A theory on the OM situation

[Coach34]

I think Hack is on to something:

"I think they're preparing for a legal battle too. It's the only logical excuse to protect the documents at this point. If they don't like what the NCAA proposes, they could appeal or file suit."

Couple that with the OM talking points:

1. It's mostly old stuff
2. It doesnt name Coach Freeze
3. 9 over 3

It could be that the Saunders stuff is really damning- because you havent heard them downplay anything about that. Not even once. They know the NCAA is going to pound them on that- but they are going to fight it hard in the courts because its years old and previous staff. They are going to try their damndest to weasel out of the penalties because "its old stuff"

And thats why you arent seeing anything released until they respond

[mstatefan91]

You still broke the rules. Even if it is years old. You need to pay for it.

This is like a murderer saying, "yeah I murdered so and so, but it was 20 years ago! Go easy on me!"

[Liverpooldawg]

Ask USCw about what "old stuff" can do to you.

[phatdog]

Remember the last time this happened?

http://articles.philly.com/1994-07-13/sports/25845001_1_bowl-ban-southeastern-conference-football-coaches-second-ncaa-investigation

They're going to deny until they can't.

[MetEdDawg]

The Saunders stuff is eventually what buries them I think. No one on there end has even remotely attempted to address it or even dispute it. That's where they get hammered because not only is it one of, if not the worst violations out there, it looks like it may have been done on multiple occasions.

All their talking points are very easily able to be "misconstrued" or interpreted a different way. It's pretty tough though for them to take a stance a defensive stance on academic fraud that doesn't make them look bad or stops the rumor, especially considering information about it is already out there. Saunders will be their undoing.

[mic]

Ask USCw about what "old stuff" can do to you.

Exactly...

[cheewgumm]

Isn't the FOIA an actual law?

[starkvegasdawg]

Isn't the FOIA an actual law?

It is. But when has that ever mattered up there?

[RC3]

I suspect the Saunders stuff bleeds over into other sports as well, which is going to complicate matters for them even further. I would bet that they were getting other athletes qualified through waynesboro as well

[blacklistedbully]

With regard to the Saunders stuff they are clinging to the belief they will skate due to the 4 year Statute of Limitations. The real question is whether or not the NCAA will use the exceptions clauses available to nail them for that.

I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the UNM lawyers (including every proud law school grad), especially Dickie Scruggs are looking for ways to weasel out of those exceptions. They will parse words, seize on any technicality or grammatical vagueness to argue the exceptions can't be applied to overcome the SOL.

The thing that is troubling about this, is that is what Auburn was able to do in the Cam Newton situation. The NCAA knew damned well they were guilty as hell, but looked to the exact wording of the pertinent rules, rather than the obvious intent and elected to look at it as an unintended loophole Auburn could claim.

So, they let Auburn escape on that perceived loophole, even though it was a huge stretch, then tweaked the rule to prevent similar perversion in the future.

There is no doubt UNM is guilty as sin, but I do worry the NCAA will ultimately fold. Not sure they have the stomach to take on a lawyered up, all-in, fight-you-tooth-and-nail on every single thing outfit like UNM.

[Really Clark?]

With regard to the Saunders stuff they are clinging to the belief they will skate due to the 4 year Statute of Limitations. The real question is whether or not the NCAA will use the exceptions clauses available to nail them for that.

I'd bet dollars-to-donuts the UNM lawyers (including every proud law school grad), especially Dickie Scruggs are looking for ways to weasel out of those exceptions. They will parse words, seize on any technicality or grammatical vagueness to argue the exceptions can't be applied to overcome the SOL.

The thing that is troubling about this, is that is what Auburn was able to do in the Cam Newton situation. The NCAA knew damned well they were guilty as hell, but looked to the exact wording of the pertinent rules, rather than the obvious intent and elected to look at it as an unintended loophole Auburn could claim.

So, they let Auburn escape on that perceived loophole, even though it was a huge stretch, then tweaked the rule to prevent similar perversion in the future.

There is no doubt UNM is guilty as sin, but I do worry the NCAA will ultimately fold. Not sure they have the stomach to take on a lawyered up, all-in, fight-you-tooth-and-nail on every single thing outfit like UNM.

The Saunders stuff falls with in the 4 year window from the time investigations started. There is no getting around that. The NCAA can also go back as far as they want to, if there is a continuous chain linking those violations. Saunders testimony we know links him all the way back to the Orgeron era and Waynesboro. The 4 year limitation won't fly in this case.

[Ralph]

If you read Byork's statements closely, he says they cant wait "to tell the whole story from our side" from a defensive standpoint.

I have no doubt there are damning allegations in the NOA and they are going to dissect words to make it not sound as bad to mitigate penalties and public perception. They are making career decisions right now.

