forums

UM pushing for settlement with the cartel

Time served, no scholarship losses. Two bowls and a conference CG already offered up, plus the fact that rouge coaches have moved on should suffice.
 
Advertisement
dycane said:
I don't think the NCAA has a choice. The NCAA, at a minimum, has to exclude anything that was touched by those who were directly or indirectly aware of the objectionable tactics. And that's a wide net. Almost all-encompassing. Those who were complicit were in charge of the investigation; this is not the case of a rogue, insignificant employee who went off the reservation.

This is bigger than UM. If the NCAA moves forward despite the fact that its investigative team intentionally and fraudulently circumvented its own rules, then it loses all moral authority to regulate. It also guarantees litigation. And in that case, there will be discovery, which is the NCAA's worst nightmare. There's a reason the NCAA is doing everything in its power to prevent the disclosure of the documents in the McNair litigation. The production of those documents, together with the recent revelation, will illuminate how pervasive the abuse of power is within the NCAA. The threat of revealing its tactics and the extent of its unethical behavior in this and other investigations far outweighs the backlash the NCAA will face if it declares the Miami case closed.
Click to expand...

At this point, I think the NCAA will want the case to go before the COI (maybe there is a "suggestion" that this become a summary disposition so that all parties MUST agree on the facts). If the parties agree on the facts (even if the NCAA is forced to leave out some things they would otherwise want to include as not being tainted), then the process can still get back on track and follow the NCAA's own procedures. I think the NCAA has a very strong interest in having this case disposed of according to its procedures.

I don't agree that the exclusion of anything touched by anyone with knowledge of improprieties would be necessary (from the NCAA's perspective), but, if the scenario I mentioned above comes into play, UM could essentially get a veto power of sorts over the facts that go in the written report to the COI. I think that's the closest the NCAA will get to a settlement.

FYI, the written report is a joint report by enforcement, the institution, and involved individuals. It contains
(a) The proposed findings of fact;
(b) A summary of information on which the findings are based;
(c) A stipulation that the proposed findings are substantially correct;
(d) The findings that are violations of NCAA legislation; and
(e) A statement of unresolved issues that are not considered substantial enough to affect the outcome of the case.

When I first heard about the issues with the NCAA's investigation yesterday, I thought summary disposition was still very unlikely because all parties have to agree (including the involved individuals). However, if there is evidence obtained against NCAA rules that pertains to the individuals as well, it could very well happen. In that case, the involved individuals' interests start aligning a little with UM (at least pertaining to the ill-gotten evidence), and, if all accused parties can push enough to get a favorable written report, I think it could happen.
 
I think Emmert hopes the results of this truncated independent investigation will somehow legitimize the evidence the NCAA intends to use against UM. But from my viewpoint, that will not fly. The entire investigation is tainted. I think UM will (and has to) litigate if the NCAA presses on against UM unless the former agrees to a tacit agreement similar to the one you suggested. I understand procedure. But this is unprecedented and potentially lethal to Emmert and the NCAA. I think he and the NCAA will ultimately understand that it cannot punish UM beyond what has been self-imposed. And the NCAA will figure out a way to accomplish that within its procedural framework.
 
Dapper, can you explain why all affected parties need to agree in a summary disposition scenario? Why couldn't the U agree to stipulated facts involving others (i.e. the now former coaches), and the stipulation not be binding on those others - similar to admissions in a civil proceeding not being binding on any other party, even though the subject of the admissions involve the other party. In other words why should our stipulations have to also bind others who have not stipulated to those allegations. Let them go on and fight their own fight w/ the NCAA if they want to dispute what the U has agreed to...

Thanks in advance.
 
Advertisement
samichesrdelicious said:
Dapper, can you explain why all affected parties need to agree in a summary disposition scenario? Why couldn't the U agree to stipulated facts involving others (i.e. the now former coaches), and the stipulation not be binding on those others - similar to admissions in a civil proceeding not being binding on any other party, even though the subject of the admissions involve the other party. In other words why should our stipulations have to also bind others who have not stipulated to those allegations. Let them go on and fight their own fight w/ the NCAA if they want to dispute what the U has agreed to...

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Well, because that's the NCAA's rule...of course, they could just ignore their own rules...

It's different from an admission because enforcement has to agree with the facts presented in the written report. Enforcement would then be bound by those facts, or they would say they are only bound by those facts as to that party? Involved individuals very frequently have interests that differ from the institution involved - just about always when the involved individuals are no longer at the institution. That makes it nearly impossible for one set of facts to be agreed upon, but enforcement makes a presentation based upon 1 set of facts at a full infractions hearing.
 
dycane said:
I think Emmert hopes the results of this truncated independent investigation will somehow legitimize the evidence the NCAA intends to use against UM. But from my viewpoint, that will not fly. The entire investigation is tainted. I think UM will (and has to) litigate if the NCAA presses on against UM unless the former agrees to a tacit agreement similar to the one you suggested. I understand procedure. But this is unprecedented and potentially lethal to Emmert and the NCAA. I think he and the NCAA will ultimately understand that it cannot punish UM beyond what has been self-imposed. And the NCAA will figure out a way to accomplish that within its procedural framework.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I was saying. UM can potentially get off with no further serious sanctions (probation is a mandatory sanction for major infractions, but does not affect anything in a real sense), which would prevent UM from suing, and since procedures were followed (assuming something similar to the summary disposition I mentioned above), other institutions would have a much tougher time in pursuing any lawsuit against the NCAA. NCAA protects itself from UM and from other institutions who may cry foul all at the same time.
 
