NCAA Investigation news?

[Grisly Fan]

A fly on the wall tells me the same. :thumb:

have you heard from that fly lately? two weeks were up two weeks ago.

Yes, and is still nothing major. Not 100% sure what the delay is in the announcement, but have a feeling it is for the NCAA or university to tie up a few loose ends. Maybe even waiting to see how JJ's legal representation is being paid for. Then again, those are common sense guesses.

I know what has been found so far is very minor, and borderline nit picky.

You sure have a hard-on for how JJ's legal representation is being paid for.

Geez, someone sure must have pissed in your cornflakes because that is not how I read his statement. Just based on a few of the suggestions posted here, any prudent investigator would look into that. And besides he qualifies his suggestions as "common sense" suggestions -- which they seem to me. Lighten up.

 

[getgrizzy]

"Within the next couple of weeks. Nothing major".

A fly on the wall tells me the same. :thumb:

have you heard from that fly lately? two weeks were up two weeks ago.

Yes, and is still nothing major. Not 100% sure what the delay is in the announcement, but have a feeling it is for the NCAA or university to tie up a few loose ends. Maybe even waiting to see how JJ's legal representation is being paid for. Then again, those are common sense guesses.

I know what has been found so far is very minor, and borderline nit picky.

next time you talk to your fly ask if the sanctions we've heard about were the ones sent by us to the n.c.a.a. or if they're the ones sent back to us from them. i'm not as concerned about what they fond as i am about what the penalties are.

 

[grizindabox]

I actually think they are waiting to see if PR invites anymore scholar athletes to the lake house for grape soda and fried chicken...

 

[getgrizzy]

I actually think they are waiting to see if PR invites anymore scholar athletes to the lake house for grape soda and fried chicken...

more interested in the penalties than the infractions. what seem like minor infractions can draw big sanctions, but I guess that depends on what you define as minor and big.

 

[Blgs Griz Fan]

We'll all find out very shortly that "there is no there, there."

 

[Copper Griz]

Actually the findings are not good and there could be some serious sanctions. Heard through a very credible source that tutors were being paid for with sexual favors by several football players. Yes - that is right sexual favors. Apparently one of the tutors for Intro to mathematics was ugly as sin and was being paid with sex and then blackmailed the players with pictures. Criminal investigation to ensue and the tutor and his attorney have already met with the county attorney's office and the P.D.

 

[Copper Griz]

Actually the findings are not good and there could be some serious sanctions. Heard through a very credible source that tutors were being paid for with sexual favors by several football players. Yes - that is right sexual favors. Apparently one of the tutors for Intro to mathematics was ugly as sin and was being paid with sex and then blackmailed the players with pictures. Criminal investigation to ensue and the tutor and his attorney have already met with the county attorney's office and the P.D.

Update - my apologies. Thought I was on Bobcat Nation. Wrong team.

 

[get'em_griz]

Actually the findings are not good and there could be some serious sanctions. Heard through a very credible source that tutors were being paid for with sexual favors by several football players. Yes - that is right sexual favors. Apparently one of the tutors for Intro to mathematics was ugly as sin and was being paid with sex and then blackmailed the players with pictures. Criminal investigation to ensue and the tutor and his attorney have already met with the county attorney's office and the P.D.

Update - my apologies. Thought I was on Bobcat Nation. Wrong team.

:lol:

 

[getgrizzy]

the way the process works is the investigation is conducted and the ncaa informs the school of the infractions. the school then submits what it thinks its penalties should be to the ncaa. the ncaa can either accept or reject that proposal. if it rejects, then it changes the penalties and the school had xx days to counter. i believe we submitted penalties of 4-5 vacated wins. 2-3 scholarships and decreased practice time. if so the ball is in the ncaa's court right now. this delay tells me they're still reviewing or they've reviewed and we didn't like what they came back with. it could also be that they've added pflugrad's lack of reporting to the title ix coordinator and the dean of students. if so, they could come back with stiffer sanctions.

