files/20120723/BOARD_EC MOTION.pdf

That is not happening again any time soon.

The only way for UM to get the quick resolution to which you refer is via a summary disposition, which requires all involved parties to agree. Given the "shift" to punishing coaches, it is extremely unlikely that all involved individuals agree to summary disposition along with UM.

The NCAA has no way to communicate what is coming down the pike. The investigation is done by NCAA Enforcement. Enforcement has no say in sanctions. Sanctions are determined by the COI. The COI has no way to say what is coming down the pike because they know less than UM does about the investigation on an ongoing basis.

Emmert also has zero involvement in sanctions. Everyone likes to just say "NCAA" this or that, but there are different subdivisions of the NCAA, and each has its own job. Enforcement are full time employees. The COI is made up of volunteers - they are not likely to feel pressured into doing anything. The NCAA does not sign their checks.

I do believe UM may be rewriting how to conduct these investigations, and I am pleased that they have had the courage to do things differently from how others have done them. If all clients had that same ability to think, my job as an attorney would be far easier.

Hold up. You speak as if there is an iron wall between NCAA Enforcement and COI. Are you saying that these guys dont talk to each other, even informally? That COI has no idea what the allegations are likely to be? I find this extremely unlikely. I've worked in an organization that spans thousands, including work that is deemed "confidential" and yet I hear things from "subdivisions" that have nothing to do with what my job. And yes, even volunteers and interns at that place were privy to "inside" information.

BTW, How is the COI chosen? Who nominates these "volunteers"?

I also find it extremely unlikely that Emmert has "zero involvement" or that he can't exert influence.

You have probably outlined the de jure structure of what is "supposed" to be. But is this real life?

The COI does not keep up to speed on investigations like that. These are people who have full time jobs. They receive the NOA, response(s), and a report from Enforcement. Even after reviewing that information, they will not have decided on sanctions yet. That does not happen until after the hearing. These are people who try to be fair, contrary to public opinion.

Coincidentally, Paul Dee was not the only person from UM to be on the COI. M. Minnette Massey (former law school professor at UM for decades) was not only on the COI, she was on the COI that gave SMU the death penalty.

When spots are opening up on the COI, the NCAA solicits nominations. For example, one can be nominated here: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/selection.jsp

There are presently 5 nominees to the Division I COI: https://web1.ncaa.org/committees/display_committees.jsp

Emmert can try to do what he wants, but the COI has no reason to listen to him. They will try to do their best with the case.

So Dapper, where do the NCAA middlemen like Mike Glazier come in? Miami is paying for his service and he has negotiated some lighter penalties in the past and have downright had sanctions thrown out. Is he talking to the NCAA or the COI?

Glazier is the most experienced attorney in the country for NCAA investigations, and UM appears to be a dream client right now. Representing institutions in these cases is a lot of work (read "billable hours"), but perhaps "easier" than things many would think of as analogous. UM is fully cooperating with Enforcement, so Glazier is much like a co-investigator, rather than being like a criminal defense attorney. An institution might do less than completely open itself to investigators, but they'd be risking what happened to Ohio State, with other violations being found. The risk is outweighed by the reward for cooperating.

At this point the investigation must be just about over. Glazier's job would be to advise on potential outcomes and on strategy. I assume it was Glazier's strongly worded advice that resulted in the self imposed ban this season. Once the investigation is over, his role switched to advocate as the school responds to the NOA. As I mentioned, the limitations period could become a hotly contested issue in this case. He will also want to dispute any allegations in the NOA that have not been proven or have been debunked. He takes the same role in the hearing, and will probably end by pointing out UM's cooperation, corrective actions (something that has not been discussed too much on this board), and self imposed sanctions. In my mind, this is the rare case where those things could warrant relief from the sanctions to be imposed. That would mean the COI would state that the violations would result in (for example) a 2 year postseason ban, 30 scholarships over 3 years, etc., but UM's actions will result in a 2 year postseason ban and 18 scholarships over 3 years - or something to that effect.

Thanks Dapper. I have been saying some of those things in the other threads. Not only have we taken the bowl bans, but we reduced our scholarship players to 80 this season and may be the same or less next season. I hope those types of things can lessen the hammer.

 

[Andrew]

A really good thread Dapper.

 

[DREW!]

Good stuff!!

 

[hoops156]

Your giving her too much credit. She has put the program in this situation, because she wanted to do everything on the cheap. She hired low end people, that will be her puppet. Since your totally guessing on the above I'm going to guess based on her previous actions that her primary interest is herself, not the program.

Agreed, I dont really have a problem with Donna and what she has done with the university overall is great and appreciated but as far as athletics she is flat out terrible. I understand its not her priority also but soo many examples at failure from the administration to take a program like miami and a great brand and basically have it on life support at the moment. I wonder if one of the advisers is that headhunter who searched high and low and told her to sign randy shannon off a failed staff. Atleast then he could earn the money given to him.

shannon at the time was a guy the players loved. pretty successful at DC and wouldve been a lifer if it had worked out. after schiano turned us down and paying the buyout for cokers contract we were handicapped. also we had a shooting death of a player, a on field brawl w another school, and a disappointing season on top of that in cokers last year here. a lot of bad pub on the team and none of it was shalalas fault. its not her that failed on the field or told j12 to throw a million picks. not her fault kyle wright had a billion OCs here and failed to develop.

 

[MaxCane]

Definitely one of the more instructive and insightful threads on this subject I have read on any board. Good stuff guys. Thanks.

 

[rsa coral gables]

i agree entirely with the OP's observations. I've believed this from Day 1. Because so many of the allegations involve events that occurred so many years ago, it would be somewhat unfair to solely punish the institution. this investigation represents an opportunity to change the focus of penalties to the actors, such as former coaches, administrators, etc. (note: all players still at UM that were allegedly involved in violations have been punished). Yes, the institution is at fault, but the institution is run by those in charge, many of whom are now at other institutions. if the allegations are proven true, would it be acceptable and fair to punish the institution and its current players, but not those now at other programs? **** no.

 

[AlexCane]

I don't think some of you are giving Donna enough respect here. You can blast her for the hires (that's fair criticism), but in this situation, we couldn't ask for anyone better. She's a former politician with savvy to execute back room deals and broker agreements in her favor. Also, again - regardless of what you may think of her - she's well respected nationally and that should curry some favor on our behalf.

 

[GoldenShowertheGators]

Great thread! Good read

 

[hcanes100]

This thread is what the football board should be about. Good work gents.

 

[umcane4life]

Very good read!