NCAA investigation, go ahead, ask me...

[DCF in LA]

I will add one more thing - don't pay attention to what the sports writers say regarding the timeline for a decision in this case unless they are quoting someone who know what he is talking about (like Infante, or myself...). I know certain sportswriters have said a decision could come out in May or June...don't bet on it. Those writers fail to consider certain things that must happen before the hearing. As I posted in another thread:

UM (and any individuals who get NOAs) gets 90 days to respond to the NOA and dispute allegations or conclusions that allegations amount to violations. After the response(s) to NOA, the parties have 30 days to have prehearing conferences - Enforcement consults with each party one by one (unless the parties agree to consult all together) to determine what the issues will be at the hearing.

After that, Enforcement prepares a case summary and sends it to the COI and the other parties. This has to be done 14 days before the hearing.

After that, there is a hearing during a regularly scheduled meeting of the COI (they meet every other month).

After the hearing, the COI works on its decision. A quick decision would be about 6 weeks. UNC's decision took about 4 1/2 months.

This case could be a little further delayed as well. The COI may also decide it needs an interpretation on an issue (such as application of the rule allowing more than 4 years of conduct to be considered). It can make a request to the academic and membership affairs staff. The interpretation is based on whatever set of of facts the COI provides - so they weigh evidence first, then submit the request for an interpretation (after the hearing). The institution and Enforcement are advised if that happens. The institution can appeal the interpretation.

We may have a decision sometime around the start of the season, give or take.

Going by this, the basketball team should not be worried at all about a Tournament ban this year. That's fortunate, because we're actually good this season and will stink next.

 

[DapperSlapper]

Is there actually any law or punishment guidelines for the NCAA, or can they make up any **** they want? The entire process seems about as legit as a fraternity hazing, as does self imposed sanctions. Where else in life do you see that?

They just came out with guidelines recently, and they were posted in another thread. Those guidelines will not apply to UM's case unless they would result in less punishment than the current guidelines. There really are no guidelines presently, though certain penalties have been compulsory at times over the years. For instance, 2 years of probation used to be mandatory (more or less) - that changed with an amendment to the Bylaws that became effective April 28, 2011 (the current Bylaw merely allows for probation up to 5 years, not that probation is much of a sanction).

 

[SevenNSeven]

I will add one more thing - don't pay attention to what the sports writers say regarding the timeline for a decision in this case unless they are quoting someone who know what he is talking about (like Infante, or myself...). I know certain sportswriters have said a decision could come out in May or June...don't bet on it. Those writers fail to consider certain things that must happen before the hearing. As I posted in another thread:

UM (and any individuals who get NOAs) gets 90 days to respond to the NOA and dispute allegations or conclusions that allegations amount to violations. After the response(s) to NOA, the parties have 30 days to have prehearing conferences - Enforcement consults with each party one by one (unless the parties agree to consult all together) to determine what the issues will be at the hearing.

After that, Enforcement prepares a case summary and sends it to the COI and the other parties. This has to be done 14 days before the hearing.

After that, there is a hearing during a regularly scheduled meeting of the COI (they meet every other month).

After the hearing, the COI works on its decision. A quick decision would be about 6 weeks. UNC's decision took about 4 1/2 months.

This case could be a little further delayed as well. The COI may also decide it needs an interpretation on an issue (such as application of the rule allowing more than 4 years of conduct to be considered). It can make a request to the academic and membership affairs staff. The interpretation is based on whatever set of of facts the COI provides - so they weigh evidence first, then submit the request for an interpretation (after the hearing). The institution and Enforcement are advised if that happens. The institution can appeal the interpretation.

We may have a decision sometime around the start of the season, give or take.

Do you think the school might want to rush to a resolution since the NCAA's new 'tougher' mandate apparently goes into effect for cases that are not resolved by August.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2012/October/Board+adopts+tougher+more+efficient+enforcement+program


On the other hand, do you think there's a chance the NCAA is slow playing so that Miami can be the first school, the 'example school', under it's new guidelines.

Conduct breaches that occurred before Oct. 30, 2012 but are processed after Aug. 1, 2013 would be subject to the new process but would incur the more lenient of the two penalty structures (current and revised).

 

[DapperSlapper]

I will add one more thing - don't pay attention to what the sports writers say regarding the timeline for a decision in this case unless they are quoting someone who know what he is talking about (like Infante, or myself...). I know certain sportswriters have said a decision could come out in May or June...don't bet on it. Those writers fail to consider certain things that must happen before the hearing. As I posted in another thread:

UM (and any individuals who get NOAs) gets 90 days to respond to the NOA and dispute allegations or conclusions that allegations amount to violations. After the response(s) to NOA, the parties have 30 days to have prehearing conferences - Enforcement consults with each party one by one (unless the parties agree to consult all together) to determine what the issues will be at the hearing.

