ncaa findings

[Cats2506]

I disagree with those of you who state that this matter is or should be behind us. I find the entire process to be beyond ludicrous. The so-called undisputed findings here appear only to be what UM identified as being what they understood to be violations. And it is clear that the sanctions imposed were those that were recommended by the University to the NCAA. If that is the case, why did it take 18 months give or take to reach this conclusion?! Hell, this could have been done in a month!

Further, I am disturbed by the entire indication that based on these findings, the sanctions are appropriate for the alleged violations. While I have not studied the NCAA rules extensively as apparently some of you have, I have read enough to know that for every rule the NCAA has there is another rule that seemingly contradicts, or modifies the implementation of those rules. Thus how can anyone positively establish that the punishment fits the crime.

I am not suggesting that the University or the Football Program were squeaky clean. Clearly they were not. But I defy anyone to find a program that is. I am also not arguing that there should not have been some sanctions for failure to monitor the program, and the possible overuse of student coaching assistants. There will be further discussion about the concept of free legal services, or of relatives who are boosters helping post bail, which I do not believe happened, at least not in the way it has been portrayed.
The free meal issue is simply asinine. 100 free meals over 8 years! WOW!! Assuming on average 75 players suiting up per annum for home games and assuming 6 home games a year for 8 years that equates to 3600 potential opportunities to provide a free meal to a player. This equates to 0.02778 meal per player or on average 3 peas and a boiled baby carrot!

It certainly seems to me that rather than fight the archaic and unworkable rules imposed by the NCAA on member institutions that both Engstrom and Haslem took the easy way out to the overall detriment of the program.

From the report

From 2003 or 2004 through August 2012, representative 4 provided hundreds of meals at her and her husband's residence to numerous football student-athletes, who referred to her as their "Griz Mom."

That was just one couple, there were other doing stuff to, so it wasn't just 100 meals, it was hundereds, it may have been 300 or 500

So are the free meals responsible for your 6 losses* during that time frame?

*vacated win for us still counts as a loss for you

There sure is a lot of butthurt fizz fans around today :thumb:

 

[NLGrizFan]

I disagree with those of you who state that this matter is or should be behind us. I find the entire process to be beyond ludicrous. The so-called undisputed findings here appear only to be what UM identified as being what they understood to be violations. And it is clear that the sanctions imposed were those that were recommended by the University to the NCAA. If that is the case, why did it take 18 months give or take to reach this conclusion?! Hell, this could have been done in a month!

Further, I am disturbed by the entire indication that based on these findings, the sanctions are appropriate for the alleged violations. While I have not studied the NCAA rules extensively as apparently some of you have, I have read enough to know that for every rule the NCAA has there is another rule that seemingly contradicts, or modifies the implementation of those rules. Thus how can anyone positively establish that the punishment fits the crime.

I am not suggesting that the University or the Football Program were squeaky clean. Clearly they were not. But I defy anyone to find a program that is. I am also not arguing that there should not have been some sanctions for failure to monitor the program, and the possible overuse of student coaching assistants. There will be further discussion about the concept of free legal services, or of relatives who are boosters helping post bail, which I do not believe happened, at least not in the way it has been portrayed.
The free meal issue is simply asinine. 100 free meals over 8 years! WOW!! Assuming on average 75 players suiting up per annum for home games and assuming 6 home games a year for 8 years that equates to 3600 potential opportunities to provide a free meal to a player. This equates to 0.02778 meal per player or on average 3 peas and a boiled baby carrot!

It certainly seems to me that rather than fight the archaic and unworkable rules imposed by the NCAA on member institutions that both Engstrom and Haslem took the easy way out to the overall detriment of the program.

From the report

From 2003 or 2004 through August 2012, representative 4 provided hundreds of meals at her and her husband's residence to numerous football student-athletes, who referred to her as their "Griz Mom."

That was just one couple, there were other doing stuff to, so it wasn't just 100 meals, it was hundereds, it may have been 300 or 500

So are the free meals responsible for your 6 losses* during that time frame?

*vacated win for us still counts as a loss for you

There sure is a lot of butthurt fizz fans around today :thumb:

Go back to your litterbox, scat turd.

