NCAA Investigation Question

[doebrmn]

The NCAA started their investigation based upon the belief that the UM either provided legal services to or "steered" Tru and Kemp to the attorneys they used. It was pointed out by a few posters on here that this aspect of the investigation has ended because both the Kemp and Johnson families had hired legal representation within hours of their arrest. The NCAA latched on to the Missoulian article which suggested Jim Foley and Jim O'Day were "walking Kemp and Johnson" to the attorneys office. In fact that was not the initial meeting that was a secondary meeting.

However the NCAA has shifted focus, as most would suspect. I understand they're looking at other things and I wouldn't doubt for one second they've combed over the handling of information as reported and transferred through the chains of leadership regarding the alleged sexual assault.

I disagree the NCAA investigation ended on this issue. In the same article (or around the same time) a certain lawyer was quoted as saying his firm had provided pro bono services to players in the past but were being paid for this representation. That is an admission that free services had been given to student athletes (an NCAA violation). It creates an interesting situation because law firms provide pro bono services all the time and very likey had provided pro bono services to other students at UM. However, like most things involving the NCAA, it likely won't matter. If the free services were given to student-athletes it would likely be considered a violation.

 

[nzone]

So now perception is a basis for penalty..........I really thought in this great USA that a violation has to occur in order for punishment to be handed down. So are we now trying to save the entire college environment because some people perceive something actually happened? If thats the case than the NCAA will trump up some half minded investigative report, impose sanctions and not be any better than the body it just investigated. If nothing out of the ordinary happened than what the hell is the problem.
Maybe the NCAA should have a yearly review process so all this "perception" will vanish. My gosh penalize a university because of perception is like convicting someone based on color. If we have legitimate violations state them in chronological order.............spell it out.

 

[EverettGriz]

The NCAA started their investigation based upon the belief that the UM either provided legal services to or "steered" Tru and Kemp to the attorneys they used. It was pointed out by a few posters on here that this aspect of the investigation has ended because both the Kemp and Johnson families had hired legal representation within hours of their arrest. The NCAA latched on to the Missoulian article which suggested Jim Foley and Jim O'Day were "walking Kemp and Johnson" to the attorneys office. In fact that was not the initial meeting that was a secondary meeting.

However the NCAA has shifted focus, as most would suspect. I understand they're looking at other things and I wouldn't doubt for one second they've combed over the handling of information as reported and transferred through the chains of leadership regarding the alleged sexual assault.

I disagree the NCAA investigation ended on this issue. In the same article (or around the same time) a certain lawyer was quoted as saying his firm had provided pro bono services to players in the past but were being paid for this representation. That is an admission that free services had been given to student athletes (an NCAA violation). It creates an interesting situation because law firms provide pro bono services all the time and very likey had provided pro bono services to other students at UM. However, like most things involving the NCAA, it likely won't matter. If the free services were given to student-athletes it would likely be considered a violation.

More half-truths to make things appear as bad as possible.

What Datsopolis said in the story was that his firm has, in the past, represented both general students and student athletes on a pro-bono basis, but there was no discussion with Kemp and Tru along those lines, as the firm was hired and paid by the parents.

As I understand it, there is no violation if the service provided to athletes is also available to general students.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/um-football-player-in-court-to-answer-rape-charge/article_0080f54c-3aed-11e1-8b92-0019bb2963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[nzone]

And I'm positve Datsopolis would know when in fact an NCAA violation occurs. Pretty smart guy!

 

[tnt]

So now perception is a basis for penalty..........I really thought in this great USA that a violation has to occur in order for punishment to be handed down. So are we now trying to save the entire college environment because some people perceive something actually happened? If thats the case than the NCAA will trump up some half minded investigative report, impose sanctions and not be any better than the body it just investigated. If nothing out of the ordinary happened than what the hell is the problem.
Maybe the NCAA should have a yearly review process so all this "perception" will vanish. My gosh penalize a university because of perception is like convicting someone based on color. If we have legitimate violations state them in chronological order.............spell it out.

