NCAA investigating UM

[catatac]

Ok, so everyone knows there is SOMETHING going on at UM given all the investigations. Now with the latest announcement that the NCAA had been digging in there since JANUARY (Which seems like quite a while), I think everyone knows that there are things being uncovered, and there are consequences. The big question in my mind, is what is the outcome going to be from all of this? Obviously not much has been made public about what the infractions have been and how serious, but let's speculate... since this is a message board. Best case for UM is they get a slap on the wrists, maybe lose some $$, lose some practice time, etc. I think that is probably a minimum given all that is going on. Worst case... lost a bunch of players, maybe coaches, forfeit games, no playoffs, huge fines, etc. So the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. My guess is that one of the penalties here is going to be a post-season ban for 2012. Thoughts?

[bcatfan1]

I wasn't saying, "I wish this wasn't happening to them".

I was just simply stating that a lot of people outside MT, don't differentiate between the University of Montana and the State of Montana.

[ABQCat]

I wasn't saying, "I wish this wasn't happening to them".

I was just simply stating that a lot of people outside MT, don't differentiate between the University of Montana and the State of Montana.

+1
Pretty much all my coworkers are located on the East Coast and I'm feeling a bunch of heat on this. I truly hate the griz and I'll make that known from mountain tops if necessary, but I sure wish this was a ‘charge for autographs’, or ‘playing an ineligible player’, or ‘improper benefits from a booster’, or anything that's different than a rape scandal. This sucks all around.

[defensivearts]

I think your speculation is about right.

What would worry me if I were a UM supporter is that the university in general, and the FB program specifically, have had their head's collectively in the sand for so long that they are likely unaware that some of what they have been doing is actually against NCAA rules.

To me, the following incidents indicate that once the NCAA starts poking around they are likely to uncover infractions no one has considered publicly:

-The fact that Foley has escorted players to Datsopoulos offices shows the blatant hubris with which they have operated.
-The tazer incident is testimony to the complete lack of respect that the players have had for law enforcement.
-The pathetic punishment given for the tazergate shows how little discipline was in place.
- Phlugrad's reinstatement/praise of JJ so quickly after a very serious accusation shows just how much the entire program has been living in a cocoon of self-involved back-slapping for at least a decade.
- O'Day's lack of supervision/good judgement/power over his FB coach shows a lack of department over site. In any other institution in the USA the FB coach would have gone to the AD during tazergate and the JJ reinstatement situation and asked the AD for advice. And the AD would have specified a more severe punishment for Kemp&Johnson and the withholding of JJ from team activities until fall practice respectively.

In general, the negligent level of non-coordination, blindness to detail and disregard of public sentiment does not bode well for a happy investigation.

Continually, over the past few months the UM appears to have been blind-sided. I expect that pattern to continue as NCAA infractions surface that, to them, seem trivial but that the general public will consider severe.

[bobcat99]

I don't expect whatever ruling the NCAA makes to have much effect on UM for this next year, but I expect it to have some major effects in the upcoming years. They're really going to take a hit with recruiting IMO.

[catatac]

I don't expect whatever ruling the NCAA makes to have much effect on UM for this next year, but I expect it to have some major effects in the upcoming years. They're really going to take a hit with recruiting IMO.

Well... obviously if they have to forfeit games or significant practice time, reduced schollies, post season ban... those are some things that would definitely have an impact now.

[cats2506]

I don't expect whatever ruling the NCAA makes to have much effect on UM for this next year, but I expect it to have some major effects in the upcoming years. They're really going to take a hit with recruiting IMO.

Well... obviously if they have to forfeit games or significant practice time, reduced schollies, post season ban... those are some things that would definitely have an impact now.

Scholarship penalties would take effect the following years, the NCAA doesn't force schools to pull scholarships from kids that have them now, however if they currently have some unused scholarships they are allow to put them against the penalty's. Not saying that any of this will happen to um, but that is how it has worked at other schools.

If the are penalized I think the totality of everything will hurt recruiting.

[grizatwork]

The only difference between a clean program and a dirty program is the NCAA has not investigated a clean program...yet. They will find something. It may not be what they were originally looking for. It may be less, but it very well may be more. Mark my words. They will find something. I would dare anyone to find evidence of a NCAA investigation that did not uncover some sort of violation. They will not walk away empty handed. My hope is that it truly does make things more transparent and cleaner in the long run. I also hope that some certain boosters who will remain nameless are prohibited from having any contact with the University forever.

[[cat_bracket]]

I also hope that some certain boosters who will remain nameless are prohibited from having any contact with the University forever.

I always feel a little ill whenever I see a rich, arrogant person at a football game decked out in their favorite team's colors. I just always get this feeling they're doing, or are going to do, something wrong.

[canyoncat]

I also hope that some certain boosters who will remain nameless are prohibited from having any contact with the University forever.

I always feel a little ill whenever I see a rich, arrogant person at a football game decked out in their favorite team's colors. I just always get this feeling they're doing, or are going to do, something wrong.