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

I really disagree with the reduction of scholarships as a penalty, it punishes student athletes who are completely innocent of the infraction, more than anybody else. Also, I think the reduction of 4 scholarships for 3 years is excessive when you compare what other programs received for penalties, especially when we already have fewer scholarships to give than those FBS programs. Forget who in this thread said it, but I agree. That hurts probably the most out of all the penalties. 4 scholarships, each year, allow us to recruit 4-8ish players that we won't have the ability to offer anymore and/or allow us to provide more aid to partial scholarship players who have proven they earned it. The NCAA is suppose to be an advocate of the student athlete, punishing them for infractions they didn't commit and taking away their ability to subsidize their education seems counteractive of the NCAA's mission.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I disagree with those of you who state that this matter is or should be behind us. I find the entire process to be beyond ludicrous. The so-called undisputed findings here appear only to be what UM identified as being what they understood to be violations. And it is clear that the sanctions imposed were those that were recommended by the University to the NCAA. If that is the case, why did it take 18 months give or take to reach this conclusion?! Hell, this could have been done in a month!

Further, I am disturbed by the entire indication that based on these findings, the sanctions are appropriate for the alleged violations. While I have not studied the NCAA rules extensively as apparently some of you have, I have read enough to know that for every rule the NCAA has there is another rule that seemingly contradicts, or modifies the implementation of those rules. Thus how can anyone positively establish that the punishment fits the crime.

I am not suggesting that the University or the Football Program were squeaky clean. Clearly they were not. But I defy anyone to find a program that is. I am also not arguing that there should not have been some sanctions for failure to monitor the program, and the possible overuse of student coaching assistants. There will be further discussion about the concept of free legal services, or of relatives who are boosters helping post bail, which I do not believe happened, at least not in the way it has been portrayed.
The free meal issue is simply asinine. 100 free meals over 8 years! WOW!! Assuming on average 75 players suiting up per annum for home games and assuming 6 home games a year for 8 years that equates to 3600 potential opportunities to provide a free meal to a player. This equates to 0.02778 meal per player or on average 3 peas and a boiled baby carrot!

It certainly seems to me that rather than fight the archaic and unworkable rules imposed by the NCAA on member institutions that both Engstrom and Haslem took the easy way out to the overall detriment of the program.

From the report

From 2003 or 2004 through August 2012, representative 4 provided hundreds of meals at her and her husband's residence to numerous football student-athletes, who referred to her as their "Griz Mom."

That was just one couple, there were other doing stuff to, so it wasn't just 100 meals, it was hundereds, it may have been 300 or 500

So are the free meals responsible for your 6 losses* during that time frame?

*vacated win for us still counts as a loss for you

duplicate post.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I disagree with those of you who state that this matter is or should be behind us. I find the entire process to be beyond ludicrous. The so-called undisputed findings here appear only to be what UM identified as being what they understood to be violations. And it is clear that the sanctions imposed were those that were recommended by the University to the NCAA. If that is the case, why did it take 18 months give or take to reach this conclusion?! Hell, this could have been done in a month!

Further, I am disturbed by the entire indication that based on these findings, the sanctions are appropriate for the alleged violations. While I have not studied the NCAA rules extensively as apparently some of you have, I have read enough to know that for every rule the NCAA has there is another rule that seemingly contradicts, or modifies the implementation of those rules. Thus how can anyone positively establish that the punishment fits the crime.

I am not suggesting that the University or the Football Program were squeaky clean. Clearly they were not. But I defy anyone to find a program that is. I am also not arguing that there should not have been some sanctions for failure to monitor the program, and the possible overuse of student coaching assistants. There will be further discussion about the concept of free legal services, or of relatives who are boosters helping post bail, which I do not believe happened, at least not in the way it has been portrayed.
The free meal issue is simply asinine. 100 free meals over 8 years! WOW!! Assuming on average 75 players suiting up per annum for home games and assuming 6 home games a year for 8 years that equates to 3600 potential opportunities to provide a free meal to a player. This equates to 0.02778 meal per player or on average 3 peas and a boiled baby carrot!

It certainly seems to me that rather than fight the archaic and unworkable rules imposed by the NCAA on member institutions that both Engstrom and Haslem took the easy way out to the overall detriment of the program.