It would seem that way, but its not. The NCAA is governed by University Chancellors and presidents who very much care about perception and never will allow athletics to be King (Duke perhaps if it furthers the institution, but never king). If there is smoke they assume there is fire. It doesn't matter how big the fire is if they find it, it will be put out, alebeit by overkill but no chance of smouldering.

Does it really effect the program long term or even as drammatically as some fans think? Well Boise State is on a Bubble for another 2 years. Seems they are still okay....

 

[doebrmn]

I really wonder if people on this board are capable of reading.

"It creates an interesting situation because law firms provide pro bono services all the time and very likey had provided pro bono services to other students at UM. However, like most things involving the NCAA, it likely won't matter."

Here try actually reading the post and see if you can figure out that what I actually said is exactly what you you then claim is some great point in your post. So where is the Half-truth you half-wit.

As pointed out, it raises an interesting question and I don't believe (opinion not a statement of fact, moron), that the NCAA will buy the excuse. The firm will have to demonstrate a general policy of providing pro bono services to all students of UM (based on income level etc). That is very unlikely. Instead, it may require opening up each case (which in and of itself creates ethical issues) to demonstrate that pro bono services were provided based on similar criteria in all cases and not based on the student's status as an athelete.

My guess (again an opinion not a statement of fact), is that will not be possible. Also, try and find the article that was written during the Taser case and I think you will find a different quote.

Finally, weren't you the same poster that called me out when I told you the NCAA was investigating and told me how stupid I was and that I was lying and wrong. Interesting, turned out I was right. So what does that tell you.

 

[nzone]

So in return law firms will be hesitant provide free legal council to students in general because the NCAA only deals with perception..................wow what a messed up system. So if its cake it must be edible therefore everything that cakes edible...........sorry folks I deal in facts and rules not in what ifs. What ifs and arbtrary thinking result in law suits and rightfully so. My thinking says if you are going to hold me to a standard than you have to be held to that same standard. All I can say is they better have a smoking gun.

 

[doebrmn]

Actually even the Article you cited raises the issue.

"On Monday, Datsopoulos said the firm has a "long history of representing students and student-athletes from the University of Montana."

However, he said there is no arrangement by which the firm represents athletes, and the university does not pay legal fees in cases where the firm does so.

"It is true that our entire firm has been involved with the university over the years, with scholarships and donations that don't just have to do with athletics," Datsopoulos said. "But there is no agreement that we represent their athletes."

Datsopoulos said the firm has represented athletes pro bono in the past, but said the Johnson, Kemp and Donaldson cases all involved fees.

"There's never been a discussion otherwise," he said."


You will notice in this article the law firm says it has a history of representing students and student-athletes, but does not say it has a history of representing them both pro bono

The firm then goes on to say there is no arrangement by which the firm represents student-athletes or that the UM pays for legal fees when they do. This is undoubtably true.

It then goes on to say that the firm has represented athletes pro bono in the past, but not in the Johnson/Kemp/Donaldson case.

NOTE IT DOES NOT SAY ANYWHERE IN THIS QUOTE THAT THE FIRM HAS REPRESENTED STUDENTS PRO BONO IN THE PAST (which I am sure they have), but per my previous post, to demonstrate that student-athletes are not receiving favors from a major booster, they are going to have to show that students and athletes alike are being treated the same and I doubt (again opinion, not fact) they will be able to show that.

 

[EverettGriz]

I really wonder if people on this board are capable of reading.

"It creates an interesting situation because law firms provide pro bono services all the time and very likey had provided pro bono services to other students at UM. However, like most things involving the NCAA, it likely won't matter."

Here try actually reading the post and see if you can figure out that what I actually said is exactly what you you then claim is some great point in your post. So where is the Half-truth you half-wit.

As pointed out, it raises an interesting question and I don't believe (opinion not a statement of fact, moron), that the NCAA will buy the excuse. The firm will have to demonstrate a general policy of providing pro bono services to all students of UM (based on income level etc). That is very unlikely. Instead, it may require opening up each case (which in and of itself creates ethical issues) to demonstrate that pro bono services were provided based on similar criteria in all cases and not based on the student's status as an athelete.

My guess (again an opinion not a statement of fact), is that will not be possible. Also, try and find the article that was written during the Taser case and I think you will find a different quote.

