I guess the real question is whether the NCAA considers former players' cooperation in the same/similar light as the institution's cooperation. Obviously the reasonable answer is "no". However, based on their recent actions, I'm not so certain.
Don't confuse Enforcement with the COI. This was my first post on the issue of this letter:
A couple of important things to keep in mind:
1) Enforcement is like the police and prosecutors in one office. They have to investigate the case, then prove it in the infractions hearing. They will always sound over the top - it is their job.
2) There are frequently allegations in a Notice Of Allegations that are not subsequently proven at the infractions hearing.
3) The letter only states that Enforcement will take a nonresponse as an admission. That has no effect on the COI at the hearing - the COI will not necessarily draw the same conclusion. There will still have to be corroborating evidence. The COI will not just take Shapiro's word for things. However, circumstantial evidence such as photos and phone records can add up to corroborate things that Shapiro says. It is evident that there is not circumstantial evidence to support allegations violations by all 100+ former athletes - had there been, yahoo would have included all of them. Moreover, keep in mind that yahoo was actually incorrect on some of the corroborating information. Even if there is corroborating information on 60 former athletes, there is a huge difference between 60 and 114.
4) I had something else to say, but it slipped my mind, so I'll end with this - also keep in mind that there were very few specific allegations about any particular players. Most of them had to do with getting free entry into clubs and free drinks. Those are garden variety violations. Yes, its serious, but that's UNC serious (players getting a few thousand dollars), not USC serious (player getting six figures of impermissible benefits).
Since then, Dennis Dodd wrote a piece and included the following: Former NCAA infractions committee chairman Jo Potutuo replied in an email that she doesn't believe the NCAA overreached on its power in this situation:
"Players still in school have an obligation to cooperate. Those not in school had an obligation to play by the rules when in school, and to cooperate. In these circumstances, I don't think treating silence as evidence of complicity is overreaching, at least as a general matter.
"The enforcement staff has given notice to the players and former players that it will allege silence is evidence confirming case of violations . Ultimately it will be up to the Committee On Infractions to decide if silence should be so treated on the specific facts of particular players and former players and the overall case."
Another source also reminded that it will be up to the infractions committee to consider the complicity of the former players.
Former Miami players will be considered guilty if they don't cooperate with the NCAA - CBSSports.com
I will add to that the following:
I believe the COI will NOT treat silence as corroborating information. Doing so is similar to using anonymous sources in my mind, which is expressly prohibited by Bylaw 32.8.7.4.1:
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 "individuals willing to be identified" language. Note also the end of the quote by the former chair of the COI - "and the overall case." Everything Shapiro says will need to be corroborated, and silence will not (in my opinion) be accepted as the sole corroboration for anything.
Finally, former players have no obligations under Bylaws 19.01.3 - Responsibility to Cooperate and 32.1.4 – Cooperative Principle, so I don't see their unwillingness to talk being used against UM.