If it wasn't for those "rich, arrogant" people, we wouldn't have a new endzone, field turf, new business building and a host of other new facilities on campus.

Not trying to bust your chops there cat_bracket, but that wasn't a very good statement. Hope that it was just sarcasm that I am not picking up on.

[grizatwork]

I also hope that some certain boosters who will remain nameless are prohibited from having any contact with the University forever.

I always feel a little ill whenever I see a rich, arrogant person at a football game decked out in their favorite team's colors. I just always get this feeling they're doing, or are going to do, something wrong.

If it wasn't for those "rich, arrogant" people, we wouldn't have a new endzone, field turf, new business building and a host of other new facilities on campus.

Not trying to bust your chops there cat_bracket, but that wasn't a very good statement. Hope that it was just sarcasm that I am not picking up on.

I think everyone appreciates what those boosters with deep pockets do for the university, but in every NCAA scandal that involves boosters, it is not Joe the Plumber who scrapes all he has together just to get his season tickets who gets named. It is Joe Cool with the big wallet that ends up hurting the universities because they equate philanthropy with access and money with special treatment.

[[cat_bracket]]

I also hope that some certain boosters who will remain nameless are prohibited from having any contact with the University forever.

I always feel a little ill whenever I see a rich, arrogant person at a football game decked out in their favorite team's colors. I just always get this feeling they're doing, or are going to do, something wrong.

If it wasn't for those "rich, arrogant" people, we wouldn't have a new endzone, field turf, new business building and a host of other new facilities on campus.

Not trying to bust your chops there cat_bracket, but that wasn't a very good statement. Hope that it was just sarcasm that I am not picking up on.

[Thank you grizatwork]
CC - So are you saying all rich people are arrogant or that our rich donors could've built our stadium without the contributions us less wealthy people made? I'll give the rich, grounded people (Gene Thayer, friends of Sonny Holland, etc.) credit for this. Likewise, not trying to bust your chops, but are you serious? You haven't been around enough to know or at least have experienced the difference between a rich, grounded person from a rich, arrogant person? Another type of person that makes me feel ill is one that doesn't, or simpley can't, sense that someone is patching into a football program for their own self interest.

[canyoncat]

I also hope that some certain boosters who will remain nameless are prohibited from having any contact with the University forever.

I always feel a little ill whenever I see a rich, arrogant person at a football game decked out in their favorite team's colors. I just always get this feeling they're doing, or are going to do, something wrong.

If it wasn't for those "rich, arrogant" people, we wouldn't have a new endzone, field turf, new business building and a host of other new facilities on campus.

Not trying to bust your chops there cat_bracket, but that wasn't a very good statement. Hope that it was just sarcasm that I am not picking up on.

[Thank you grizatwork]
CC - So are you saying all rich people are arrogant or that our rich donors could've built our stadium without the contributions us less wealthy people made? I'll give the rich, grounded people (Gene Thayer, friends of Sonny Holland, etc.) credit for this. Likewise, not trying to bust your chops, but are you serious? You haven't been around enough to know or at least have experienced the difference between a rich, grounded person from a rich, arrogant person? Another type of person that makes me feel ill is one that doesn't, or simpley can't, sense that someone is patching into a football program for their own self interest.

I’ve been around quite long enough to experience both. Your message seemed to imply all rich people as arrogant. If not, then I apologize. Yes, I don’t think a lot could have been done with out the arrogant and non arrogant rich people. At least as fast as the expansion was done. What you might consider arrogant another person might not and it is the same the other way around. People give for different reasons. To be honest I don’t care their reason as long as it doesn’t get MSU in trouble and the student athlete knows where the line is and knows when to back away. Unfortunately I am sure if the NCAA were to start digging they would probably find something improper from a booster (some knowing and some not knowing) doing something wrong (buying dinners for example and I have no idea if that has happened). The more success MSU has the more hanger on type of boosters are going to join all because they want to be associated with a winner.

[bobcat99]

I think Griz fans would feel a little more confident if they didn't have a certain lawyer who seems to base his self worth on how many Griz players and coaches know. Their coaches should have banned him from contact with the players years ago, it's actually not that uncommon of a practice, you see it quite a bit with larger schools.

[Toucat]

I haven't been on this sight for a while, and I had not heard the rumor that the NCAA investigation may involve boosters providing free or reduced free legal services to athletes. When it comes to legal services provided to athletes accused of a crime, I think an outright ban on a booster providing pro bono legal services to an athlete accused of a crime is probably unconstitutional. I did very little research on this point, but a similar situation arose at the University of Miami leads me to believe that I am correct. The following is a quote from a newspaper article I read:

Steve Mallonee, NCAA director of legislative services, said it's permissible for an athlete to accept pro bono services if: 1. The attorney provides pro bono services to other needy individuals based on non-athletic criteria; 2. The attorney doesn't initiate contact with the athlete; 3. The athletic institution doesn't initiate the arrangement.

I have no idea whether the requirements noted above were met in Missoula. However, the mere fact that a booster provided the fee or reduced fee services does not appear to be an NCAA violation.

