ncaa findings

[PlayerRep]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

one of the things you are forgetting is that an assistant AD hand delivered the players to the booster who provided the free legal service.

That's not true. Even the ncaa report acknowledges that the players contacted the attorney and engaged her services. A student employee had told the players that his mom was an attorney. One of the players knew the mom.

 

[brootgrizr]

How many free meals do you suppose NCAA officials get every year?

 

[PlayerRep]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

I agree. Also, that lawyer/law firm told the ncaa that they were evaluating a possible civil case as they did the criminal work, and that they were doing this on a contingency fee basis. It is not uncommon, in similar situations, to do the criminal part as part of the civil contingency fee evaluation/case, and not charge for the criminal part. The criminal part is used to evaluate and set up the civil case. The ncaa's conclusion on this is wrong, and I don't know why the university didn't fight this one harder.

 

[grizcountry420]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

one of the things you are forgetting is that an assistant AD hand delivered the players to the booster who provided the free legal service.

That's not true. Even the ncaa report acknowledges that the players contacted the attorney and engaged her services. A student employee had told the players that his mom was an attorney. One of the players knew the mom.

You are one creepy old guy.. Most guys your age like to fish but you're just infatuated with jocks. I dont get it.

 

[nzone]

Hey great news! No playoff ban. Sure the scholarship reduction will be a hit but we can sustain that by knocking the crap out the cats and making a deep playoff run. The biggest challenge we have is to rebrand the program from one with legal issues to one with a winning tradition. Now we can start recruiting with nothing hanging over our heads and consider which direction we want to go as far as a head coach. It is finally behind us :clap: :clap: Go Griz!!!

 

[Grizzoola]

I'm not defending the NCAA in what it does (or tries to do), here, but I believe the NCAA is trying to preserve college football, and college sports in general, as amateur sports. It could well be that "amateur" now does not mean what it did 70, 80, years, ago. As I understand, in the beginning of college sports, there were no scholarships, but simply regular students who wanted to compete with other schools. There have been obvious changes to this concept along the way, so now we are in situations where the ideal "amateur" aspect of college sports is no longer realistic, let alone valid.

Now, we have talk of providing stipends for college athletes above and beyond scholarships. It seems more & more college sports, esp. football & basketball are just a shade below semi-pro sports, and are becoming semi-pro. I can't say for sure, but my impression is that the big money supporting football & basketball come more from outside the institutions, and many regular students couldn't care less re: their respective programs. Most attendance at games is non-students, anyway.

I believe this country is getting to the point of answering the question: If college football and basketball in fact become semi-pro, in what capacity can these teams say they still represent a school? I realize this may be getting OT, but re: UM's situation, if the Griz were semi-pro, no one would care re: the things that the NCAA is involved in with UM.

I'm not advocating the Griz become semi-pro, but a lot of posts on this board poo-poo the NCAA's trying to keep the sports "clean," according to its definition of "amateur." If they don't want the NCAA involved, then think about getting the Griz out from under the NCAA umbrella while preserving some semblance of representing UM. I think that's where this country is going, anyway.

 

[GrizPony]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

I agree. Also, that lawyer/law firm told the ncaa that they were evaluating a possible civil case as they did the criminal work, and that they were doing this on a contingency fee basis. It is not uncommon, in similar situations, to do the criminal part as part of the civil contingency fee evaluation/case, and not charge for the criminal part. The criminal part is used to evaluate and set up the civil case. The ncaa's conclusion on this is wrong, and I don't know why the university didn't fight this one harder.

Because RE is afraid and not a leader maybe?

 

[NLGrizFan]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

one of the things you are forgetting is that an assistant AD hand delivered the players to the booster who provided the free legal service.

That's not true. Even the ncaa report acknowledges that the players contacted the attorney and engaged her services. A student employee had told the players that his mom was an attorney. One of the players knew the mom.

You are one creepy old guy.. Most guys your age like to fish but you're just infatuated with jocks. I dont get it.

Haha!! Yeah, go away you old pervert.

 

[Copper Griz]

Punishment fits the infraction. Griz moving on now with no playoff ban. Seems like the air is finally clearing and the only thing I smell is cat piss. Must be from the kitty fans peeing down their legs. They know what is coming next.

