NCAA rumors from CS

[eliteproxy]

Reggie took $250K. Our 79 guys were accused of taking that much combined

5 offensive lineman sharing a bowl of soup at Benihana!

yeah but they got refill on the drinks... i mean even I can't overlook that

 

[Joecane]

Reggie Bush being wiped from the books is probably the worst comparison ever. Reggie took money while Ferman is suggesting our guys are going to be banned and wiped from the books for not cooperating. GTFOH

 

[eliteproxy]

so we got trolled today by Tim Reynolds?

 

[bbcane]

http://miami.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1213&tid=190314050&mid=190314050&sid=903&style=2



Things I am hearing on the NCAA front

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No announcement likely this week. Obviously I am not certain of this, but the info I am getting seems pretty solid in this regard. Some think it could go into September.
As many as 15 former players who were involved with Shapiro could receive 10 year-bans from campus and program affiliation due to non-cooperation with the NCAA. There are several big names who could end up on this list. I am not going to speculate on specifics because I really don't know what will happen here and who will be on the list. But I have heard that the NCAA is pointing very strongly in this direction. If they do follow through, some of the biggest names in Canes football history could be wiped from the record books. It could go down the way it did for Reggie Bush at USC where all of his records were erased from the University record book as if he had never played there.
The University would not be likely to fight this as it would make little sense for them to fight things that deflect punishment onto the involved parties and away from the institution.
People who are involved and in the know have no idea when this thing is going to hit. Ignore anybody that tries to tell you that they know. They are probably trying to guess so they look like a genius.
Miami has moved its compliance offices into the new Schwartz Center, bringing the people who work on compliance in the dept closer to the football program. This makes a statement to the NCAA that UM is serious about compliance.
Five years of probation is being discussed in Indianapolis but no final decision has supposedly been made yet.
There is a strong assumption that there will be some scholarship reductions, as has been discussed throughout the process.

I seriously hope Ferman is wrong. Let's put it in to perspective... here's what USC got.

• Two bowl bans (MIAMI SELF-IMPOSED TWO BOWL BANS)

• A loss of 30 total football scholarships over three seasons (WE DON'T KNOW YET)

• A vacation of all football victories starting in December 2004 and running through the 2005 season. This includes the national championship win over Oklahoma on Jan. 4, 2005. (WE DON'T KNOW YET)

• All statistics vacated for Bush, Mayo and women’s tennis athlete Gabriela Niculescu in the games which the NCAA deemed them ineligible due to rules violations. (FERMAN SAYING WE ARE GETTING THE SAME FOR OUR GUYS)

• Bush and Mayo must be disassociated from USC athletics. (FERMAN SAYING WE ARE GETTING THE SAME FOR OUR GUYS)

• Four years of probation (FERMAN SAYING WE'RE GETTING FIVE YEARS)



So, this is why I'm worried. If Ferman is right about the probation and the other penalties, that means that in every area, our penalties will have been worse or equal to USC's.

That means if Ferman is right, expect to lose 30 ships over 3 years. That would cripple us.

Dude. Get it together. Man up. Step away from the ledge and take those high heels off

 

[DapperSlapper]

Dapper, if you're around, can you illuminate the basis upon which the NCAA can require a member institution to ban an alum from its property for a decade?

First thing re: USC - the school self imposed the disassociation of Bush and Mayo. The NCAA merely added a show cause element if USC failed to actually abide by the disassociation (which is something the rule explicitly states anyway, so the NCAA wasn't actually adding anything, unless USC thought it was intentionally leaving something out from its self imposed sanction and no one would notice).

The NCAA can force a school to disassociate pursuant to (2012-2013 NCAA Manual) Rule 19.5.2.4:

19.5.2.4 Disassociation of Representatives of Athletics Interests. The disassociation of relations with a representative of an institution’s athletics interests may be imposed on a permanent basis, for the duration of the applicable probationary period or for another specified period of time. When an institution is required to show cause why a representative of the institution’s athletics interests should not be disassociated from its athletics program, such disassociation shall require that the institution:
(a) Refrain from accepting any assistance from the individual that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;
(b) Not accept financial assistance for the institution’s athletics program from the individual;
(c) Ensure that no athletics benefit or privilege be provided to the individual that is not generally available to the public at large; and
(d) Take such other actions against the individual that the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the individual in the institution’s athletics program.