After that, Enforcement prepares a case summary and sends it to the COI and the other parties. This has to be done 14 days before the hearing.

After that, there is a hearing during a regularly scheduled meeting of the COI (they meet every other month).

After the hearing, the COI works on its decision. A quick decision would be about 6 weeks. UNC's decision took about 4 1/2 months.

This case could be a little further delayed as well. The COI may also decide it needs an interpretation on an issue (such as application of the rule allowing more than 4 years of conduct to be considered). It can make a request to the academic and membership affairs staff. The interpretation is based on whatever set of of facts the COI provides - so they weigh evidence first, then submit the request for an interpretation (after the hearing). The institution and Enforcement are advised if that happens. The institution can appeal the interpretation.

We may have a decision sometime around the start of the season, give or take.

Do you think the school might want to rush to a resolution since the NCAA's new 'tougher' mandate apparently goes into effect for cases that are not resolved by August.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8572310/ncaa-approves-tougher-sanctions-rule-breakers

On the other hand, do you think there's a chance the NCAA is slow playing so that Miami can be the first school, the 'example school', under it's new guidelines.

In a word, no. To elaborate on that...

Under the new rules themselves, they cannot apply the new penalties to cases involving infractions that occurred before October 30, 2012, unless those penalties are more lenient than the older ones. Below is a quote from the Final Report from August 2012 from the NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model - Enforcement, followed by the relevant part of the new bylaw that covers the issue.

Final Report:

Under this implementation strategy, notice of the new enforcement structure will be provided to the membership October 30, 2012. On August 1, 2013, the new enforcement structure will become effective in its entirety. All cases processed by the Committee on Infractions after August 1, 2013, will be adjudicated under the new enforcement structure.

Not all violations occurring before October 30, 2012, can be processed before the new enforcement structure goes into effect. Thus, there will be violations that were committed before notice of the new structure that nonetheless are processed under it. Applying harsher penalties in such cases pursuant to the new penalty matrix could be perceived as unfair because institution/involved individual that committed a pre-October 30, 2012, violation would have done so prior to notice of the new penalty guidelines.

Amended Bylaw 19.11.1 remedies this concern. Pursuant to amended Bylaw 19.11.1, in cases where the violation occurred prior to October 30, 2012, the hearing panel must deviate from the core penalty guidelines if the applicable core penalties from the guidelines are harsher than the penalties that would have been prescribed under the enforcement structure previously in place. For violations that begin before October 30, 2012 and continue thereafter, the hearing panel will prescribe penalties from the revised penalty structure unless it determines that the conduct constituting a violation predominately occurred before October 30, 2012.

This implementation strategy is simple and logistically feasible, ensures that the new enforcement structure will be fully operational as soon as possible, and alleviates fairness concerns resulting from the transition to a new enforcement structure.

Proposed new Bylaw 19.11.1:

19.11.1 Application. The penalties set forth in this section shall be prescribed for violations committed after October 30, 2012. Penalties prescribed for violations committed before October 30, 2012, shall be the penalties set forth in this section or the penalties that would have been prescribed under the 2011-12 Division I Manual, whichever is less. For violations that commence before October 30, 2012, and continue after October 30, 2012, the hearing panel shall prescribe the penalties set forth in this section unless it determines that the conduct constituting a violation predominately occurred before October 30, 2012.

 

[ShoelessSteve]

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

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.

OK, start from the USCw explanation. Why then did Ohio State get such a small slap on the wrist? They have/had the largest compliance department in the country and almost willfully ignored their responsibilities. Why did they get the benefit of having a large compliance department? Seems to me that they were more culpable than USCw.

The cars Pryor was driving came from the same dealership that furnished Clarett with cars. Why was that (and the rest of MC's claims) not taken into account? If Miami has to live with Shapiro's statements, why did Ohio State get a pass with Clarett's?

Why did Ohio State skate as a repeat offender? Their basketball team was on probation at the time of tattoogate. How is it possible that they did not get hit harshly, especially given that Tressel got a 5 year show cause penalty?

Finally, what is the rationale for allowing Ohio State to play known ineligible players in bowl games (they cannot sincerely believe the public reason given holds weight) and also to allow for two coaching staffs? Meyer and co were allowed to recruit while Fickell got to coach the bowl game. If this is disallowed in the future, why was this allowed, especially given the transgressions that occurred at Ohio State in proximity to this?

 

[bolivar]

Serious question: Is accepting favors from hookers an NCAA violation? Really, am I wrong for thinking that all Shapiro did was pay a bunch of college football players to hangout with hm...

 

[DapperSlapper]

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

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.

OK, start from the USCw explanation. Why then did Ohio State get such a small slap on the wrist? They have/had the largest compliance department in the country and almost willfully ignored their responsibilities. Why did they get the benefit of having a large compliance department? Seems to me that they were more culpable than USCw.