Dapper, do they only hold one infractions hearing for all parties involved at the institution? Is there not a mechanism where they hold separate hearings for differently affected parties (i.e different coaches from different sports)? While I understand time and resource constraints, and I know they certainly do not apply due process principles, does the NCAA really have to wrap up a case all at once where the allegations are spread across different sports, time frames, coaches, etc.? I know this is probably blazing some new territory, but it seems like an arduous process to try to get everything done at once if you have one party who wants to stipulate and move on. What if you had an outlier coach with a minor allegation; why couldn't he just say "OK, you got me, give me a year probation, and let me stop paying my lawyer already"...
 
samichesrdelicious said:
Dapper, do they only hold one infractions hearing for all parties involved at the institution? Is there not a mechanism where they hold separate hearings for differently affected parties (i.e different coaches from different sports)? While I understand time and resource constraints, and I know they certainly do not apply due process principles, does the NCAA really have to wrap up a case all at once where the allegations are spread across different sports, time frames, coaches, etc.? I know this is probably blazing some new territory, but it seems like an arduous process to try to get everything done at once if you have one party who wants to stipulate and move on. What if you had an outlier coach with a minor allegation; why couldn't he just say "OK, you got me, give me a year probation, and let me stop paying my lawyer already"...
Click to expand...

1 hearing.

A party can just accept what's in the NOA and not go to the hearing. The COI will still make a determination on whether the allegations that were not contested are legitimate and support the violations alleged. I'm not aware of instances of hearings being continued past one COI meeting, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I am also unaware of any cases in which severance of parties charged with violation was permitted - again, it may have happened, I just am not aware of an instance off the top of my head. There is nothing in the bylaws that explicitly permits severance...in criminal procedure, severance exists due to constitutional considerations - those considerations do not apply to an organizations internal enforcement where no criminal penalties are possible.

The COI is not a trial - it's more like a sentencing hearing, if that means anything to you.
 
Advertisement
Well, yup, is the short answer. Thank you. Seems like a flawed process, but the good news is that it seems like that may all change in the near future given what is being uncovered in this case, and what is the subject of several others. Glad the U could serve as a test case establishing this abuse of process for once and for all (sarcasm).
 
dycane said:
I don't think the NCAA has a choice. The NCAA, at a minimum, has to exclude anything that was touched by those who were directly or indirectly aware of the objectionable tactics. And that's a wide net. Almost all-encompassing. Those who were complicit were in charge of the investigation; this is not the case of a rogue, insignificant employee who went off the reservation.

This is bigger than UM. If the NCAA moves forward despite the fact that its investigative team intentionally and fraudulently circumvented its own rules, then it loses all moral authority to regulate. It also guarantees litigation. And in that case, there will be discovery, which is the NCAA's worst nightmare. There's a reason the NCAA is doing everything in its power to prevent the disclosure of the documents in the McNair litigation. The production of those documents, together with the recent revelation, will illuminate how pervasive the abuse of power is within the NCAA. The threat of revealing its tactics and the extent of its unethical behavior in this and other investigations far outweighs the backlash the NCAA will face if it declares the Miami case closed.
Click to expand...

Very smart post. Folks are losing track of the very important fact that the investigators were engaged in major malfeasance and fraud. It's not just the deposition transcripts or a few questions that are at issue here. Don't fall for Emmert's banana in the tailpipe speech about a small portion of tainted evidence. EVERYTHING that those maggot investigators did or touched or supervised is tainted. Let's also not forget the extortion that that ufag ***** perpetrated with her dumb letter. I have a feeling this entire case is tainted in one way or another.

This case is prime for settlement, as UM is completely in the driver's seat and holds the hammer. In the legal world, he who holds the hammer calls the shots.
 
samichesrdelicious said:
Dapper, do they only hold one infractions hearing for all parties involved at the institution? Is there not a mechanism where they hold separate hearings for differently affected parties (i.e different coaches from different sports)? While I understand time and resource constraints, and I know they certainly do not apply due process principles, does the NCAA really have to wrap up a case all at once where the allegations are spread across different sports, time frames, coaches, etc.? I know this is probably blazing some new territory, but it seems like an arduous process to try to get everything done at once if you have one party who wants to stipulate and move on. What if you had an outlier coach with a minor allegation; why couldn't he just say "OK, you got me, give me a year probation, and let me stop paying my lawyer already"...
Click to expand...

I understand that the NCAA has its normal practices and procedures. But, as the Ped State proved, they will act outside those normal standards and their own guidelines in exceptional cases. This is clearly and exceptional case, and UM now holds the hammer from both a public perception standpoint and a legal standpoint. The last thing the NCAA wants is another legal scandal where their rogue investigators are deposed and their documents are made available in discovery and possibly available to the public according to public records laws.

