NCAA investigation, go ahead, ask me...

[DapperSlapper]

Has it, in fact, been confirmed that the NOA has been received by the University? If so, do you expect any of it to be released publicly prior to filing the Reply?

I've not seen any confirmation anywhere. I personally know one lawyer who represents an individual involved in this stuff, but I haven't talked to him about this case, and do not even know if his client will be an "involved individual" who receives an NOA containing allegations against him.

I can't really guess if UM will release it. I suppose it would be a very good sign if they do release it.

 

[DapperSlapper]

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.

I agree 100% - unprecedented self imposed sanctions, and ahead of the curve corrective actions (at least in the form of the new agent contact policy).

 

[DapperSlapper]

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).

The total number of individuals from whom the NCAA could seek information (players, former players, coaches, former coaches, UM staffers, people unaffiliated with UM who allegedly witnessed or were a part of violations (clothing store owner comes to mind) was probably close to 200. The allegations spanned something like 8 years. There was a lot of information to seek...that's why it took so long, I suppose.

 

[DapperSlapper]

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?

If you're asking whether UM can put overpunishment in this case "in the bank" and use it in the next case, um.... no.

 

[DapperSlapper]

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?

Sure, UM will be able to claim that we played in the Manti Te'o Imaginary Bowl in this past postseason. Sorry for the sarcasm, but there's no way to get the bowl back.

 

[DapperSlapper]

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!

If by "NCAA," you mean Enforcement, the answer is no. Enforcement has nothing to do with the determination of punishment (beyond proving that violations occurred). There would be a hearing, and the COI would still have to determine whether the allegations had necessary corroboration and proved that violations occurred. They would then come up with a punishment. In other words, it would be the same procedure as arguing about the allegations, but the hearing would be a lot shorter.

 

[DapperSlapper]

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?

No. NCAA Enforcement investigates and reports on its findings. The COI makes determinations on the evidence and comes up with a punishment. There is no negotiating with the COI before the hearing.

In the Pell Grant case, Tad Foote made himself to look like he had no idea what was going on. He was quoted in the newspapers after UM's hearing essentially begging the COI for a hint on whether UM should self impose a bowl ban. The Public Report came out on December 1, if I remember correctly, and, while Foote claimed UM self imposed a bowl ban, the COI Public Report did not state that that was the case. To this day, I don't know what actually happened, but I have a lot more faith in this administration than anyone could have had in that one back in 1995.

 

[DapperSlapper]

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...

If NCAA athletes get preferential treatment because they are NCAA athletes, then there is a problem. Shapiro's allegations were that he paid for the prostitutes, so I suppose that's even more clear cut - just think of the prostitutes as a drink at a club or something.

 

[DapperSlapper]

First Year Law Student (me): Can the court raise that issue sua sponte?
Professor Minnette Massey: Sua sponte? Asti spumanti? Wanna get a drink?

Close to negging for sua sponte.

I'll never forget this one episode in Massey's class when I had her. There was a really quiet, nervous guy in the class, and he was sitting up near the back, hoping to remain anonymous. She called on him (probably butchered his name in the process), and made him read his brief. Of course, that involved reading whichever section of the brief she yelled out - "Just the facts. Read the facts!" This guy got so nervous, he was mumbling and talking ridiculously fast. Massey couldn't hear a word he was saying but thought it was hilarious, started laughing, then began yelling, "Faster! Faster!" while she was waving her arms for the rest of class to laugh along with her - like a football player trying to rile up the crowd.

 

[CaneSuger]

First Year Law Student (me): Can the court raise that issue sua sponte?
Professor Minnette Massey: Sua sponte? Asti spumanti? Wanna get a drink?

Close to negging for sua sponte.

I'll never forget this one episode in Massey's class when I had her. There was a really quiet, nervous guy in the class, and he was sitting up near the back, hoping to remain anonymous. She called on him (probably butchered his name in the process), and made him read his brief. Of course, that involved reading whichever section of the brief she yelled out - "Just the facts. Read the facts!" This guy got so nervous, he was mumbling and talking ridiculously fast. Massey couldn't hear a word he was saying but thought it was hilarious, started laughing, then began yelling, "Faster! Faster!" while she was waving her arms for the rest of class to laugh along with her - like a football player trying to rile up the crowd.