[PapaG]

I haven't been on this sight for a while, and I had not heard the rumor that the NCAA investigation may involve boosters providing free or reduced free legal services to athletes. When it comes to legal services provided to athletes accused of a crime, I think an outright ban on a booster providing pro bono legal services to an athlete accused of a crime is probably unconstitutional. I did very little research on this point, but a similar situation arose at the University of Miami leads me to believe that I am correct. The following is a quote from a newspaper article I read:

Steve Mallonee, NCAA director of legislative services, said it's permissible for an athlete to accept pro bono services if: 1. The attorney provides pro bono services to other needy individuals based on non-athletic criteria; 2. The attorney doesn't initiate contact with the athlete; 3. The athletic institution doesn't initiate the arrangement.

I have no idea whether the requirements noted above were met in Missoula. However, the mere fact that a booster provided the fee or reduced fee services does not appear to be an NCAA violation.

One of the issues is with a booster providing free legal services to athletes, not just any attorney.

[tampa_griz]

I haven't been on this sight for a while, and I had not heard the rumor that the NCAA investigation may involve boosters providing free or reduced free legal services to athletes. When it comes to legal services provided to athletes accused of a crime, I think an outright ban on a booster providing pro bono legal services to an athlete accused of a crime is probably unconstitutional. I did very little research on this point, but a similar situation arose at the University of Miami leads me to believe that I am correct. The following is a quote from a newspaper article I read:

Steve Mallonee, NCAA director of legislative services, said it's permissible for an athlete to accept pro bono services if: 1. The attorney provides pro bono services to other needy individuals based on non-athletic criteria; 2. The attorney doesn't initiate contact with the athlete; 3. The athletic institution doesn't initiate the arrangement.

I have no idea whether the requirements noted above were met in Missoula. However, the mere fact that a booster provided the fee or reduced fee services does not appear to be an NCAA violation.

One of the issues is with a booster providing free legal services to athletes, not just any attorney.

If the attorney/booster provides free legal services to non-athletes does that excuse it? I think that's what Toucat was getting at but I could be wrong.

[SonomaCat]

Yeah, if you could show that the reason the person received pro bono or reduced rate services had nothing at all to do with their status as an athlete, it would be okay.

I think the only way that would fly is if the student-athlete got the services as part of some program that was "blind" as to whether or not he/she was an athlete, and which non-athletes had just as much chance to obtain the services as an athlete. That would seem to be a pretty rare circumstance.

In general, if a booster gives an athlete pro bono or discounted products/services ... I assume it's probably a violation by default unless some extraordinary circumstances allow it.

Merely saying, "We did some pro bono work for non-athletes as well," wouldn't cut it ... that would create an exception that every program in the nation would drive a fleet of free Escalades through (after they also gave a free Escalade to some other random student as well ). But if you ran a legal service that objectively selected low-income students in need of legal services, regardless of athlete or non, and an athlete was selected based on objective criteria applicable to any other student, then I think you'd be okay.

I'm speculating, of course, like everyone else. The NCAA doesn't exactly make these things clear to anyone. But the above is how I assume they would see things.

[PapaG]

I haven't been on this sight for a while, and I had not heard the rumor that the NCAA investigation may involve boosters providing free or reduced free legal services to athletes. When it comes to legal services provided to athletes accused of a crime, I think an outright ban on a booster providing pro bono legal services to an athlete accused of a crime is probably unconstitutional. I did very little research on this point, but a similar situation arose at the University of Miami leads me to believe that I am correct. The following is a quote from a newspaper article I read:

Steve Mallonee, NCAA director of legislative services, said it's permissible for an athlete to accept pro bono services if: 1. The attorney provides pro bono services to other needy individuals based on non-athletic criteria; 2. The attorney doesn't initiate contact with the athlete; 3. The athletic institution doesn't initiate the arrangement.

I have no idea whether the requirements noted above were met in Missoula. However, the mere fact that a booster provided the fee or reduced fee services does not appear to be an NCAA violation.

One of the issues is with a booster providing free legal services to athletes, not just any attorney.

If the attorney/booster provides free legal services to non-athletes does that excuse it? I think that's what Toucat was getting at but I could be wrong.

It's the 'booster' designation that matters in terms of extra benefits for players. Anyhow, I won't pretend to know how the NCAA operates or what they'll find. They seem to just make up the rules as they investigate. Anything from a loss of a few scholarships (or even just probation with no penalties) to postseason bans/vacated wins is within the realm of possibilities. No outcome will surprise me, other than it will likely be completely random and not based on precedent.

[tampa_griz]

It's the 'booster' designation that matters in terms of extra benefits for players. Anyhow, I won't pretend to know how the NCAA operates or what they'll find. They seem to just make up the rules as they investigate. Anything from a loss of a few scholarships (or even just probation with no penalties) to postseason bans/vacated wins is within the realm of possibilities. No outcome will surprise me, other than it will likely be completely random and not based on precedent.

No doubt. The NCAA has never left an investigation empty-handed.