 

[NLGrizFan]

Punishment fits the infraction. Griz moving on now with no playoff ban. Seems like the air is finally clearing and the only thing I smell is cat piss. Must be from the kitty fans peeing down their legs. They know what is coming next.

:clap: :thumb:

 

[firmgriz]

Hey great news! No playoff ban. Sure the scholarship reduction will be a hit but we can sustain that by knocking the crap out the cats and making a deep playoff run. The biggest challenge we have is to rebrand the program from one with legal issues to one with a winning tradition. Now we can start recruiting with nothing hanging over our heads and consider which direction we want to go as far as a head coach. It is finally behind us :clap: :clap: Go Griz!!!

This!

The loss of schollies will affect a few innocent indivudals, which is unfortunate, but it will have very minimal effect on the team. The benefit of not having an open NCAA investigation hanging over the program is of HUGE benefit. No longer will all of the other coaches in the Big Sky (including Ash and co.) tell recruits horror stories about possible impending sanctions to try to scare them away from Missoula. It's time to officially put all of this crap in the rear view mirror and focus on continuing to build and strengthen the program.

Go Griz! Let's play some football!!!

 

[CatzWillRise]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

Are you saying it's okay to break the rules as long as you have a private contract? Would it be okay for a local doctor, who happens to be a big time booster, to give free medical advice, prescriptions, and services to players?

None of these problems happen if the lawyer in question wasn't involved in UM athletics in some capacity. That is the key point here, and most of you seem to be missing that.

I am of the belief that really no one here is guilty of anything deceitful or heinous, but a lack of knowledge of the rules is exactly what got them here. It was a perfect storm of ignorance.

 

[NLGrizFan]

Hey great news! No playoff ban. Sure the scholarship reduction will be a hit but we can sustain that by knocking the crap out the cats and making a deep playoff run. The biggest challenge we have is to rebrand the program from one with legal issues to one with a winning tradition. Now we can start recruiting with nothing hanging over our heads and consider which direction we want to go as far as a head coach. It is finally behind us :clap: :clap: Go Griz!!!

This!

The loss of schollies will affect a few innocent indivudals, which is unfortunate, but it will have very minimal effect on the team. The benefit of not having an open NCAA investigation hanging over the program is of HUGE benefit. No longer will all of the other coaches in the Big Sky (including Ash and co.) tell recruits horror stories about possible impending sanctions to try to scare them away from Missoula. It's time to officially put all of this crap in the rear view mirror and focus on continuing to build and strengthen the program.

Go Griz! Let's play some football!!!

Yes!! Today we finally got the news we've all been waiting to hear. Now that's its over and the only thing we lost was a couple games that have already been played (that we won, I don't care what the NCAA says). Now it's time for some football. The team is united and strong as ever. This could be the year!!

 

[griz5700]

These type of year long investigations that result in ticky-tack, minor violations is why many major programs want to break away from the NCAA and their absurd rule over college athletics.

UM's case is a perfect example - no one was hurt, recruits weren't receiving free lap dances at the Fox Club or receiving wads of cash from boosters, teachers weren't changing players grades, and UM wasn't blatantly breaking rules and hiding it from the NCAA for an extended period of time.

It's crazy in my mind to go after a player's parents that helped bail out another player. Especially when the money was repaid.

Three years probation, loss of 4 scholarships/year for 3 seasons, and vacating some wins from 2011.. Big deal, we'll be fine.

 

[CatzWillRise]

These type of year long investigations that result in ticky-tack, minor violations is why many major programs want to break away from the NCAA and their absurd rule over college athletics.

UM's case is a perfect example - no one was hurt, recruits weren't receiving free lap dances at the Fox Club or receiving wads of cash from boosters, teachers weren't changing players grades, and UM wasn't blatantly breaking rules and hiding it from the NCAA for an extended period of time.

It's crazy in my mind to go after a player's parents that helped bail out another player. Especially when the money was repaid.

Three years probation, loss of 4 scholarships/year for 3 seasons, and vacating some wins from 2011.. Big deal, we'll be fine.