From the report

From 2003 or 2004 through August 2012, representative 4 provided hundreds of meals at her and her husband's residence to numerous football student-athletes, who referred to her as their "Griz Mom."

That was just one couple, there were other doing stuff to, so it wasn't just 100 meals, it was hundereds, it may have been 300 or 500

So are the free meals responsible for your 6 losses* during that time frame?

*vacated win for us still counts as a loss for you

No. It can be argued tailgating and meals are responsible for fans not back for the 2nd half kick off. :thumb:

 

[Catsrback76]

Congratulations on the closing of "wiener-gate"! Now, you can take your lumps, appropriately so only on the field of play. I am so looking forward to the Cat demolishing of the griz this year because there will be no more excuses!

Hey, that should be the 2013 motto for the griz, "no more excuses"!

All in all, your university and program dodged a bullet and can now begin to build on new foundations. Do it right, be humble, and enjoy the game for what it is, a game!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I am certainly disappointed in our leadership as a self-report = slap on the wrist, but lack of integrity cost those kids in a big way. Not me, I am awful at football, but those student athletes who did it the right way now pay a price.

I take issue with your, "dodged a bullet," comment. We are paying the price for our mistakes; a heftier price than MSU paid for having a Coach use my tax dollars to distribute meth to your community. Not one part of that previous statement is false. However, it does not exempt us from being penalized for poor judgment on the part of a select few; I expected more. A classy move from Trumaine would be to match the amount required for charity.

One things for sure, we certainly won't be using you or any other "Pious Kitties," as the model to rebuild a program based on humility.

Up With Montana!

My comment about "dodging a bullet" was not about wishing for harder sanctions that you dodged, but rather was about the chance, which seemed potentially likely that post season bans might have been given. I for one do not think that was warranted, but it sounded like the bullet could have possibly been fired. You dodged a bullet because with what you have, I think you can contend for championships and play in the playoffs.

So move forward!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[wbtfg]

I really disagree with the reduction of scholarships as a penalty, it punishes student athletes who are completely innocent of the infraction, more than anybody else. Also, I think the reduction of 4 scholarships for 3 years is excessive when you compare what other programs received for penalties, especially when we already have fewer scholarships to give than those FBS programs. Forget who in this thread said it, but I agree. That hurts probably the most out of all the penalties. 4 scholarships, each year, allow us to recruit 4-8ish players that we won't have the ability to offer anymore and/or allow us to provide more aid to partial scholarship players who have proven they earned it. The NCAA is suppose to be an advocate of the student athlete, punishing them for infractions they didn't commit and taking away their ability to subsidize their education seems counteractive of the NCAA's mission.

I think thats a little over dramatic. Basically, i think um can recruit 2 fewer players, and then not fill spots that will,likely be vacated in the off season (not a knock, it happens every year to every team). I dont think there will be a noticable difference, especially considering haslam's quote that um generally only fills 61 scholarships/year anyway.

 

['68griz]

Good analysis Gailege. And consider the perverse incentives for Engstrom to agree to these charges: the more severe the findings and punishment, the more they seem to justify his firing---that's what it was--- of Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not surprising that the only one named in the report, at least as reported in press accounts, to take the fall was Pflugrad. Engstrom is happy to have it pinned on him.

With RE at the helm I'm afraid that my alma mater is doing nothing but going downhill. It will be interesting to see the enrollment figures when they come out this fall. Maybe they'll have to "retire" a few of the tenured professors who should have been gone long ago.

+1

 

[Cringer]

Congratulations on the closing of "wiener-gate"! Now, you can take your lumps, appropriately so only on the field of play. I am so looking forward to the Cat demolishing of the griz this year because there will be no more excuses!

Hey, that should be the 2013 motto for the griz, "no more excuses"!

All in all, your university and program dodged a bullet and can now begin to build on new foundations. Do it right, be humble, and enjoy the game for what it is, a game!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I am certainly disappointed in our leadership as a self-report = slap on the wrist, but lack of integrity cost those kids in a big way. Not me, I am awful at football, but those student athletes who did it the right way now pay a price.

I take issue with your, "dodged a bullet," comment. We are paying the price for our mistakes; a heftier price than MSU paid for having a Coach use my tax dollars to distribute meth to your community. Not one part of that previous statement is false. However, it does not exempt us from being penalized for poor judgment on the part of a select few; I expected more. A classy move from Trumaine would be to match the amount required for charity.

