Water is wet and the NCAA sucks

Stephanie Hannah is the head investigator in the UM investigation and there is no mention in the NCAA response that she too was going to use Perez for depositions and had crafted questions and parties for Perez to be deposed after she took the job.She is still in her position.There is also reliable sources that say that the man collaborating Wright is no other than Charles Robinson the man who wrote the Yahoo story and probably paid Shapiro some compensation for the pictures,records,and story.This is why some of Wright's testimony was not thrown entirely out.Robinson has definitely has a vested interest that his sensational story is collaborated.He has about as much credibility as Shapiro.
 
Advertisement
Stephanie Hannah is the head investigator in the UM investigation and there is no mention in the NCAA response that she too was going to use Perez for depositions and had crafted questions and parties for Perez to be deposed after she took the job.She is still in her position.There is also reliable sources that say that the man collaborating Wright is no other than Charles Robinson the man who wrote the Yahoo story and probably paid Shapiro some compensation for the pictures,records,and story.This is why some of Wright's testimony was not thrown entirely out.Robinson has definitely has a vested interest that his sensational story is collaborated.He has about as much credibility as Shapiro.

Where and who told U ?
 
Stephanie Hannah is the head investigator in the UM investigation and there is no mention in the NCAA response that she too was going to use Perez for depositions and had crafted questions and parties for Perez to be deposed after she took the job.She is still in her position.There is also reliable sources that say that the man collaborating Wright is no other than Charles Robinson the man who wrote the Yahoo story and probably paid Shapiro some compensation for the pictures,records,and story.This is why some of Wright's testimony was not thrown entirely out.Robinson has definitely has a vested interest that his sensational story is collaborated.He has about as much credibility as Shapiro.

Barry Jackson or Tim Reynolds should interview Charles Robinson and ask him what information or assistance he has provided the NCAA. He'll probably play the confidential source card but that's a one way street that goes the other way. Or he'll do the no comment bit. but you know he's chest deep in this with the NCAA
 
Stephanie Hannah is the head investigator in the UM investigation and there is no mention in the NCAA response that she too was going to use Perez for depositions and had crafted questions and parties for Perez to be deposed after she took the job.She is still in her position.There is also reliable sources that say that the man collaborating Wright is no other than Charles Robinson the man who wrote the Yahoo story and probably paid Shapiro some compensation for the pictures,records,and story.This is why some of Wright's testimony was not thrown entirely out.Robinson has definitely has a vested interest that his sensational story is collaborated.He has about as much credibility as Shapiro.

Barry Jackson or Tim Reynolds should interview Charles Robinson and ask him what information or assistance he has provided the NCAA. He'll probably play the confidential source card but that's a one way street that goes the other way. Or he'll do the no comment bit. but you know he's chest deep in this with the NCAA

Tim Reynold's head is stuck so far up Lebron's ***....
 
I'm no legal mind. But got a couple of questions for those to are so blessed: (and while I know anyone can sue for anything - will these have any merit?)

If you have Federal connections, is it possible to get the Justice Department to file anti-trust actions against the NCAA - based on the overbearing, illegal, and immoral methods the NCAA resort to - in order self-promote, self-enrich, and self-enable to arbitrarily punish Universities? They've clearly been violating their own rules, they've clearly resorted to fraudulent methods, they've misrepresented facts, and they've even leaked confidential information to ensure their corrupt organization, and do so for the purpose of maximizing revenue?

Next - is it possible to file an injunction against the NCAA to have their funding from member universities and licensing revenues stopped and frozen until such time as THIS member's case is resolved in court? Point out that since the U, a small, private member has been hit hard from potential revenue from the malicious actions of the NCAA, this misguided organization should have its own funding be frozen/suspended/denied, as such funding not only permits, but enables further malicious and misguided investigations and subsequent determinations against not only The U, but other members?

How about another injunction to suspend any and all further NCAA investigations of any school or university until the court cases have run their course; the investigation arm has been 'cleansed'; clear and rational investigation methods are developed and affirmed; until the leadership of the NCAA that permitted such malicious efforts are terminated from their positions; until new rules demand that investigations must be completed in a shorter, timely manner as to effect violations against only guilty parties; and that such an injunction remain in place until such time as new rules are in place that ensure the innocent are not punished for the actions of the guilty?

And would the potential for a successful revenue injunction be more effective if maybe some other individuals or universities join in for the injunction motion?

Now for the part I'm familiar with:

If you have your enemy vulnerable to any attack, and do not use those vulnerabilities, then YOU are your own worst enemy. The trick is to keep so much crap flying at them, they can't raise their heads to go on the offensive themselves.

And when you got your enemy face down in the dust, you have two choices: put your boot on the back of his neck and smother him in the dust, OR, put your boot in the middle of his back, grab his arms, and pull forcefully and sharply backwards until you hear a little sound like a carrot being snapped.
 
Advertisement
laff laff

John Infante ‏@John_Infante 2h Given what Miami sent to the COI, it is pretty astounding that there is a series of typos in the NCAA’s response.

John Infante ‏@John_Infante 1h I expect Miami to immediately file an addendum to their motion explaining how this also proves the NCAA is either out to get them

John Infante ‏@John_Infante 1h If, in the course of your 42 page response to a motion to dismiss, you “defer to the judgment of the COI” regarding the COI’s authority...

John Infante ‏@John_Infante 1h … Then you have essentially conceded that the COI has that authority. That is, if the filing of a 42-page response wasn’t enough.

They dun goofed

Again
 
Stephanie Hannah is the head investigator in the UM investigation and there is no mention in the NCAA response that she too was going to use Perez for depositions and had crafted questions and parties for Perez to be deposed after she took the job.She is still in her position.There is also reliable sources that say that the man collaborating Wright is no other than Charles Robinson the man who wrote the Yahoo story and probably paid Shapiro some compensation for the pictures,records,and story.This is why some of Wright's testimony was not thrown entirely out.Robinson has definitely has a vested interest that his sensational story is collaborated.He has about as much credibility as Shapiro.

Then what RObinson is saying is what we lawyers call "hearsay" and is not admissible (in regular courts of law). It's even less credible than Shapiro's own words. HAHAHAHA
 
Doesn't the NCAA kind of win if the status is simply continuation of dragging this on? We remain under a black cloud, with recruiting hurt, going on our 3rd full recruiting season. There is no closure for our staff, or our recruiting targets. Doesn't appear to be any end in near sight. So, just because "they have nothing" or "this response is weak", does it really make it any better for us? I don't feel any better about it, but I'm admittedly very naive/ignorant in such matters. Maybe the backend of it all is looking lighter for us, but it feels like we're still just in the middle of a multi-year recruiting punishment and the official sanctions still haven't even really started (past what we self-imposed).

Even if they don't throw the case out, we will have our hearing in front of the COI in early June. No matter what, this will all be over before the season starts.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top