NCAA Investigation Question

[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.

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

Missoula, like Happy Valley, has been fostering an environment where "sports are king." Evidence of actual, direct benefits are not required; preferential treatment will suffice (one example: Tru/Kemp may not have benefited from Foley's attendance but that preferential treatment was apparently not afforded to non-athletes).

 

[getgrizzy]

"We're trying to focus the penalties where they are most likely to change the culture," Emmert said. "We're saying to Penn State, 'Don't worry about going to the Rose Bowl next year, worry about getting the culture right and the values right and in a few years you can worry about going to bowl games.'"

 

[jagur1]

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?

Missoula, like Happy Valley, has been fostering an environment where "sports are king." Evidence of actual, direct benefits are not required; preferential treatment will suffice (one example: Tru/Kemp may not have benefited from Foley's attendance but that preferential treatment was apparently not afforded to non-athletes).

If sports are king in Missoula the U and community would have upped the money and gone with Boise and U of I to 1A. Just by maintaining our 14 million dollar sports budget and paying a football coach 100K is proof. The sports are king argument is offically dead once you realize this.

 

[BWahlberg]

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.

OK - well maybe the portion around Trumaine and Gerald but yeah in the past - no clue, that could be ongoing.

 

[garizzalies]

So you're basically saying its okay to punish Penn because they run with the big dogs unlike poor little UM which is only FCS?

UM football wasn't king when Boise and Idaho left; it was only a prince at that time. Once they left, the throne was available.

 

[nzone]

And I believe recently the NCAA is considering paying student athletes. I guess the environment wasn't right to begin with. Perception I guess.

 

[jagur1]

So you're basically saying its okay to punish Penn because they run with the big dogs unlike poor little UM which is only FCS?

UM football wasn't king when Boise and Idaho left; it was only a prince at that time. Once they left, the throne was available.

You're not getting the point. If the football at all cost attitude existed in Missoula they wouldn't be satisfied running with the little dogs. I understand you're bitter about the success in Missoula and you have to hang your hat on something. Instead of giving the credit to a lot of hard working kids.

 

[getgrizzy]

So you're basically saying its okay to punish Penn because they run with the big dogs unlike poor little UM which is only FCS?

UM football wasn't king when Boise and Idaho left; it was only a prince at that time. Once they left, the throne was available.

You're not getting the point. If the football at all cost attitude existed in Missoula they wouldn't be satisfied running with the little dogs. I understand you're bitter about the success in Missoula and you have to hang your hat on something. Instead of giving the credit to a lot of hard working kids.

you call hiring a consulting firm to research moving up to fbs being "satisfied?"

 

[jagur1]

So you're basically saying its okay to punish Penn because they run with the big dogs unlike poor little UM which is only FCS?

UM football wasn't king when Boise and Idaho left; it was only a prince at that time. Once they left, the throne was available.

You're not getting the point. If the football at all cost attitude existed in Missoula they wouldn't be satisfied running with the little dogs. I understand you're bitter about the success in Missoula and you have to hang your hat on something. Instead of giving the credit to a lot of hard working kids.

you call hiring a consulting firm to research moving up to fbs being "satisfied?"

What resulted from the study? Doesnt support your Football is king arguement does it.

 

[jagur1]

Dear Haters.

I know it hurts your brain when you don’t have a snide little mantra such as “ Football is king in Missoula” to fall back on. I understand, giving credit to some outstanding young men just goes against your nature. Love and Peace J.

 

[getgrizzy]

Dear Haters.

I know it hurts your brain when you don’t have a snide little mantra such as “ Football is king in Missoula” to fall back on. I understand, giving credit to some outstanding young men just goes against your nature. Love and Peace J.

there are some outstanding young men and women involved in our sports programs. in fact, most of them are. its fine for football to be king, but in this case the king has to behave or he gets removed.

 

[jagur1]

Dear Haters.