 

[Proud Griz Man]

the way the process works is that the interviews are conducted and investigation is performed, finding nothing of any consequence and they phone that back into NCAA headquarters, who direct the investigators to dig deeper and find something, anything, even a free tailgate party hotdog or hamburger, and do not consider coming back until you find something. The investigation drags on and wastes tremendous amounts of money and time, then the NCAA starts hinting to the school about some possible infractions with the hope that the school will panic and self-impose punishments. If the school doesn't agree with, or understand the accused infractions, or the school submits its proposed penalties to the ncaa, and they are deemed too-light, the NCAA will conduct more invasive investigations into meaningless and trivial topics. the ncaa can either accept or reject that proposal. if it rejects, then it changes the penalties and the school had xx days to counter. i believe we submitted penalties of 4-5 vacated wins. 2-3 scholarships and decreased practice time. if so the ball is in the ncaa's court right now. this delay tells me they're still reviewing or they've reviewed and we didn't like what they came back with. it could also be that they've added pflugrad's lack of reporting to the title ix coordinator and the dean of students. if so, they could come back with stiffer sanctions.

revised "the way the investigation is completed" to reflect reality

 

[Washgrizfan1]

the way the process works is the investigation is conducted and the ncaa informs the school of the infractions. the school then submits what it thinks its penalties should be to the ncaa. the ncaa can either accept or reject that proposal. if it rejects, then it changes the penalties and the school had xx days to counter. i believe we submitted penalties of 4-5 vacated wins. 2-3 scholarships and decreased practice time. if so the ball is in the ncaa's court right now. this delay tells me they're still reviewing or they've reviewed and we didn't like what they came back with. it could also be that they've added pflugrad's lack of reporting to the title ix coordinator and the dean of students. if so, they could come back with stiffer sanctions.

Neither the NCAA nor the DOJ even investigated the reporting or non-reporting by the coach. They didn't even talk to the coach about the subject, nor did the DOJ talk to him at all. The non-reporting of the incident has been known since the Barz report in January in 2012. The university has admitted that it didn't have a policy requiring any reporting at the time, which was Dec. 2010. The coach didn't know the name of the accuser or that she was a student. The police provided minimal information, including that there was no probable cause to pursue the allegation. As others have said, what's the obligation to report to anyone in that situation? In any event, Title IX reporting is in the jurisdiction of the DOE, not the NCAA. The coach took disciplinary action against the players, for putting themselves in a position like that. This included having them call their parents to tell them what had occurred. The police looked at the incident again in January 2012 and again declined to pursue it, based presumably on lack of probable cause. In the university proceeding started in early 2012, one of the accused won his case with the honor court with a 7-0 vote. The proceeding was immediately dropped against another accused. Both were allowed to graduate.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

the way the process works is that the interviews are conducted and investigation is performed, finding nothing of any consequence and they phone that back into NCAA headquarters, who direct the investigators to dig deeper and find something, anything, even a free tailgate party hotdog or hamburger, and do not consider coming back until you find something. The investigation drags on and wastes tremendous amounts of money and time, then the NCAA starts hinting to the school about some possible infractions with the hope that the school will panic and self-impose punishments. If the school doesn't agree with, or understand the accused infractions, or the school submits its proposed penalties to the ncaa, and they are deemed too-light, the NCAA will conduct more invasive investigations into meaningless and trivial topics. the ncaa can either accept or reject that proposal. if it rejects, then it changes the penalties and the school had xx days to counter. i believe we submitted penalties of 4-5 vacated wins. 2-3 scholarships and decreased practice time. if so the ball is in the ncaa's court right now. this delay tells me they're still reviewing or they've reviewed and we didn't like what they came back with. it could also be that they've added pflugrad's lack of reporting to the title ix coordinator and the dean of students. if so, they could come back with stiffer sanctions.

revised "the way the investigation is completed" to reflect reality

The tailgate "violations" were discovered after the NCAA put investigators outside the door of the locker room after the first game of the season last fall, and followed players.

 

[kemajic]

ok someone spill the beans before i do. you know how you hate it when i offer info. :troll: :lol:

Spill it and you better be 100% correct or a few will be out to hang you. Tell us about a few lost scholarships, how reporting of incidents (sex crimes) is still pending. Rather that is internal or external, I don't know. Also as to what will happen with Oday's/Pflus dismissals is still up in the air, and not sure if there will be more on that or not.

Also is within 4 weeks on the NCAA results realistic? I heard that is a rough estimate. Please do add anything you feel is necessary, or better information. :thumb:

Haslam said emphatically that the NCAA investigation had nothing to do with sexual abuse.