[blacklistedbully]

It's the, "Church of Scientology" approach. The IRS knew damned well they do not qualify for tax exemption, but the COS simply buried them under an avalanche of legal proceedings, etc, threatening to occupy so much of the IRS's resources that the IRS said, "F it, it's just not worth it!".

[blacklistedbully]

The Saunders stuff falls with in the 4 year window from the time investigations started. There is no getting around that. The NCAA can also go back as far as they want to, if there is a continuous chain linking those violations. Saunders testimony we know links him all the way back to the Orgeron era and Waynesboro. The 4 year limitation won't fly in this case.

A) Are you sure it's 4 years from the time the investigation started, or is it 4 years back from the official NOA?
B) As I said in my post, I know their are exceptions that should allow them to pursue this avenue anyway. I've simply put worth a theory on what battle may be ongoing or upcoming to prevent that from happening.

[yjnkdawg]

Isn't the FOIA an actual law?

The State of MS has it's own law. It's the MS Public Records Act. If you want to obtain documents through a State Government Agency/Institition you have to file under this act. If you want to obtain records, that are non-state held, then you file under the Federal Freedom of Information Act. When I was in State Government, concerning releasing public records, if I had done half the crap OM has done in this circus, I would have been reprimanded or possibly fired.

[Really Clark?]

A) Are you sure it's 4 years from the time the investigation started, or is it 4 years back from the official NOA?
B) As I said in my post, I know their are exceptions that should allow them to pursue this avenue anyway. I've simply put worth a theory on what battle may be ongoing or upcoming to prevent that from happening.

It's 4 years from the notice of inquiry not allegations.

[Dawgtini]

Remember the last time this happened?

http://articles.philly.com/1994-07-13/sports/25845001_1_bowl-ban-southeastern-conference-football-coaches-second-ncaa-investigation

They're going to deny until they can't.

Slight hijack: Look at the difference 20+ years has made on coaching salaries. And we wonder why the NCAA and SEC don't seem interested in policing things too much. Wow

"Brewer, 59, had four years left on a contract that had a base salary of $96,872 for the 1993-94 school year."

[Coach34]

Its 4 years from when the investigation started

[Really Clark?]

Allegations generally are based on violations that have occurred four or fewer years before the time an institution is notified of an investigation or an institution notifies the enforcement staff of violations. However, the enforcement staff may allege violations that have occurred beyond the four-year period if they involve (1) the eligibility of a current student-athlete, (2) a pattern of willful violations that began before the four-year window but continue into the four-year window or (3) a blatant disregard for certain fundamental rules (recruiting, extra benefits, academics, ethical conduct) or (4) an effort to conceal violations.

[StatesboroBlues]

I have a question...understand that this is not in the repeat offender status but it would seem the NCAA would be a little stricter with punishment of infractions that happen while the investigation into the program is ongoing. May just be wishful thinking...

[blacklistedbully]

It's 4 years from the notice of inquiry not allegations.

Do we actually know the date of the NOI?

[blacklistedbully]

Let me clarify again. I do strongly believe the NCAA has the ability to go after UNM on the Saunders stuff. I question whether they will.

Cam Newton/Auburn has already shown us that the NCAA can choose to sit out a fight if they aren't up for the challenge.

[Political Hack]

A) Are you sure it's 4 years from the time the investigation started, or is it 4 years back from the official NOA?
B) As I said in my post, I know their are exceptions that should allow them to pursue this avenue anyway. I've simply put worth a theory on what battle may be ongoing or upcoming to prevent that from happening.

They've already issued sanctions on Saunders for the allegations. They can't hold him responsible under the exclusion and not hold the university responsible at the same time given the same exclusion. Saunders could then sue the ever living hell out of them, and win easily. There are ZERO statute of limitations in play with this investigation. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. If you pay close attention NOBODY in an official capacity has suggested as much nor will they. It's a losing proposition.

[Political Hack]

Let me clarify again. I do strongly believe the NCAA has the ability to go after UNM on the Saunders stuff. I question whether they will.

Cam Newton/Auburn has already shown us that the NCAA can choose to sit out a fight if they aren't up for the challenge.

If the NCAA sits this out, the Big 12, Big Ten, and possibly others will defect. It will rip the college football world in half. It will not happen. Too many people are pissed off.

[blacklistedbully]

They've already issued sanctions on Saunders for the allegations. They can't hold him responsible under the exclusion and not hold the university responsible at the same time given the same exclusion. Saunders could then sue the ever living hell out of them, and win easily. There are ZERO statute of limitations in play with this investigation. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None. If you pay close attention NOBODY in an official capacity has suggested as much nor will they. It's a losing proposition.