The cars Pryor was driving came from the same dealership that furnished Clarett with cars. Why was that (and the rest of MC's claims) not taken into account? If Miami has to live with Shapiro's statements, why did Ohio State get a pass with Clarett's?

Why did Ohio State skate as a repeat offender? Their basketball team was on probation at the time of tattoogate. How is it possible that they did not get hit harshly, especially given that Tressel got a 5 year show cause penalty?

Finally, what is the rationale for allowing Ohio State to play known ineligible players in bowl games (they cannot sincerely believe the public reason given holds weight) and also to allow for two coaching staffs? Meyer and co were allowed to recruit while Fickell got to coach the bowl game. If this is disallowed in the future, why was this allowed, especially given the transgressions that occurred at Ohio State in proximity to this?

Most obvious first - repeat violator status does not necessarily mean much - Alabama has had an infractions case recently in which they were a 3 time repeat violator, and Wisconsin has had a case recently in which they were a 2 time repeat violator. I would imagine UM's status as repeat violator (last violation was baseball, and the investigation took a very long time - go figure...) won't mean much when all is said and done.

 

[hcanes100]

 

[DapperSlapper]

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

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.

OK, start from the USCw explanation. Why then did Ohio State get such a small slap on the wrist? They have/had the largest compliance department in the country and almost willfully ignored their responsibilities. Why did they get the benefit of having a large compliance department? Seems to me that they were more culpable than USCw.

The cars Pryor was driving came from the same dealership that furnished Clarett with cars. Why was that (and the rest of MC's claims) not taken into account? If Miami has to live with Shapiro's statements, why did Ohio State get a pass with Clarett's?

Why did Ohio State skate as a repeat offender? Their basketball team was on probation at the time of tattoogate. How is it possible that they did not get hit harshly, especially given that Tressel got a 5 year show cause penalty?

Finally, what is the rationale for allowing Ohio State to play known ineligible players in bowl games (they cannot sincerely believe the public reason given holds weight) and also to allow for two coaching staffs? Meyer and co were allowed to recruit while Fickell got to coach the bowl game. If this is disallowed in the future, why was this allowed, especially given the transgressions that occurred at Ohio State in proximity to this?

RE: Ohio State, I would have to reread the Public Report - I don't have all NCAA information available i my mind for recall at all times. I will say that in USC's case compliance literally received information that implicated Bush as having received impermissible benefits, but compliance ignored it and never followed up - hence the "should have known" standard. If a school has a large compliance department, and the department does not receive information that potentially implicates a player, then there is nothing to follow up on. Having a large compliance department in and of itself is a good defense against NCAA infractions cases...

Re: playing those players, if my memory is correct, then they were permitted to play before some of the violations were discovered (due to Tressel's attempted cover up, if I remember correctly). That was obviously the NCAA's fault, but hey, there is a lot of money at stake in BCS bowl games - yes, that matters to the NCAA.

 

[DJWilliams55]

Dapper, you have noted previously that UM's level of cooperation has been extraordinary, exceeding that of USCe who was able to avoid a bowl ban and I've read its been on par with UNC. You have also mentioned that our self imposed sanctions have been historic.

Is the enforcement division's general philosophy to pretty much always throw everything at the wall, or will they charge people with less on the basis of that cooperation (i.e. getting FTM instead of LOIC), or does the school just have to wait till it gets before the COI hearing before the mitigating circumstances really take hold. I ask this because everyone is assuming/hoping that it is the enforcement division itself, which is the same one that has written those threatening letters and obviously has an interest in getting as good of a result (for them) as possible, will be the ones to cut UM the break in what is alleged, when its really the COI we have to rely on.

 

[weownfsu]

Dapper, you have noted previously that UM's level of cooperation has been extraordinary, exceeding that of USCe who was able to avoid a bowl ban and I've read its been on par with UNC. You have also mentioned that our self imposed sanctions have been historic.

Is the enforcement division's general philosophy to pretty much always throw everything at the wall, or will they charge people with less on the basis of that cooperation (i.e. getting FTM instead of LOIC), or does the school just have to wait till it gets before the COI hearing before the mitigating circumstances really take hold. I ask this because everyone is assuming/hoping that it is the enforcement division itself, which is the same one that has written those threatening letters and obviously has an interest in getting as good of a result (for them) as possible, will be the ones to cut UM the break in what is alleged, when its really the COI we have to rely on.

Good question...how much does cooperation actually count for?

 

[-Blazed-]

Can we sue the NCAA if we don't like their final decision?

 

[hcanes100]

Can we sue the NCAA if we don't like their final decision?

Can sue for anything. ****, a lawyer is suing Pops and the Spurs for sending the stars back the day of the game.