This isn't one of those situations where it would behoove the NCAA to be arrogant or to take a robotic "we have our policies and procedures that we must follow in all cases" approach. Emmert would be smart to make this want to go away.
 
Advertisement
"Also, Emmert said the depositions in question --- the ones that will be tossed out -- were only a small fraction of the evidence against UM."

So Emmert had no clue what was going on and is having to investigate his investigation but already knows it was just a small fraction of evidence against Miami? What a load of ****! This is nothing more than damage control from a dirty organization with too much power that doesn't want to relinquish any of it's power.

Miami has this clown right where they want him. There "evidence" is from a lying conman who is currently behind bars. Most of what this fraud has claimed has been nothing more embellished BS. The NCAA wanted to drop the hammer and did anything they could to find dirt. Miami needs to stand their ground and demand time served. Time served doesn't mean loss of scholarships. Time served is time served. They've been more than compliant with these dirt bags during this witch hunt which has been exposed for being a witch hunt.

Fock the NCAA! Time served or see them in court.
 
The NCAA has given this external investigation 7-10 days, two weeks TOPS, to get back to them. Sounds like a really comprehensive investigation they're ordering up. And the 14 days tops is also a far cry from the two years UM has been dragged through the mud.

And how laughable is it that the NCAA could slap UM with LOIC when they told their investigators 2x not to use Shapiro's atty for improper info (or so they claim) yet never followed up until they got caught over a year later?
 
Dapper,

Can the case be made that any secondary Information/evidence obtained as a result of the primary information/evidence obtained in those bankruptcy depositions can't be used against Miami..I.E fruit of the poisoness tree theory. I have to think that all this evidence is intertwined and much of it leads back to those depositions.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Don Caneleone said:
Dapper,

Can the case be made that any secondary Information/evidence obtained as a result of the primary information/information obtained in those bankruptcy depositions can't be used against Miami..I.E fruit of the poisoness tree theory. I have to think that all this evidence is intertwined and much of it leads back to those depositions.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any precedent regarding the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for the NCAA. While they are not bound to use it (they aren't really bound to use any exclusionary rule at all in the first place), it would make sense to use it. The Herald interviewed a professor at UF for one of its articles, and that professor stupidly said that there is really no reason for the NCAA to exclude even the depos. As I've stated in numerous threads, the issue is doing things on an inconsistent basis - not excluding the evidence would be saying that when investigating Miami, the rules do not apply. When the NCAA operates outside its own rules, it opens itself up to liability.

I disagree with those who think the NCAA has an interest in doing anything outside the rules in order to settle. Using Penn State is a bad example - it took agreements that will not happen in the Miami case (I posted in another what it actually took to accomplish), and it led to a giant lawsuit against the NCAA. Given the NCAA investigators had plenty of "leads" (whether real or not) to start with, I don't see how the whole investigation is tainted. As a fan, I would love for that to be true - as an attorney who has worked on cases involving botched investigations of all kinds, I don't see it in this case.

Like I said, if the NCAA work through this quickly within its own rules, while letting Miami lightly, then Miami has no incentive to sue, and other schools will have no basis to sue either (because Miami would not have gotten any preferential treatment).
 
We have the hammer, but Donna is a politician. I think both her and Emmert know that if we dont get anymore sanctions, Ohio Taint, UNC, USC, UCF, Boise St, etc will probably think about legal action as well. Unless USC can get those documents unsealed, they might be the only one who has a legitimate case, as the others went through the process and didnt have any fraud committed against them.

But, people tend to forget we have already had some punishments. 2 post seasons in a row, which is an extra 3-4 weeks of practice time each year. Not to mention the black cloud that has been hanging over our Athletic Programs for the last 2 years. We wont skate, but compared to what it couldve been, we'll probably be treading through a couple of inches of snow with LL Beans brand new snow shoes on and a cold bud light in our hand.
 
DapperSlapper said:
dycane said:
I think Emmert hopes the results of this truncated independent investigation will somehow legitimize the evidence the NCAA intends to use against UM. But from my viewpoint, that will not fly. The entire investigation is tainted. I think UM will (and has to) litigate if the NCAA presses on against UM unless the former agrees to a tacit agreement similar to the one you suggested. I understand procedure. But this is unprecedented and potentially lethal to Emmert and the NCAA. I think he and the NCAA will ultimately understand that it cannot punish UM beyond what has been self-imposed. And the NCAA will figure out a way to accomplish that within its procedural framework.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I was saying. UM can potentially get off with no further serious sanctions (probation is a mandatory sanction for major infractions, but does not affect anything in a real sense), which would prevent UM from suing, and since procedures were followed (assuming something similar to the summary disposition I mentioned above), other institutions would have a much tougher time in pursuing any lawsuit against the NCAA. NCAA protects itself from UM and from other institutions who may cry foul all at the same time.
Click to expand...
I think that's exactly where this is headed.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top