One things for sure, we certainly won't be using you or any other "Pious Kitties," as the model to rebuild a program based on humility.

Up With Montana!

My comment about "dodging a bullet" was not about wishing for harder sanctions that you dodged, but rather was about the chance, which seemed potentially likely that post season bans might have been given. I for one do not think that was warranted, but it sounded like the bullet could have possibly been fired. You dodged a bullet because with what you have, I think you can contend for championships and play in the playoffs.

So move forward!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Hmmmm??? Yeah I'll buy that from a guy with Doc Holiday as his Avatar. Yes, moving forward is what needs to happen. I just don't agree with the terminology as I feel the punishment fit the crime. That said, I was certainly preparing for worse so perhaps it rings true.

I may have been a little quick to jump on your post, I just can't stand soap boxing. I know no program is perfect, and don't sanctify the Griz in any capacity.

We got spanked. Time to rub our bottoms and learn from it. Essentially what you were trying to say.

 

[getgrizzy]

exactly what i heard and posted they would be. flu, o'dayng and foldy screwed the pooch. 2013 is our best chance to make some noise. if we don't get it done this year the next three+ look bleak. don't forget we're on the a.p.r. ropes for 2014. we need to get it up to a 940 avg.

 

[Hammer]

if we don't get it done this year the next three+ look bleak

Huh?????

 

[NLGrizFan]

if we don't get it done this year the next three+ look bleak

Huh?????

+1
Please explain

 

[Sportin' Life]

Good analysis Gailege. And consider the perverse incentives for Engstrom to agree to these charges: the more severe the findings and punishment, the more they seem to justify his firing---that's what it was--- of Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not surprising that the only one named in the report, at least as reported in press accounts, to take the fall was Pflugrad. Engstrom is happy to have it pinned on him.

With RE at the helm I'm afraid that my alma mater is doing nothing but going downhill. It will be interesting to see the enrollment figures when they come out this fall. Maybe they'll have to "retire" a few of the tenured professors who should have been gone long ago.

The problem seems to be the pervasive powers of Engstrom. Here is a guy who can manipulate district attorneys, county judges, federal judges, regents, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Justice, and now the NCAA. The man can seemingly make anyone and everyone do and say what he wants them to. There is no stopping him in his diabolical plans.

 

[Cringer]

Good analysis Gailege. And consider the perverse incentives for Engstrom to agree to these charges: the more severe the findings and punishment, the more they seem to justify his firing---that's what it was--- of Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not surprising that the only one named in the report, at least as reported in press accounts, to take the fall was Pflugrad. Engstrom is happy to have it pinned on him.

With RE at the helm I'm afraid that my alma mater is doing nothing but going downhill. It will be interesting to see the enrollment figures when they come out this fall. Maybe they'll have to "retire" a few of the tenured professors who should have been gone long ago.

The problem seems to be the pervasive powers of Engstrom. Here is a guy who can manipulate district attorneys, county judges, federal judges, regents, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Justice, and now the NCAA. The man can seemingly make anyone and everyone do and say what he wants them to. There is no stopping him in his diabolical plans.

I noted your sarcasm. I would need to read the emails from the time frame in question to have a true opinion, but I feel like Dr. Engstrom is the one who acted like a leader. He did what he felt needed to be done, and owns the decision.

The University of Montana's problem stems from a 97% acceptance rate along with 45% five year graduation rate. If Dr. Engstrom puts things in place to fix this than he's our guy.

 

[Sportin' Life]

The University of Montana's problem stems from a 97% acceptance rate along with 45% five year graduation rate. If Dr. Engstrom puts things in place to fix this than he's our guy.

Good post. I prefer the term satire to sarcasm, but I do cross the line here and there.

That is THE major problem with the University of Montana in a nutshell. Anything that happens to the football team, positive or negative is just a diversion.

 

[NLGrizFan]

The University of Montana's problem stems from a 97% acceptance rate along with 45% five year graduation rate. If Dr. Engstrom puts things in place to fix this than he's our guy.

Good post. I prefer the term satire to sarcasm, but I do cross the line here and there.

That is THE major problem with the University of Montana in a nutshell. Anything that happens to the football team, positive or negative is just a diversion.