I know it hurts your brain when you don’t have a snide little mantra such as “ Football is king in Missoula” to fall back on. I understand, giving credit to some outstanding young men just goes against your nature. Love and Peace J.

there are some outstanding young men and women involved in our sports programs. in fact, most of them are. its fine for football to be king, but in this case the king has to behave or he gets removed.

Well I'll agree with that. Change removed to punished.

 

[GrizLA]

Last night I was watching the LA Dodgers when the announcers were bantering about their "early days" in baseball. One, apparently a star player that was successful in the Pros, boasted of his scholarship days at Southern Illinois, presumably a Div 1, and NCAA institution, and how, whenever he felt like it, would call the manager or owner of the St.Louis team and receive tickets for himself and his friends...Now, will Southern Illinois be under NCAA scrutiny or is it just the football and basketball programs of a select few that get the attention?

 

[bisonboone11]

If sports are king in Missoula the U and community would have upped the money and gone with Boise and U of I to 1A. Just by maintaining our 14 million dollar sports budget and paying a football coach 100K is proof. The sports are king argument is offically dead once you realize this.

Just because a team isn't in the highest division possible for their sport, that is not proof that they do not give preferential treatment to student-athletes. If that was actually proof, then every school that is not FBS could give as many benefits to their studen-athletes as they want. Then when the NCAA investigated, the school could just say, "we're not FBS, so that is proof that we have not been giving preferential treatment to our student-athletes." That would be the end of the investigation.

I'm not saying that UM was necessarily giving preferential treatment to athletes, but to say that just because UM didn't move up is proof that sports are not king (i.e. preferential treatment is not being given to student athletes) is ridiculous.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Counterpoint:

The law firm represents lots of people pro bono (as it is obligated to do by lawyers ethical rules), and the statement said it had done so with athletes in the past. This may have been many years ago.

Foley probably went to the law offices as part of UM's investigation of what had occurred in the incident, so that UM could determine the facts, learn about the legal situation and where it would likely go, and be able to determine what immediate disciplinary action, if any, to take.

The vp, who was the head of public relations for UM, was probably just trying to get the released information accurate. In this particular situation, it turned out that the police and the university panel determined that there was no sexual assault at all, let alone gang rape, according to newspaper articles and what has been posted on egriz. Looks like the vp was just doing his job--and was right. This part of what public relations is about.

On not telling higher-ups that players were being investigated, the investigation was already over when the coach learned of it. He received limited information. I wonder if he even knew the accuser was a student. There was no university policy requiring him to report the matter to anyone. He took his own disciplinary action against the players. As noted above, the police and the university panel determined that no sexual assault had occurred.

It is not true that the vp suggested retribution against the accuser. The vp merely asked an internal question. This is the vp's internal email, as quoted by the Missoulian: "Is it not a violation of the student code for the woman to be publicly talking about the process and providing details about the conclusion? Help me understand please." Where's the suggestion of retribution in that internal communication?

Who has said the athletic dept doesn't attend seminars on rape? I haven't noticed that.

Actually, almost the whole team attended a session on sexual assault, which had been set up for all athletes. No athlete other than football players attended the session.

 

[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.

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

Hmmm, I think the NCAA took a much different stand on the Penn State issue then you are here.

The KEY difference between PSU and UM is that at PSU, felonies were known to have been committed, and were not reported to the police. The only known incidence at UM of "failure to report" as we can surmize from the Barz report, was that Pflu evidently neglected to inform campus leadership when notified from the police that some of his players had been investigated and no charges would be forthcoming. Was that an error in judgement? In my mind, yes. But it is NOT even CLOSE to what transpired at PSU. At PSU egregious and hideous acts were not reported to the police. In the UM case, the police had already investigated and found no wrong-doing.

Now, regarding perception. Yes, I'd agree there is a problem there, and one that UM needs to address (much of that work is done or currently taking place). But the perception problem is also one of MUCH misinformation being presented, a great deal of it from the local "news"paper. Much of it comes from this board, as well.