 

[DapperSlapper]

Dapper, you have noted previously that UM's level of cooperation has been extraordinary, exceeding that of USCe who was able to avoid a bowl ban and I've read its been on par with UNC. You have also mentioned that our self imposed sanctions have been historic.

Is the enforcement division's general philosophy to pretty much always throw everything at the wall, or will they charge people with less on the basis of that cooperation (i.e. getting FTM instead of LOIC), or does the school just have to wait till it gets before the COI hearing before the mitigating circumstances really take hold. I ask this because everyone is assuming/hoping that it is the enforcement division itself, which is the same one that has written those threatening letters and obviously has an interest in getting as good of a result (for them) as possible, will be the ones to cut UM the break in what is alleged, when its really the COI we have to rely on.

See the post re: USCe. It was Enforcement, at the infractions hearing, that said good things about UCSe's cooperation. Enforcement's actions in trying to gather information should have nothing to do with how they view UM's conduct throughout the case. I would fully expect (unless what we've all heard/read is false, including quotes from Pres. Emmert), that enforcement would state that UM's cooperation has gone above and beyond what could be expected of an institution. Not only has UM self imposed 2 postseason bans, they have also been transparent (in their own words), and they have taken some extraordinary corrective actions (see rule re: agent contact with underclassmen football players). I have said it elsewhere during this investigation - I believe UM is rewriting how to deal with an NCAA infractions case. I also believe that UM's transparency more or less forced certain assistant coaches to leave. That is a good thing for UM at the end of the day. I am also jealous that I've not had a client with the intestinal fortitude to take the extraordinary measures that UM has taken.

 

[DapperSlapper]

Can we sue the NCAA if we don't like their final decision?

UM would have to appeal first. There is an appeals process for infractions cases, and a court would almost certainly dismiss the court case if UM did not "exhaust its administrative remedies" (take part in the NCAA appeals process) before suing.

 

[DJWilliams55]

I get that Dapper, but besides what they say at the hearing, do you think it would play a factor in giving UM a lesser charge (i.e. FTM vs. LOIC) or will they always just throw everything at the wall, and let COI decide (albeit with positive comments at the hearing as to level of cooperation).

 

[DapperSlapper]

I get that Dapper, but besides what they say at the hearing, do you think it would play a factor in giving UM a lesser charge (i.e. FTM vs. LOIC) or will they always just throw everything at the wall, and let COI decide (albeit with positive comments at the hearing as to level of cooperation).

It would depend on the individual Enforcement staff person(s) handling the hearing, but, in general, they'll throw everything at the wall to see if it sticks, then state the mitigating factors (if any). There is always a chance that they decide not to proceed on certain allegations in the NOA after seeing the response, but, in general, they are out to prove as many violations as possible.

 

[deviance]

So what is your prognosis on the sanctions? Do you expect FTM or LOIC? What kind of additional punishments are we looking at?

 

[DapperSlapper]

So what is your prognosis on the sanctions? Do you expect FTM or LOIC? What kind of additional punishments are we looking at?

This is something I'm pretty sensitive about... In general, I don't make predictions on outcomes of cases. In UM's case, I don't even know what the operative allegations are, so a prediction is impossible. I'm sensitive about it because the guessing that people in the public eye do (Feldman the other day comes to mind) cheapens what those representing UM are doing. If you can accurately guess what UM is going to get at this point, then what's the point of UM's having attorneys?

Something similar happened recently in a criminal case I was involved with...Al Sharpton came to town and said he would "take on the case" - as if standing on the courthouse steps and yelling is the same as advocating on the defendant's behalf in court, subject to all the rules that govern criminal cases. I don't have the connections that Al has, but he doesn't have the lawyer skills and experience that I have... Sorry, I just hate it when people **** on what I do as an attorney and try to cheapen it.

 

[DaUson]

So what is your prognosis on the sanctions? Do you expect FTM or LOIC? What kind of additional punishments are we looking at?

This is something I'm pretty sensitive about... In general, I don't make predictions on outcomes of cases. In UM's case, I don't even know what the operative allegations are, so a prediction is impossible. I'm sensitive about it because the guessing that people in the public eye do (Feldman the other day comes to mind) cheapens what those representing UM are doing. If you can accurately guess what UM is going to get at this point, then what's the point of UM's having attorneys?

Something similar happened recently in a criminal case I was involved with...Al Sharpton came to town and said he would "take on the case" - as if standing on the courthouse steps and yelling is the same as advocating on the defendant's behalf in court, subject to all the rules that govern criminal cases. I don't have the connections that Al has, but he doesn't have the lawyer skills and experience that I have... Sorry, I just hate it when people **** on what I do as an attorney and try to cheapen it.

I know exactly 100% what you are feeling and talking about. Id be rich if I had a buck for every time someone without a shred of operations experience tried to tell me how to do my job.