What do you mean a diversion? I think I read that wrong but the way I read it was that you're thinkin that they lost those games last year on purpose? I don't think I read that right tho...

 

[Sportin' Life]

The University of Montana's problem stems from a 97% acceptance rate along with 45% five year graduation rate. If Dr. Engstrom puts things in place to fix this than he's our guy.

Good post. I prefer the term satire to sarcasm, but I do cross the line here and there.

That is THE major problem with the University of Montana in a nutshell. Anything that happens to the football team, positive or negative is just a diversion.

What do you mean a diversion? I think I read that wrong but the way I read it was that you're thinkin that they lost those games last year on purpose? I don't think I read that right tho...

I am not sure how you got that. I am just saying that I agree that Engstrom's major challenge is to improve the academics on campus. That is how I will judge him, not by how the football team does.

 

[BigPawzSharpClawz]

Honestly outside of the scholarships we gave up little of nothing.
Here's how I see the errors and violations:

MEALS: This is a joke! 95% of the schools in the south and southeast violate this daily during baseball season alone. I grew up understanding this act to be known as "hospitality". This happens all over the place every Saturday in the fall & winter. It's actually an unenforceable rule!

LEGAL FEES: Definitely the weak spot for me but unless I am mistaken this is a private contract. The lawyer should be able to do as they please regarding fees. However, this still needs to be screened for abusive, I can see where this could be manipulated. But there's a simple compromise!

SCHOLARSHIPS: We self reported! And proposed a 12 scholarship reduction over 3 years based upon 63 total available. This drops us to 59 total for the next several years. BTW, first time I ever heard about we regularly use 61, that's not a lot folks!

In case you forgot, In 2010, the NCAA smacked USC with a loss of 10 scholarships per year for three years and an overall limit of 75, 10 below the FBS maximum! No one has to return their Big Sky Rings or unforgettable memories so lets get back to On the Field items now that we have had an official warning shot fired by the NCAA.

Looking forward to watching the 2013 team come together. There could be a couple championships in the next three (3) classes. Get behind these boys and support them or STFU!

Prepare to Win Championships
Go Griz

 

[Washgrizfan1]

Good analysis Gailege. And consider the perverse incentives for Engstrom to agree to these charges: the more severe the findings and punishment, the more they seem to justify his firing---that's what it was--- of Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not surprising that the only one named in the report, at least as reported in press accounts, to take the fall was Pflugrad. Engstrom is happy to have it pinned on him.

With RE at the helm I'm afraid that my alma mater is doing nothing but going downhill. It will be interesting to see the enrollment figures when they come out this fall. Maybe they'll have to "retire" a few of the tenured professors who should have been gone long ago.

The problem seems to be the pervasive powers of Engstrom. Here is a guy who can manipulate district attorneys, county judges, federal judges, regents, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Justice, and now the NCAA. The man can seemingly make anyone and everyone do and say what he wants them to. There is no stopping him in his diabolical plans.

I noted your sarcasm. I would need to read the emails from the time frame in question to have a true opinion, but I feel like Dr. Engstrom is the one who acted like a leader. He did what he felt needed to be done, and owns the decision.

The University of Montana's problem stems from a 97% acceptance rate along with 45% five year graduation rate. If Dr. Engstrom puts things in place to fix this than he's our guy.

A leader? Another view would be that Engstrom mishandled much of the situation in the past almost 2 years and caused some of Montana's problems and made others larger than they needed to be. This view would include over-reacting to the 12/11 sexual assault reports, insinuating that athletes were involved, appointing an independent investigator (who found little or nothing related to the football team), and letting the Missoulian push him around; going overboard in dealing with sexual assault allegations and insinuations, instead of determining what was factual and what wasn't and putting in perspective that Montana's situation involved fewer sexual assaults that most similar college campuses and cities; listening to the likes of Pat Williams, etc. too much; over-reacting in firing the athletic director and coach, without a stated reason; rolling over and not properly fighting the DOJ investigation (and now receiving national criticism for Montana himself); not properly handling and defending the NCAA investigation, including not hiring NCAA-experienced counsel for 6 months, not fighting back on several issues that perhaps could have been defended better (bail/legal fees) and being content to have the former coach and athletic director thrown under the bus; and allowing all of this to snowball so that it has contributed to a significant decline in enrollment, and likely continuation of the decline, which severely reduces university revenue from tuition and state allocation, which may be causing many on the faculty to become disenchanted with Engstrom and the likely decline in the quality of education. Just a contrary view pieced together from what some people have said and what I think. This doesn't look like leadership to me.

