forums

NCAA investigation, go ahead, ask me...

D

DapperSlapper

Junior
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
1,316
Some of you may know that I'm attorney. Fewer of you may know that I have experience with NCAA issues (I think DMoney knows this, since he has asked me questions relative to NCAA issues in the past) - I have posted about NCAA issues on this board, but sparingly. In any event, I am inviting the board to ask me questions about UM's case. Just don't ask me for my prediction on sanctions unless you give me a complete list of violations that you think will be proven at the hearing. Procedural questions, evidentiary questions...go nuts. That is all...you may now go back to insulting other porsters...
 
Advertisement
if we get LOIC, what sanctions will we receive?
if we get FTM, what sanctions will we receive?

will you represent me pro bono in future legal matters?
 
Dapper's got the clearest understanding of the NCAA process of anyone I've seen on any type of community forum.
 
Advertisement
ok ill go first. say that we get hit somewhere between what USC and UNC got. (as far as sanctions). With all that we have done to cooperate and self impose what percentage do you think us doing all of the for-mentioned things help us with overall sanctions.
 
I probably won't get to any answers until tomorrow, but feel free to post any questions...I'll do my best to answer all that I can.
 
Advertisement
Why is the ncaa an inconsistent piece of ****? How could they accept a single few minute phone call between an assistant coach and the agent dude or his supposed go between...who is a convicted felon..as evidence...enough evidence to sanction uscw as severely as they did

Then on the other hand look at the mess at unc ( or dont look since much more is coming out since the supposed investigation) ...a mess that includes players and agents and massive academic fraud....and basically do nothing
 
What are the chances that the NCAA would grant immunity to offending coaches in exchange for testimony? Is there precedent where the NCAA agreed to provide immunity to a coach directly complicit in the violations?
 
Advertisement
Dapper, this is one I have been wanting someone to answer. What is the deal with the threats to the former players about banning? Does it hold weight and can they force UM to do it? Does it give leverage to the University in appeals or legal action?
 
TheU1986 said:
ok ill go first. say that we get hit somewhere between what USC and UNC got. (as far as sanctions). With all that we have done to cooperate and self impose what percentage do you think us doing all of the for-mentioned things help us with overall sanctions.
Click to expand...

I will repeat something I've said in the past. Many people on this board (and on others) somehow came to the conclusion that self imposed penalties don't matter very much. They matter to an enormous extent. There is no such thing as the self imposition of a postseason ban (or 2), and then having the COI say that would have imposed 2 postseason bans, but since the institution already imposed 2, they will only impose 2 more. That's the stuff I've read on here and elsewhere. It makes no sense, and the COI doesn't work that way.

The COI is made up of volunteers. The NCAA doesn't sign their checks. They have an enormous amount of freedom to do as they see fit.

South Carolina successfully mitigated penalties they were facing recently (avoided a bowl ban), and UM has done more in terms of cooperation and corrective action than USCe did. The following is from USC's case Public Report:

The committee took into consideration the enforcement staff's assessment of the cooperation exhibited by the institution. At the hearing, the enforcement staff made the following comments regarding that cooperation:
"(The institution) exceeded expectations by adding additional individuals to be interviewed that really helped flush out certain facts (comprising Findings B-1 and B-2). Additionally, before the enforcement staff had an opportunity to execute its document request, the institution provided the enforcement staff with the most damaging information, (the email from representative 1 to the institution's president) requesting (the president's) assistance in the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete."
The committee decided not to impose more stringent sanctions in this case, including a postseason ban…

I believe UM has the potential to mitigate penalties above and beyond what any institution has done in the past - 2 self imposed bowl bans is an unprecedented sanction, and UM has taken many corrective actions, including the very restrictive agent rule now in place for football players.
 
Last edited:
Why is the NCAA willing to take different stances with different programs. On one hand, you had blatant academic fraud at UNC and they said that it's the university's issue, not the NCAA. Then you have Penn State getting slammed for criminal activity. Then you have the Tennessee case where they decided to not hammer the school, but instead go after Bruce Pearl with show cause. We can post about this all night, but why is there inconstancy with the NCAA and punishment? Is the NCAA showing favoritism to schools best known for their basketball, or do they feel the need to bully schools like Penn State, Miami, and USC, who are best known for their football tradition?
 
Advertisement
tokengator said:
Why is the ncaa an inconsistent piece of ****? How could they accept a single few minute phone call between an assistant coach and the agent dude or his supposed go between...who is a convicted felon..as evidence...enough evidence to sanction uscw as severely as they did

Then on the other hand look at the mess at unc ( or dont look since much more is coming out since the supposed investigation) ...a mess that includes players and agents and massive academic fraud....and basically do nothing
Click to expand...

USC's biggest problem was a complete lack of a compliance department. That is why the "knew or should have known" standard figured so prominently in that case. There were times that USC has only 1 full time employee in compliance - and USC's athletics department is about twice the size of UM's. Um has 5 to 6 full time employees in compliance for those wondering - unless it's changed very recently. USC also received information relative to Bush's car that, had they followed up on, would have uncovered clear violations - goes back to a complete lack of a compliance department...

Part of the perceived problem has to do with the lack of jurisdiction over the academic issues at UNC. The NCAA has no jurisdiction over classes made too easy - schools risk accreditation by having fake classes, but the NCAA cab't do anything about it. The NCAA is only concerned with cases in which athletes get by with preferential treatment - not meeting the requirements of the course, but passing anyway. That's a different problem that the NCAA has some say about.
 
Last edited:
Im telling you guys: we're gonna get "time served", probationary period, and some scholies (not as much as usc). We've bent over beyond backwards, starting with alerting the ncaa 5 months before the yahoo article broke, to the self imposition, to immediately suspensions of players and making them pay everything back, to returning money shapiro gave....everything.
 
dycane said:
What are the chances that the NCAA would grant immunity to offending coaches in exchange for testimony? Is there precedent where the NCAA agreed to provide immunity to a coach directly complicit in the violations?
Click to expand...

Coaches are eligible for limited immunity pursuant to Bylaw 32.3.8.1. That being said, the NCAA wants to crack down on "athletics personnel" (as they are referred to in the Bylaw) moreso than athletes, so immunity to a coach or other University employee is a last resort - something along the lines of a prosecutor giving immunity to a big fish because none of the foot soldiers would cooperate. I would be astonished if coaches got immunity in UM's case.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top