As I read it, this parent who helped bail them out was an "athletic representative" before she was a parent of a player. A unique situation perhaps, but not uncommon. Just because you are a parent doesn't negate the fact that you are tied to the department in other capacities (booster).

Also as I read it, the money was not repaid by those arrested, but by the grandfather. So the players did in fact get out of jail free.

 

[CatzWillRise]

Hey great news! No playoff ban. Sure the scholarship reduction will be a hit but we can sustain that by knocking the crap out the cats and making a deep playoff run. The biggest challenge we have is to rebrand the program from one with legal issues to one with a winning tradition. Now we can start recruiting with nothing hanging over our heads and consider which direction we want to go as far as a head coach. It is finally behind us :clap: :clap: Go Griz!!!

This!

The loss of schollies will affect a few innocent indivudals, which is unfortunate, but it will have very minimal effect on the team. The benefit of not having an open NCAA investigation hanging over the program is of HUGE benefit. No longer will all of the other coaches in the Big Sky (including Ash and co.) tell recruits horror stories about possible impending sanctions to try to scare them away from Missoula. It's time to officially put all of this crap in the rear view mirror and focus on continuing to build and strengthen the program.

Go Griz! Let's play some football!!!

Nope, Griz coaches will have to now:

The Institution Shall...

Inform prospective student-athletes in all sports of the violations committed and that the institution is on probation for three years. If a prospective student-athlete takes an official paid visit, the information regarding violations, penalties and terms of probation shall be provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information shall be provided before a prospective student-athlete signs a National Letter of Intent.

 

[tnt]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

I agree. Also, that lawyer/law firm told the ncaa that they were evaluating a possible civil case as they did the criminal work, and that they were doing this on a contingency fee basis. It is not uncommon, in similar situations, to do the criminal part as part of the civil contingency fee evaluation/case, and not charge for the criminal part. The criminal part is used to evaluate and set up the civil case. The ncaa's conclusion on this is wrong, and I don't know why the university didn't fight this one harder.

I'm only guessing, but as I recall the University hired an NCAA specialty law firm in Fla, to work them through the process. One would assume they would know what they are doing............

 

[PlayerRep]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

one of the things you are forgetting is that an assistant AD hand delivered the players to the booster who provided the free legal service.

That's not true. Even the ncaa report acknowledges that the players contacted the attorney and engaged her services. A student employee had told the players that his mom was an attorney. One of the players knew the mom.

You are one creepy old guy.. Most guys your age like to fish but you're just infatuated with jocks. I dont get it.

Creepy, for reading the ncaa report, and saying what it said?

 

[PlayerRep]

The legal representation bugs me the most. First, it is a private contract between a lawyer and a client. Second, some lawyers look to take high profile cases (not just athletes) on pro bono because of the wonders it does for their reputation and for attracting future paying clients. For the NCAA to inquire on the basis of legal representation is borderline tortious interference of contract.

The real issue here is the Byzantine (and even that word is inadequate) rules that result in constant "gotchas" and are only useful in that they create new jobs (compliance officer, rat, stooge, etc.) but don't really prevent corruption.

Are you saying it's okay to break the rules as long as you have a private contract? Would it be okay for a local doctor, who happens to be a big time booster, to give free medical advice, prescriptions, and services to players?

None of these problems happen if the lawyer in question wasn't involved in UM athletics in some capacity. That is the key point here, and most of you seem to be missing that.

I am of the belief that really no one here is guilty of anything deceitful or heinous, but a lack of knowledge of the rules is exactly what got them here. It was a perfect storm of ignorance.

A player without financial means could go to an emergency room and receive from services from a doctor. A recent article indicated that the ncaa has said it's okay for a player to get pro bono legal services if the law firm regularly provides pro bono services for non-athletes, which I'm sure the firm in question does. It's not an ncaa violation for a player to hire a law firm to pursue a civil claim on a contingency fee basis. The law firm in question told the ncaa that that is what they were doing in this situation, according to the report.

 

[pussycatkillerz]

Ha, maybe it's a good thing SHsU squeaked out the w in that 2011 semi final.
Can you imagine vacating a NC?