 

[eliteproxy]

Dapper, if you're around, can you illuminate the basis upon which the NCAA can require a member institution to ban an alum from its property for a decade?

First thing re: USC - the school self imposed the disassociation of Bush and Mayo. The NCAA merely added a show cause element if USC failed to actually abide by the disassociation (which is something the rule explicitly states anyway, so the NCAA wasn't actually adding anything, unless USC thought it was intentionally leaving something out from its self imposed sanction and no one would notice).

The NCAA can force a school to disassociate pursuant to (2012-2013 NCAA Manual) Rule 19.5.2.4:

19.5.2.4 Disassociation of Representatives of Athletics Interests. The disassociation of relations with a representative of an institution’s athletics interests may be imposed on a permanent basis, for the duration of the applicable probationary period or for another specified period of time. When an institution is required to show cause why a representative of the institution’s athletics interests should not be disassociated from its athletics program, such disassociation shall require that the institution:
(a) Refrain from accepting any assistance from the individual that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;
(b) Not accept financial assistance for the institution’s athletics program from the individual;
(c) Ensure that no athletics benefit or privilege be provided to the individual that is not generally available to the public at large; and
(d) Take such other actions against the individual that the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the individual in the institution’s athletics program.

NCAA rules 22.1343.2234.2X!!
all the rules stated in this document can be completely altered, interpreted as we see fit and in some cases completely ignored and new ones invented.

NCAA rules 12.2343.233
University of Miami aka The U, will always be a target.

 

[DapperSlapper]

Dapper, if you're around, can you illuminate the basis upon which the NCAA can require a member institution to ban an alum from its property for a decade?

First thing re: USC - the school self imposed the disassociation of Bush and Mayo. The NCAA merely added a show cause element if USC failed to actually abide by the disassociation (which is something the rule explicitly states anyway, so the NCAA wasn't actually adding anything, unless USC thought it was intentionally leaving something out from its self imposed sanction and no one would notice).

The NCAA can force a school to disassociate pursuant to (2012-2013 NCAA Manual) Rule 19.5.2.4:

19.5.2.4 Disassociation of Representatives of Athletics Interests. The disassociation of relations with a representative of an institution’s athletics interests may be imposed on a permanent basis, for the duration of the applicable probationary period or for another specified period of time. When an institution is required to show cause why a representative of the institution’s athletics interests should not be disassociated from its athletics program, such disassociation shall require that the institution:
(a) Refrain from accepting any assistance from the individual that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;
(b) Not accept financial assistance for the institution’s athletics program from the individual;
(c) Ensure that no athletics benefit or privilege be provided to the individual that is not generally available to the public at large; and
(d) Take such other actions against the individual that the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the individual in the institution’s athletics program.

NCAA rules 22.1343.2234.2X!!
all the rules stated in this document can be completely altered, interpreted as we see fit and in some cases completely ignored and new ones invented.

NCAA rules 12.2343.233
University of Miami aka The U, will always be a target.

Funny thing is that many rules have changed significantly, which is why I specified that rule is from the 2012-2013 manual. The disassociation rule still exists in the new manual, but, as was stated many times in the media, there are new guidelines for punishment in the new manual. I don't believe the new manual will be applied to UM's case, but it could (in theory) by using the date on the written report to get it past August 1 (even though the hearing was well before that). Of course, that is only possible if the new rules would result in lesser penalties than the old rules - which would force the COI to come up with 2 sets of penalties and apply the lesser set.

I can't remember if I read about potential disassociation of former players in the media or an attorney involved had spoken to me about it, but it has been out there as a possibility for quite a while (at least since the extortion letter was sent to former players).

 

[dycane]

Dapper, if you're around, can you illuminate the basis upon which the NCAA can require a member institution to ban an alum from its property for a decade?