Finally, weren't you the same poster that called me out when I told you the NCAA was investigating and told me how stupid I was and that I was lying and wrong. Interesting, turned out I was right. So what does that tell you.

Geez, you're a tool.

A few days back, one of the few good Cat posters on this site posted the question as to why all Cat fans get lumped together as total . You embody the reason....


So, if I understand your cat logic correctly, your position is that even if what took place wasn't a violation, the NCAA will punish UM for it?? I detest the NCAA, and I firmly believe they'll justify their 7 month investigation of Reds/Stocks/MoClub with findings in order to deeply bury their bar bills on their expense report. But even I have a difficult time believing the NCAA take action for things which are not violations.

 

[doebrmn]

While I agree that the system sucks Boosters (regardless of intent) have to be very careful how they deal with student-athletes. Simply because a booster may have done something for a student in the past doesn't mean it is not considered a violation if he does the same thing for a student athlete. The NCAA (rightly or wrongly) views almost any interaction with a student-athlete suspicously and basically puts the burden on the booster to prove it wasn't motivated by the student's status as an athlete. Trying to prove a negative is very difficult.

 

[Bear Axed]

NOTE IT DOES NOT SAY ANYWHERE IN THIS QUOTE THAT THE FIRM HAS REPRESENTED STUDENTS PRO BONO IN THE PAST (which I am sure they have), but per my previous post, to demonstrate that student-athletes are not receiving favors from a major booster, they are going to have to show that students and athletes alike are being treated the same and I doubt (again opinion, not fact) they will be able to show that.

So if said lawfirm said all the probono help to athletes stopped in the Swarthout era when the Griz were D11 what would the NCAA have to act on?

 

[doebrmn]

That is not my logic. My logic is simply stating an opinion that when a major booster states publicly that it has provided pro bono (free) services to student-athletes in the past a big red flag just went up for the NCAA and once that happens, it will be very difficult to escape unharmed. While in the end it may just be deemed a minor infraction and nothing is ever publicly disclosed by the NCAA, again it is out UM's hand and it just has to wait and see.

 

[garizzalies]

What violation of the NCAA code did Penn State commit? Answer: none. There is no code that required them to report Sandusky but that did not stop the NCAA from punishing them. Why? because the NCAA wants to avoid a situation where "sports are king." those of you who want to defend each individual event are missing the big picture.

 

[EverettGriz]

That is not my logic. My logic is simply stating an opinion that when a major booster states publicly that it has provided pro bono (free) services to student-athletes in the past a big red flag just went up for the NCAA and once that happens, it will be very difficult to escape unharmed. While in the end it may just be deemed a minor infraction and nothing is ever publicly disclosed by the NCAA, again it is out UM's hand and it just has to wait and see.

On this we agree. But this would appear to be a different argument than that you were articulating above.

 

[EverettGriz]

What violation of the NCAA code did Penn State commit? Answer: none. There is no code that required them to report Sandusky but that did not stop the NCAA from punishing them. Why? because the NCAA wants to avoid a situation where "sports are king." those of you who want to defend each individual event are missing the big picture.

So, pray tell, what IS the big picture, since you seem to have it all figured out?

 

[getgrizzy]

That is not my logic. My logic is simply stating an opinion that when a major booster states publicly that it has provided pro bono (free) services to student-athletes in the past a big red flag just went up for the NCAA and once that happens, it will be very difficult to escape unharmed. While in the end it may just be deemed a minor infraction and nothing is ever publicly disclosed by the NCAA, again it is out UM's hand and it just has to wait and see.

not to mention that there's no reason to have the schools v.p. at the law office with kemp and tru in the first place. that will be one of the n.c.a.a.'s questions. what could possibly be the answer to that. it was just a coincidence.

 

[tnt]

What violation of the NCAA code did Penn State commit? Answer: none. There is no code that required them to report Sandusky but that did not stop the NCAA from punishing them. Why? because the NCAA wants to avoid a situation where "sports are king." those of you who want to defend each individual event are missing the big picture.

So, pray tell, what IS the big picture, since you seem to have it all figured out?

