forums

NCAA investigation, go ahead, ask me...

Advertisement
Dapper,

Seems like the NCAA has to be careful with the sanctions they hand down to UM. If they blast us even after we've severely sanctioned ourselves and have bent over backwards to comply with investigation, then other schools will have no incentive to ever cooperate with them. Do you think there's any truth to that? This, of course, assumes there's no bombshells in the report we don't know of.
 
First Year Law Student (me): Can the court raise that issue sua sponte?
Professor Minnette Massey: Sua sponte? Asti spumanti? Wanna get a drink?
 
Advertisement
Thanks Slapper!

I'm comforted to read that self-imposed post season bans will have a mitigating effect on the NCAA's final decisions. I tried to read my way through all of this thread and I may have missed the answer to this question. Why has it taken so long?

Perhaps some kind soul on this thread will point this old guy to the post that answers that? I did get the part where stuff gets thrown up against the wall to see what sticks (as it appeared to me).
 
Dapper you're the man! This thread is awesome. You cleared a lot of stuff up for me.
 
Advertisement
Everybody here, myself included, believes we will get hit with some sort of scholarship reductions regardless of how little the investigative team actually corroborates enough to place into the Letter of Allegations. But if it were found that not enough evidence could be corroborated to justify punishing Miami any further based on any previous precedent, or if the punishment for the allegations in question is considered well below the steps we have already taken in order to mitigate our punishment, and according to the standards of the infraction committee we have therefore already served our time, is there any chance in **** they acknowledge this publicly and decide not to hand down future sanctions, claiming our violations are not severe enough to warrant further sanctions of any sort?
 
Read this in the Herald today on the Sports Buzz section

"The NCAA delayed (for a day or two) scheduled Monday calls to former UM coaches and staffers to tell them what they’re charged with. Meanwhile, we confirmed at least five former Canes players ended up talking to the NCAA after the NCAA mailed them an ultimatum to do so.

Attorney Bruce Fleisher said his two clients – whom he wouldn’t identify -- spoke to the NCAA, before an extended Jan. 3 deadline, and they said they received no benefits from Nevin Shapiro. “In order for them to continue going on the UM campus, they had to give statements to the NCAA,” Fleisher said. “None of these guys wanted to be banned from that activity.”

So, if 5 Canes and maybe more talked to the NCAA and all of them said they received nothing, then can we get that 2nd Bowl Ban back?
 
Dapper,

If UM receives its NOA and agrees with the majority of the findings, can UM and NCAA negotiate on the sanctions and skip the whole COI show (similar to Penn State)?

Thanks!
 
Dapper,

If we claim that we were catfished and/or Manti Te'od, will the NCAA believe it as much as Notre Dame alums buy that crap?
 
Advertisement
cdmd said:
Dapper,

If UM receives its NOA and agrees with the majority of the findings, can UM and NCAA negotiate on the sanctions and skip the whole COI show (similar to Penn State)?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I had this same question so I will 2nd the motion of this question to be answered when Mr. Dapper has the time!!
Also, I would like to thank Dapper for taking the time to answer these questions!!!
 
tsimonitis said:
Dapper,

I have read a few times that since UM is a private institution it will not have to release the NOA. Can you speak to the benefits/negatives of releasing or not releasing the NOA for the school? What would you advise?
Click to expand...

The pros/cons of releasing the NOA (or parts of it) are really more of a PR (or maybe even just common sense) judgment than any legal strategy decision. I would imagine if the NOA contains far less than what the public might expect (given the sensationalized original yahoo story and the talking heads chanting "death penalty" over and over on TV), it could be a good idea to release it...with a pic of Chuck R. at the end and the caption, "U mad bro?"

If the NOA contains extensive allegations, it might be better to keep it out of the public eye, since releasing it would just cause another round of "death penalty" chants among certain know-nothings who get TV time. The only negative of this might be UM's prior statements that the school will be as transparent as possible - people could hold that against them, but, that's life, I suppose.
 
hasena75 said:
Is Golden allowed to tell the recruits the sanctions they are looking at stated in the letter or is
That breaking the rules? For example telling AC OR 6 what the
Extent of the penalties are to help in regards to recruiting them?
Click to expand...

You run the risk of falling in the USC and Seantrel Henderson trap. There's no rule against that, but, if the player thinks he was misled, he could ask to be released from his scholarship to sign elsewhere. There's no rule against it. I imagine Al says the same things to recruits that he says to the media - that he thinks the worst is behind UM already.
 
Advertisement
CanesAreAble said:
So if it's "failure to monitor", do you think the school simply forgoes the appeals process (assuming FTM means we over-sanctioned ourselves)? Also, do you think the school will release this information soon?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the question - I don't know if you intentionally skipped the hearing phase, or you're confusing the hearing with an appeal. If LOIC is not in the NOA, and it contains FTM, UM will still go before the COI and have a hearing. Odds are, the penalties would not be too great, so UM would have no reason to appeal them. The penalties will not imposed until after the hearing before the COI.
 
Can we negotiate with the NCAA on the penalties at any time after the NOA is sent? That is, can we get the NOA and start working with the NCAA on the punishment? If so, is such a procedure common and would Miami have the type of scenario where they may do this?
 
MIA42178 said:
DapperSlapper said:
stormsurge said:
Is there just one fixed group of people that make up the COI or does it change from case to case? In other words, will the same people who reviewed USCw and USCe be reviewing our case?
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be a complicated question, but it is...

The COI is made up of 10 members - 7 have to have been on staff in some capacity at member institutions or at the NCAA. At least 3, but no less than 2, have to have no prior link to member institutions, a conference, or the NCAA, There are other restrictive rules...but you get the idea. COI members serve 3 year terms, and each can serve 3 terms - excepting service as coordinator of appeals, which is separate.

Most here know that Paul Dee was the chair of the COI, but many probably don't know that UM has another prominent member of the COI. M. Minnette Massey, a long time professor at the law school was on the COI that gave SMU the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Professor Massey from Law School?!?!?!?! Civ Pro II???
Click to expand...

I knew from years ago (when I was in law school) that she had been on the COI, but, I didn't know much about all this stuff back then. I never asked her about her time on the COI or the SMU case, but I wish I had. I found out that she was on that COI just from doing some research - her name jumped off the page when I was scanning through that public report.
 
hollyhood27 said:
Dapper,

(if this has already been asked, my bad dawg) Does the fact that we hired a PI to look into Shapiro and find nothing help us at all?
Click to expand...

Sure. Couldn't tell you how much exactly, but it makes it quite a bit harder for anyone to prove they should have known X, Y, or Z about Shapiro if a PI didn't uncover anything unsavory.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top