First thing re: USC - the school self imposed the disassociation of Bush and Mayo. The NCAA merely added a show cause element if USC failed to actually abide by the disassociation (which is something the rule explicitly states anyway, so the NCAA wasn't actually adding anything, unless USC thought it was intentionally leaving something out from its self imposed sanction and no one would notice).

The NCAA can force a school to disassociate pursuant to (2012-2013 NCAA Manual) Rule 19.5.2.4:

19.5.2.4 Disassociation of Representatives of Athletics Interests. The disassociation of relations with a representative of an institution’s athletics interests may be imposed on a permanent basis, for the duration of the applicable probationary period or for another specified period of time. When an institution is required to show cause why a representative of the institution’s athletics interests should not be disassociated from its athletics program, such disassociation shall require that the institution:
(a) Refrain from accepting any assistance from the individual that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;
(b) Not accept financial assistance for the institution’s athletics program from the individual;
(c) Ensure that no athletics benefit or privilege be provided to the individual that is not generally available to the public at large; and
(d) Take such other actions against the individual that the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the individual in the institution’s athletics program.

As always, much appreciated insight.

 

[sabrose]

If the NCAA is only using the word of Nevin Shapiro to initiate these bans they will be in a world of hurt.

 

[eliteproxy]

I will concede to any sanctions if the season can start already

 

[casualcane]

Ferman trolling us

 

[RiDLer80]

I am not OK with disassociating ourselves with any former players. As long as they didn't snitch.

 

[Canesfan1899]

Lol I'll trust Reynolds over Ferman's clown ***.

This, Ferman is trying to rustle up some jimmies to get some more subscriptions.

 

[The Franchise]

Good stuff, Dapper. The only question that I would axe is: What would be the basis for disassociation?

I doubt the ncaa would have a legitimate case for disassociation based solely on a former player exercising his right not to be interviewed by an organization that holds no power to force him to sit for an interview. When you combine him exercising his right to refuse to sit for an interview with the extortion letter that drew so much publicity I doubt they'd push that issue too hard.

 

[canestim]

Lol I'll trust Reynolds over Ferman's clown ***.

This, Ferman is trying to rustle up some jimmies to get some more subscriptions.

As usual, like the poster said earlier "Gruden to Miami", what a idiot Ferman is. Guy gets lucky with a commitment every once in a while and that's it, he has no sources.

 

[Consigliere]

Is that a real Ferman post?

 

[DapperSlapper]

Good stuff, Dapper. The only question that I would axe is: What would be the basis for disassociation?

I doubt the ncaa would have a legitimate case for disassociation based solely on a former player exercising his right not to be interviewed by an organization that holds no power to force him to sit for an interview. When you combine him exercising his right to refuse to sit for an interview with the extortion letter that drew so much publicity I doubt they'd push that issue too hard.

Normally, it is the institution that decides on disassociation - USCw, Alabama, and USCe all disassociated representatives of athletics interests. Bama made no conclusions that violations had occurred (insert joke here), but still said good bye to that booster with the clothing store before anything really ever came of it. That letter can be read here: http://media.al.com/sports_impact/other/Disassociation-Letter-07-26-11.pdf.

This sanction is self imposed so the institution can save itself while taking sanctions that affect it less. Not counting the Bama booster, it is usually done when violations on the part of the booster have been proven to some extent. USCw admitted certain violations by Bush and that he was ineligible in 2005 (they denied he was ineligible in 2004). He also failed to cooperate. Those things in combination resulted in disassociation.

Players against whom violations were proven (if the number disassociated, assuming some, is less than the total against whom allegations were made, then violations were probably unproven as to those others) could and would be subject to disassociation in this case, whether they cooperated or not. Lack of cooperation could certainly lead to a longer period of disassociation than would be applied to anyone who committed a violation, but cooperated. I think it's more likely that this sanction would be self imposed by the institution (no information on this has been leaked by anyone to which it applies, so it seems somewhat unlikely that this has already occurred, especially given the number of players to which it could apply) to lessen the sanctions that apply directly to it.