Pretty Simple:

Any Griz fan who does not think that the NCAA will levy significant penalties on our program is in denial. This will be a blood-bath, and set this program back for many years.

On the other hand, it may set this program ahead for years to come. From now on, from the UM pres. on down to the asst. coaches, the centuries of hemming and hawing, nit-picking over "legal" issues, "did he or did he not," etc., etc. crap will be no more. We all know that UM football players have enjoyed a certain dispensation on this campus. Most students know this and have objected, not because of the program, but because they know guys get away with stuff that none of them would do.

Why is it, that we football fans look the other way, and even defend, football player infractions to the Student Conduct Code, or even breaking the law? I've seen so many excuses about player misconduct on this board I want to barf. "Oh, they are young guys, sowing their wild oats. Leave them alone." That kind of garbage. 99.9% of the male UM student body also "sow their wild oats," but don't get into the stuff endemic to the football program. Even in HS the football jocks are both a source of praise and derision.

"It's the football culture, Stupid." I agree that it's only a small percentage of that college cohort that causes problems. But, I'll bet that it's like the 80/20 concept: 20% of the group causes 80% of the problems. Why is it, as someone has already said, that football players have this thing about being able to screw more women than the others? If this is true, what value does a college education have for these guys? Colleges should not be producing these kinds of misfits. Yes, yes, they are a small part of a college football program, but even so, why should they be there?

There is a moral laxity in college football programs, as evidenced by Penn State. UM is nowhere near that situation, but I maintain that Penn State and UM, minor in comparison, are only the tip of the iceberg, unless of course your team has never been in the FCS playoffs, is a DivII, III, or NAIA team. Seems to me these guys play for the right reasons and their fans support them for the right reasons.

I disagree, Growler, that UM will take a step back. I see it as a step forward, and I also believe UM pres. Engstrom has done all the right things and will get this football program on a better moral footing for the future. Even Penn State coaches and players are going ahead with plans to win games, despite it all.

 

[EverettGriz]

I'm sorry, TNT/Gwen. Was there a fact in that story? If so, I missed it.


Look, we all know there's been some problems. We all know there's likely to be findings by the NCAA. What we don't know is that there are pervasive issues in the department that warrant ANY comparison with Penn State, and until somone provides such details, those making the comparisons simply look silly.

 

[getgrizzy]

i think what he means by the big picture is that "its the football culture, stupid." a school appears to have a bad culture when law firms are representing athletes pro bono, when the v.p. is at the law offices with the players, when the v.p. tries to change the wording of statements to make them not sound as bad as they actually are, when the coach doesn't tell the higher-ups that players are being investigated for gang rape, when the coach tells the media a player being investigated for rape is a high character individual, when the v.p. comes off like he's suggesting retribution on a rape victim, when athl. dept. staff doesn't attend seminars or have players attend readily available classes on rape.

 

[tnt]

I'm sorry, TNT/Gwen. Was there a fact in that story? If so, I missed it.


Look, we all know there's been some problems. We all know there's likely to be findings by the NCAA. What we don't know is that there are pervasive issues in the department that warrant ANY comparison with Penn State, and until somone provides such details, those making the comparisons simply look silly.

There is that perception thing again.......

There was only ONE lapse at Penn State as awful as what happened was. It wasn't even a very big one. They guy had been reported investigated and recommended to recieve counseling. The subject came up again and everybody decided that was what was going on. Nothing was said about the graduate assistant who if he really thought there was a problem should have taken it further, but instead reported to Paterno so the department could take care of it. Those are the facts...... based on that what happened to Penn State as result it was way overboard.

BUT WE KNOW BETTER. What happened to Penn state isn't nearly enough. The fact that only 2 administrators are indicted is disgusting. The fact the whole bunch of them can't be locked in the same cage with Landusky for the rest of their lives to pat themselves on their backs for their Great program is truly sad. The only hope is that they will all bend over in the shower once too often picking up their soap.....

So will the "facts" in Montana be less than the perceptions. One would hope so. How will the the NCAA decide? Fact or perception or both.

BTW Get Grizzly, the athletic department did attend the Rape Seminar, well sorta, they got a waiter to stream it via cell phone to them