 

[kemajic]

If that is true and nothing comes out of this... I honestly think that somehow the NCAA needs to be held accountable for disrupting your program. Ya ya... I know everyone thinks they're "untouchable" but that's not true. Obama pretty much told them they needed to come up with a plan for FBS playoffs... so they CAN be told what to do. If they spent two years poking around and hanging out in Missoula and picking apart your entire program only to find a couple hot dog violations... heads need to roll. Wouldn't you think even an AVERAGE investigator or two could determine within a few months worth of digging, interviews, etc... whether or not any major infractions were going to be likely? So what have they been doing the entire time? Vacation. bunch of DB's if you ask me.

Cruzado would have the balls to go after them; Engstrom, not so much....

 

[kemajic]

Like with the whole JJ mess, I hope all of this crap just comes to a end. It's bad for our whole state. Screw the ncaa. I've never liked those pricks.

There's a reason Carroll stays in NAIA.

 

[getgrizzy]

the way the process works is the investigation is conducted and the ncaa informs the school of the infractions. the school then submits what it thinks its penalties should be to the ncaa. the ncaa can either accept or reject that proposal. if it rejects, then it changes the penalties and the school had xx days to counter. i believe we submitted penalties of 4-5 vacated wins. 2-3 scholarships and decreased practice time. if so the ball is in the ncaa's court right now. this delay tells me they're still reviewing or they've reviewed and we didn't like what they came back with. it could also be that they've added pflugrad's lack of reporting to the title ix coordinator and the dean of students. if so, they could come back with stiffer sanctions.

Neither the NCAA nor the DOJ even investigated the reporting or non-reporting by the coach. They didn't even talk to the coach about the subject, nor did the DOJ talk to him at all. The non-reporting of the incident has been known since the Barz report in January in 2012. The university has admitted that it didn't have a policy requiring any reporting at the time, which was Dec. 2010. The coach didn't know the name of the accuser or that she was a student. The police provided minimal information, including that there was no probable cause to pursue the allegation. As others have said, what's the obligation to report to anyone in that situation? In any event, Title IX reporting is in the jurisdiction of the DOE, not the NCAA. The coach took disciplinary action against the players, for putting themselves in a position like that. This included having them call their parents to tell them what had occurred. The police looked at the incident again in January 2012 and again declined to pursue it, based presumably on lack of probable cause. In the university proceeding started in early 2012, one of the accused won his case with the honor court with a 7-0 vote. The proceeding was immediately dropped against another accused. Both were allowed to graduate.

you may be right, if you look at page 15 of the d.o.j. report and the may 19, 2012 article in the missoulian it isn't so clear. if they have the barz report there's, like the freeh report, no reason for the ncaa to ask any questions.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

the way the process works is the investigation is conducted and the ncaa informs the school of the infractions. the school then submits what it thinks its penalties should be to the ncaa. the ncaa can either accept or reject that proposal. if it rejects, then it changes the penalties and the school had xx days to counter. i believe we submitted penalties of 4-5 vacated wins. 2-3 scholarships and decreased practice time. if so the ball is in the ncaa's court right now. this delay tells me they're still reviewing or they've reviewed and we didn't like what they came back with. it could also be that they've added pflugrad's lack of reporting to the title ix coordinator and the dean of students. if so, they could come back with stiffer sanctions.

Neither the NCAA nor the DOJ even investigated the reporting or non-reporting by the coach. They didn't even talk to the coach about the subject, nor did the DOJ talk to him at all. The non-reporting of the incident has been known since the Barz report in January in 2012. The university has admitted that it didn't have a policy requiring any reporting at the time, which was Dec. 2010. The coach didn't know the name of the accuser or that she was a student. The police provided minimal information, including that there was no probable cause to pursue the allegation. As others have said, what's the obligation to report to anyone in that situation? In any event, Title IX reporting is in the jurisdiction of the DOE, not the NCAA. The coach took disciplinary action against the players, for putting themselves in a position like that. This included having them call their parents to tell them what had occurred. The police looked at the incident again in January 2012 and again declined to pursue it, based presumably on lack of probable cause. In the university proceeding started in early 2012, one of the accused won his case with the honor court with a 7-0 vote. The proceeding was immediately dropped against another accused. Both were allowed to graduate.

you may be right, if you look at page 15 of the d.o.j. report and the may 19, 2012 article in the missoulian it isn't so clear. if they have the barz report there's, like the freeh report, no reason for the ncaa to ask any questions.