 

[BigCaneAl]

Good stuff, Dapper. The only question that I would axe is: What would be the basis for disassociation?

I doubt the ncaa would have a legitimate case for disassociation based solely on a former player exercising his right not to be interviewed by an organization that holds no power to force him to sit for an interview. When you combine him exercising his right to refuse to sit for an interview with the extortion letter that drew so much publicity I doubt they'd push that issue too hard.

Normally, it is the institution that decides on disassociation - USCw, Alabama, and USCe all disassociated representatives of athletics interests. Bama made no conclusions that violations had occurred (insert joke here), but still said good bye to that booster with the clothing store before anything really ever came of it. That letter can be read here: http://media.al.com/sports_impact/other/Disassociation-Letter-07-26-11.pdf.

This sanction is self imposed so the institution can save itself while taking sanctions that affect it less. Not counting the Bama booster, it is usually done when violations on the part of the booster have been proven to some extent. USCw admitted certain violations by Bush and that he was ineligible in 2005 (they denied he was ineligible in 2004). He also failed to cooperate. Those things in combination resulted in disassociation.

Players against whom violations were proven (if the number disassociated, assuming some, is less than the total against whom allegations were made, then violations were probably unproven as to those others) could and would be subject to disassociation in this case, whether they cooperated or not. Lack of cooperation could certainly lead to a longer period of disassociation than would be applied to anyone who committed a violation, but cooperated. I think it's more likely that this sanction would be self imposed by the institution (no information on this has been leaked by anyone to which it applies, so it seems somewhat unlikely that this has already occurred, especially given the number of players to which it could apply) to lessen the sanctions that apply directly to it.

Dapper, regarding leaks and rumors....how likely is it that a guy like Mike Glazier can't get some idea from inside the NCAA what the sanctions are going to be? My understanding of the process was that after the COI meeting the infractions are pretty much decided and the proceeding couple of months are spent finalizing the official language. So in theory, the major bullet points are probably known within the NCAA.

I just figure a guy like that has to have some second or third year enforcement employee angling for a job down the line that's leaking some info to him....

 

[DapperSlapper]

Good stuff, Dapper. The only question that I would axe is: What would be the basis for disassociation?

I doubt the ncaa would have a legitimate case for disassociation based solely on a former player exercising his right not to be interviewed by an organization that holds no power to force him to sit for an interview. When you combine him exercising his right to refuse to sit for an interview with the extortion letter that drew so much publicity I doubt they'd push that issue too hard.

Normally, it is the institution that decides on disassociation - USCw, Alabama, and USCe all disassociated representatives of athletics interests. Bama made no conclusions that violations had occurred (insert joke here), but still said good bye to that booster with the clothing store before anything really ever came of it. That letter can be read here: http://media.al.com/sports_impact/other/Disassociation-Letter-07-26-11.pdf.

This sanction is self imposed so the institution can save itself while taking sanctions that affect it less. Not counting the Bama booster, it is usually done when violations on the part of the booster have been proven to some extent. USCw admitted certain violations by Bush and that he was ineligible in 2005 (they denied he was ineligible in 2004). He also failed to cooperate. Those things in combination resulted in disassociation.

Players against whom violations were proven (if the number disassociated, assuming some, is less than the total against whom allegations were made, then violations were probably unproven as to those others) could and would be subject to disassociation in this case, whether they cooperated or not. Lack of cooperation could certainly lead to a longer period of disassociation than would be applied to anyone who committed a violation, but cooperated. I think it's more likely that this sanction would be self imposed by the institution (no information on this has been leaked by anyone to which it applies, so it seems somewhat unlikely that this has already occurred, especially given the number of players to which it could apply) to lessen the sanctions that apply directly to it.

Dapper, regarding leaks and rumors....how likely is it that a guy like Mike Glazier can't get some idea from inside the NCAA what the sanctions are going to be? My understanding of the process was that after the COI meeting the infractions are pretty much decided and the proceeding couple of months are spent finalizing the official language. So in theory, the major bullet points are probably known within the NCAA.