Personally, I'm for waiting to see what actually develops before sharpening the guillotine (although I'm well aware taking that approach doesn't sell newspapers)

 

[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.

Counterpoint:

The law firm represents lots of people pro bono (as it is obligated to do by lawyers ethical rules), and the statement said it had done so with athletes in the past. This may have been many years ago.

Foley probably went to the law offices as part of UM's investigation of what had occurred in the incident, so that UM could determine the facts, learn about the legal situation and where it would likely go, and be able to determine what immediate disciplinary action, if any, to take.

The vp, who was the head of public relations for UM, was probably just trying to get the released information accurate. In this particular situation, it turned out that the police and the university panel determined that there was no sexual assault at all, let alone gang rape, according to newspaper articles and what has been posted on egriz. Looks like the vp was just doing his job--and was right. This part of what public relations is about.

On not telling higher-ups that players were being investigated, the investigation was already over when the coach learned of it. He received limited information. I wonder if he even knew the accuser was a student. There was no university policy requiring him to report the matter to anyone. He took his own disciplinary action against the players. As noted above, the police and the university panel determined that no sexual assault had occurred.

It is not true that the vp suggested retribution against the accuser. The vp merely asked an internal question. This is the vp's internal email, as quoted by the Missoulian: "Is it not a violation of the student code for the woman to be publicly talking about the process and providing details about the conclusion? Help me understand please." Where's the suggestion of retribution in that internal communication?

Who has said the athletic dept doesn't attend seminars on rape? I haven't noticed that.

Actually, almost the whole team attended a session on sexual assault, which had been set up for all athletes. No athlete other than football players attended the session.

countercounterpoint:
-if the players represented for free was years ago, then datso woulda said so.
-v.p. coulda got all that information without leaving his office.
-the accusation was gang-rape. it doesn't matter that no charges were filed.
-the matter wasn't settled when pflu got the information. the higherups absolutely need to know if there is an investigation. this is the case in any corporation or bureaucracy. i can't imagine any administrator finding out after the fact that an investigation of gang-rape was going and he wasn't informed. "There is evidence that there has been a sexual assault that has not been appropriately reported and investigated," Barz wrote.
-you could take that either way, which is the problem.
-"And when Pflugrad acceded to a suggestion that all student-athletes be required to take a course on relationships – and that the Athletic Department pay for it – assistant athletic director Jean Gee put a quick kibosh on the plan. “I just feel strongly this is a bad idea,” she wrote, adding that athletes had little time in their schedules for another elective course."

 

[tnt]

I agree we are no where near the level of PSU. I don't know where we are. But I continue to repeat this STILL, its not the kids (any of it) Its is the FootBall is king thing (sort of) We may be lucky in that the "rumors" surrounding the program brought this up now. Before there is something big.

As far as moving up, being the big fish in a small pond doesn't mean football isn't king. We simply could not compete at that level and RE knows it. It has nothing to do with being able to play and everything to with recruiting. We simply are not the academic equivilent of the big schools. Sorry, for most of the kids coming in eduction means something. For a quality player being recruited at that level, the prestige of that degree means something. We could get some players of that level, but their academic abilities (if not prison records) might be a problem as Boise State has proven.

 

[Umista]

This humble Griz fan thinks that ms tnt should become a fan of Idaho State. Locked in the bottom rungs tnt would have a great experience.

Idaho State may not notice an increase of *#**#*#* and UM would be happy. Win win for sure!

 

[tourist]

A perfect fit! ISU is under its own NCAA investigation as we speak, with the vortex of the storm a "fan" spilling cash for recruits, among other things. Basketball is the prime focus, but my inside source claims football is also under the microscope(no proof mentioned). I'll bet the Idaho State Journal could use a 'investigative reporter' to stir the pot. How about it Gwen. Looking for a new town and job?