 

[Cringer]

Good analysis Gailege. And consider the perverse incentives for Engstrom to agree to these charges: the more severe the findings and punishment, the more they seem to justify his firing---that's what it was--- of Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not surprising that the only one named in the report, at least as reported in press accounts, to take the fall was Pflugrad. Engstrom is happy to have it pinned on him.

With RE at the helm I'm afraid that my alma mater is doing nothing but going downhill. It will be interesting to see the enrollment figures when they come out this fall. Maybe they'll have to "retire" a few of the tenured professors who should have been gone long ago.

The problem seems to be the pervasive powers of Engstrom. Here is a guy who can manipulate district attorneys, county judges, federal judges, regents, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Justice, and now the NCAA. The man can seemingly make anyone and everyone do and say what he wants them to. There is no stopping him in his diabolical plans.

I noted your sarcasm. I would need to read the emails from the time frame in question to have a true opinion, but I feel like Dr. Engstrom is the one who acted like a leader. He did what he felt needed to be done, and owns the decision.

The University of Montana's problem stems from a 97% acceptance rate along with 45% five year graduation rate. If Dr. Engstrom puts things in place to fix this than he's our guy.

A leader? Another view would be that Engstrom mishandled much of the situation in the past almost 2 years and caused some of Montana's problems and made others larger than they needed to be. This view would include over-reacting to the 12/11 sexual assault reports, insinuating that athletes were involved, appointing an independent investigator (who found little or nothing related to the football team), and letting the Missoulian push him around; going overboard in dealing with sexual assault allegations and insinuations, instead of determining what was factual and what wasn't and putting in perspective that Montana's situation involved fewer sexual assaults that most similar college campuses and cities; listening to the likes of Pat Williams, etc. too much; over-reacting in firing the athletic director and coach, without a stated reason; rolling over and not properly fighting the DOJ investigation (and now receiving national criticism for Montana himself); not properly handling and defending the NCAA investigation, including not hiring NCAA-experienced counsel for 6 months, not fighting back on several issues that perhaps could have been defended better (bail/legal fees) and being content to have the former coach and athletic director thrown under the bus; and allowing all of this to snowball so that it has contributed to a significant decline in enrollment, and likely continuation of the decline, which severely reduces university revenue from tuition and state allocation, which may be causing many on the faculty to become disenchanted with Engstrom and the likely decline in the quality of education. Just a contrary view pieced together from what some people have said and what I think. This doesn't look like leadership to me.

Everything about your post has to do with how he handled the NCAA investigation without even touching on the fact our graduation rate is awful, terrible, embarrassing a total disgrace. "Threw them under the bus?" How? By expecting them to do their jobs? As far as a "significant" decline in enrollment, if you were going to the University based on our football program you are probably a member of the 55% who never graduate from the University. I don't agree with all of the NCAA's findings, but the time to take arms isn't after you get in trouble. I certainly appreciate the hardline stance some of the bigger conference schools are taking (see SEC).

Our football issue (which by the way Sexual Assault was not sited in the NCAA's finding, and there go not a factor in our punishment) is nowhere near the acceptance, retainment and graduation issues we face. If Dr. Engstrom can make even a modest improvement in these areas I will support him. These are the major issues the University of Montana face; not getting back those students who want to go to the school with the better football program. For the record MSU is in the same boat in terms of poor graduation although they accept fewer students. This is what cracks me up about MSU alum who feel they went to the better school. The statistics don't favor either school.

I don't think this negates all of the good O'Day and Coach Pflu did for our University. I do know this punishment favors the players these next couple of years which is the number one thing. For those who don't like losing their Big Sky Conference rings my suggestions is this; win the whole dag gone thing this year.

In conclusion, I see nothing in how Dr. Engstrom handled this infraction that will keep me from supporting him in his leadership of our University. A game changer would be if he knew what was going on and did nothing, but again, it sounds like he is only guilty of expecting people to do their jobs.