I just figure a guy like that has to have some second or third year enforcement employee angling for a job down the line that's leaking some info to him....

The COI is made up of unpaid volunteers who all have full time jobs elsewhere. A public infractions report can be 75+ pages, so the process I outline below can take some time to occur.

During its deliberations (which occur the same weekend as the weekend that the hearing occurs), the committee will make preliminary decisions regarding findings of violations and, if violations are found, penalties to be imposed. Each case is assigned to one COI member who works with an Infractions Committee staff director (there are 2) to draft a preliminary infractions report. Once the preliminary report has been completed (sometimes after several drafts), the full committee will have a telephone conference (or multiple conference calls) to review and finalize the report. The report has to be a consensus decision, so it can take a lot of time to get it drafted in a manner with which all members are in agreement.

Enforcement has no input in anything after the hearing, so the scenario in your post is extremely unlikely. All the work is being done remotely with COI members talking on the phone and emailing back and forth. Enforcement is not privy to those things.

 

[BigCaneAl]

Good stuff, Dapper. The only question that I would axe is: What would be the basis for disassociation?

I doubt the ncaa would have a legitimate case for disassociation based solely on a former player exercising his right not to be interviewed by an organization that holds no power to force him to sit for an interview. When you combine him exercising his right to refuse to sit for an interview with the extortion letter that drew so much publicity I doubt they'd push that issue too hard.

Normally, it is the institution that decides on disassociation - USCw, Alabama, and USCe all disassociated representatives of athletics interests. Bama made no conclusions that violations had occurred (insert joke here), but still said good bye to that booster with the clothing store before anything really ever came of it. That letter can be read here: http://media.al.com/sports_impact/other/Disassociation-Letter-07-26-11.pdf.

This sanction is self imposed so the institution can save itself while taking sanctions that affect it less. Not counting the Bama booster, it is usually done when violations on the part of the booster have been proven to some extent. USCw admitted certain violations by Bush and that he was ineligible in 2005 (they denied he was ineligible in 2004). He also failed to cooperate. Those things in combination resulted in disassociation.

Players against whom violations were proven (if the number disassociated, assuming some, is less than the total against whom allegations were made, then violations were probably unproven as to those others) could and would be subject to disassociation in this case, whether they cooperated or not. Lack of cooperation could certainly lead to a longer period of disassociation than would be applied to anyone who committed a violation, but cooperated. I think it's more likely that this sanction would be self imposed by the institution (no information on this has been leaked by anyone to which it applies, so it seems somewhat unlikely that this has already occurred, especially given the number of players to which it could apply) to lessen the sanctions that apply directly to it.

Dapper, regarding leaks and rumors....how likely is it that a guy like Mike Glazier can't get some idea from inside the NCAA what the sanctions are going to be? My understanding of the process was that after the COI meeting the infractions are pretty much decided and the proceeding couple of months are spent finalizing the official language. So in theory, the major bullet points are probably known within the NCAA.

I just figure a guy like that has to have some second or third year enforcement employee angling for a job down the line that's leaking some info to him....

The COI is made up of unpaid volunteers who all have full time jobs elsewhere. A public infractions report can be 75+ pages, so the process I outline below can take some time to occur.

During its deliberations (which occur the same weekend as the weekend that the hearing occurs), the committee will make preliminary decisions regarding findings of violations and, if violations are found, penalties to be imposed. Each case is assigned to one COI member who works with an Infractions Committee staff director (there are 2) to draft a preliminary infractions report. Once the preliminary report has been completed (sometimes after several drafts), the full committee will have a telephone conference (or multiple conference calls) to review and finalize the report. The report has to be a consensus decision, so it can take a lot of time to get it drafted in a manner with which all members are in agreement.

Enforcement has no input in anything after the hearing, so the scenario in your post is extremely unlikely. All the work is being done remotely with COI members talking on the phone and emailing back and forth. Enforcement is not privy to those things.

Thanks Dapper, to my general premise though, you don't believe it's likely that UM or Mike Glazier have any idea what the penalties might be?