Wow what a *****.

 

[CaneSuger]

Dapper

How compelling must the evidence be for an allegation to be included in the NOA? What is the standard?

How about the COI? Is the bar set a little higher there?

 

[canesstevealum08]

Dapper, along those lines even if the credibility standard isnt high, it's not like prostitutes are known to keep receipts, or bar tabs have names. So short of Shapiro having a friend back up his claim, he can't just make stuff up no?

 

[RiDLer80]

You guys asking about hookers, other witnesses and their credibility; this has to do with credible information. If no one steps up then the information will not be taken into account.

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?

I posted about this when that letter was made public. I viewed it as an idle threat for the following reasons:

The letter was from Enforcement - it is their job to be as over the top and forceful as possible. That being said, the evidence is judged by the COI. The COi does not hesitate to disagree with Enforcement - it happens frequently.

In this instance, I am very confident that the COI would disagree with Enforcement's view that silence = admission because of Bylaw 32.8.7.4, which states,

"In presenting information and evidence for consideration by the Committee on Infractions during an infractions hearing, the enforcement staff shall present only information that can be attributed to individuals who are willing to be identified. Information obtained from individuals not wishing to be identified shall not be relied on by the Committee on Infractions in making findings of violations. Such confidential sources shall not be identified to either the Committee on Infractions or the institution."

Note the "willing to be identified" language. Papacane was kind enough to steal that post from me last time...

 

[Chuckles]

First Year Law Student (me): Can the court raise that issue sua sponte?
Professor Minnette Massey: Sua sponte? Asti spumanti? Wanna get a drink?

Close to negging for sua sponte.

I'll never forget this one episode in Massey's class when I had her. There was a really quiet, nervous guy in the class, and he was sitting up near the back, hoping to remain anonymous. She called on him (probably butchered his name in the process), and made him read his brief. Of course, that involved reading whichever section of the brief she yelled out - "Just the facts. Read the facts!" This guy got so nervous, he was mumbling and talking ridiculously fast. Massey couldn't hear a word he was saying but thought it was hilarious, started laughing, then began yelling, "Faster! Faster!" while she was waving her arms for the rest of class to laugh along with her - like a football player trying to rile up the crowd.

Wow what a ****.

Sounds like it was real world preparation, not a class in sensitivity.

Thanks for the explanation Slapper.

 

[tsimonitis]

Dapper,

What is the actually difference between the definition of LOIC and FTM? Technically speaking, not in terms of punishments.

 

[SmokeyRone]

I got experience with the NCAA. Sued them in college over a tennis issue, then when I get tyo Law School, who is one of my professors but the fat, sausage chewing wino that was President of the NCAA during my issues!

 

[sabrose]

I believe we will escape LOIC as Shannon and Shalala were not involved . I believe much of what Shapiro said was fabricated or enhanced which fits his pattern , Its not hard to present this as a case of an extraordinary sociopath preying on kids who had never seen luxury in their lives. As Dapper has stated our proactive ,cooperative stance should serve as a model for future investigations and an incentive for future programs to cooperate.
Charles Robinson was a willing lapdog here and didnt have traditional editorial constraints to reduce his hyperbole. Shapiro taints others by contagion. Now that he is quarantined we can get over this illness and recover.

 

[nadiamufdi]

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...

If NCAA athletes get preferential treatment because they are NCAA athletes, then there is a problem. Shapiro's allegations were that he paid for the prostitutes, so I suppose that's even more clear cut - just think of the prostitutes as a drink at a club or something.

What if the guys just say they thought these chicks were really into them because they were athletes and didnt know they were hired guns?

 

[George84]

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?

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.

Wow!! She was the best/worst civ pro professor I ever had!

 

[rsa coral gables]

First Year Law Student (me): Can the court raise that issue sua sponte?
Professor Minnette Massey: Sua sponte? Asti spumanti? Wanna get a drink?

Close to negging for sua sponte.

i dont know what the term "negging" means . . .

English ****, do you speak it?