It is clear that the coach did not report the incident up the chain at the university. No one disputes that. Perhaps the DOJ believes that the matter should have been reported under Title IX, but one would think the DOJ would need to know what the coach was told or knew in order to make that determination. If a university employee is told that a student was involved in a sexual assault (or sexual harassment) incident that was investigated, but will not be pursued, by the police--but it is not known who the accuser is or whether she's a student or where she lived, and the matter occurred off-campus--does that trigger Title IX reporting? Taking it a step further. If a university employee learns that a student has been accused of sexual harassment at a summer job, whether in Missoula, Glendive or New York, but the employer has determined that nothing will be done about the matter and the university employee knows that too; is this a matter that must be reported or investigated under Title IX? I don't know the answer to the those questions. Then take it a step further and impose the new University standard for subjective sexual harassment, i.e. making a person uncomfortable when he/she is asked for a date--again in Missoula, Glendive or New York City.

 

[zengriz]

...google the word..parasite...
...first thing that will pop up...
...the address of the n c a a...

... ...

 

[grizindabox]

...google the word..parasite...
...first thing that will pop up...
...the address of the n c a a...

... ...

nope, that was second...first thing was PR

cue Titleist...

 

[UMGriz75]

the way the process works is the investigation is conducted and the ncaa informs the school of the infractions. the school then submits what it thinks its penalties should be to the ncaa. the ncaa can either accept or reject that proposal. if it rejects, then it changes the penalties and the school had xx days to counter. i believe we submitted penalties of 4-5 vacated wins. 2-3 scholarships and decreased practice time. if so the ball is in the ncaa's court right now. this delay tells me they're still reviewing or they've reviewed and we didn't like what they came back with. it could also be that they've added pflugrad's lack of reporting to the title ix coordinator and the dean of students. if so, they could come back with stiffer sanctions.

Neither the NCAA nor the DOJ even investigated the reporting or non-reporting by the coach. They didn't even talk to the coach about the subject, nor did the DOJ talk to him at all. The non-reporting of the incident has been known since the Barz report in January in 2012. The university has admitted that it didn't have a policy requiring any reporting at the time, which was Dec. 2010. The coach didn't know the name of the accuser or that she was a student. The police provided minimal information, including that there was no probable cause to pursue the allegation. As others have said, what's the obligation to report to anyone in that situation? In any event, Title IX reporting is in the jurisdiction of the DOE, not the NCAA. The coach took disciplinary action against the players, for putting themselves in a position like that. This included having them call their parents to tell them what had occurred. The police looked at the incident again in January 2012 and again declined to pursue it, based presumably on lack of probable cause. In the university proceeding started in early 2012, one of the accused won his case with the honor court with a 7-0 vote. The proceeding was immediately dropped against another accused. Both were allowed to graduate.

you may be right, if you look at page 15 of the d.o.j. report and the may 19, 2012 article in the missoulian it isn't so clear. if they have the barz report there's, like the freeh report, no reason for the ncaa to ask any questions.

Washingtongizfan1's rendition is not just correct, it is understated.

And that is one of the travesties of the DOJ report, but also highlighted just how weak that sauce was, that they had to refer to that "allegation" which was probably the single most ludicrous of any allegation made at any University in which male students were implicated, but where the female accuser was, frankly, just out for vengeance when not one of the 142 or more young men she performed on called her up the next day to thank her "for the really nice time."

It also highlights the "new standards" for investigating these "cases" because the police did not take the accuser's allegations seriously "enough" and particularly so when her best friend, who was present, said that the accuser was the instigator, there was a cell-phone video of her not only quite thoroughly and obviously enjoying herself, but that according to the technical definition of "who grabbed what first," she was the one in fact committing the "multiple assaults" against a bunch of guys who, reacting happily to her proffered and extremely friendly and gymnastic advances, and impressed as well by her enthusiasm and endurance, thought simply that "their ships had finally come in."

Upon discovering all of that, of course, the police became somewhat jaded at the accusation. Twice.

That is, of course, now against the law at the University of Montana. That is "stereotyping." It is "discouraging" to those who lie about these things when they don't get the expected phone call the next morning, "gee, that was a swell date."