But at ULL Saunders had the undeniable fact that he had current athletes testify as to the academic fraud. The NCAA did not need to use an exception to the 4 year SOL to go after Saunders.

[Really Clark?]

Do we actually know the date of the NOI?

2012 but not sure of the exact date

[maroonmania]

Its 4 years from when the investigation started

Which I thought the investigation started almost 3 years ago. So per that, would seem they could be looking into things that happened as much as 6 to 7 years ago.

[Really Clark?]

But at ULL Saunders had the undeniable fact that he had current athletes testify as to the academic fraud. The NCAA did not need to use an exception to the 4 year SOL to go after Saunders.

The initial athletes they interviewed were about academic violations at UNM with Saunders. They transferred to ULL. Nothing was originally about ULL in those first interviews until other names came out that were not tied to UNM.

[yjnkdawg]

Let me clarify again. I do strongly believe the NCAA has the ability to go after UNM on the Saunders stuff. I question whether they will.

Cam Newton/Auburn has already shown us that the NCAA can choose to sit out a fight if they aren't up for the challenge.

I think the SEC Office's lobbying had something to do with Auburn not receiving an NOA. Money that would be lost, Chance for a National Championship, etc. May be wrong , but I think that is correct.

[DancingRabbit]

Do we actually know the date of the NOI?

October 2012

[blacklistedbully]

Ok, to play Devil's advocate, let's say the NCAA looks back at Saunders past history with UNM. I believe one of the exceptions talks of an ongoing pattern or something to that effect.

I could easily see the UNM lawyers argue that, since Saunders association with UNM was broken into pieces separated by years, that Saunders was the guy who cheated, and that there was no cheating in the years he was not there, therefore, no continuous pattern, thus SOL applies.

It's all BS, of course, but so was the BS they let Cam & Auburn escape on.

All that said, I'm hoping Hack is right about pressure from other conferences and schools making it impossible for the NCAA to take a pass.

[TrapGame]

As a caller on 620AM pointed out this morning it's not the sibling rivalry of OM/State turning each other in every year. No, OM has been turned in by Bama, Georgia, FSU, Michigan, USCw and Texas A&M. This is why the NCAA came down on them. And it's because of this that NCAA will punish them accordingly. There will be no slap on the wrist.

[Really Clark?]

Ok, to play Devil's advocate, let's say the NCAA looks back at Saunders past history with UNM. I believe one of the exceptions talks of an ongoing pattern or something to that effect.

I could easily see the UNM lawyers argue that, since Saunders association with UNM was broken into pieces separated by years, that Saunders was the guy who cheated, and that there was no cheating in the years he was not there, therefore, no continuous pattern, thus SOL applies.

It's all BS, of course, but so was the BS they let Cam & Auburn escape on.

All that said, I'm hoping Hack is right about pressure from other conferences and schools making it impossible for the NCAA to take a pass.

He was there in 2010 though and that is well within the SOL. That can open up other years, if they so choose. UNM had better hope and pray that every single player that had signed with them with questionable ACT scores at Waynesboro are tied with Saunders directly. Any player that no contact with Saunders but still used that location, then who set up that testing? Doesn't sound like that happened but we don't know.

[confucius say]

But at ULL Saunders had the undeniable fact that he had current athletes testify as to the academic fraud. The NCAA did not need to use an exception to the 4 year SOL to go after Saunders.

They don't need an exception here either.

[paco]

The Saunders stuff is eventually what buries them I think. No one on there end has even remotely attempted to address it or even dispute it. That's where they get hammered because not only is it one of, if not the worst violations out there, it looks like it may have been done on multiple occasions.

All their talking points are very easily able to be "misconstrued" or interpreted a different way. It's pretty tough though for them to take a stance a defensive stance on academic fraud that doesn't make them look bad or stops the rumor, especially considering information about it is already out there. Saunders will be their undoing.

23 Ole Miss football players took their AC T at Waynesboro.

[Really Clark?]

23 Ole Miss football players took their AC T at Waynesboro.

And see this is something people can overlook. That violation, although massive in number, could be classified as one violation. Because of the sheer number and type, it would be a Level 1 violation and at least a standard if not aggravated which is the highest level and carries the biggest punishment. But would still be listed as just one of the "13" violations because they are all the same. Just like ULL combined all the athlete violations into 1 with subparts. So when they say just 4 with Saunders, it doesn't necessarily mean there are just 1 or 2 athletes involved.

[DancingRabbit]

He was there in 2010 though and that is well within the SOL. That can open up other years, if they so choose. UNM had better hope and pray that every single player that had signed with them with questionable ACT scores at Waynesboro are tied with Saunders directly. Any player that no contact with Saunders but still used that location, then who set up that testing? Doesn't sound like that happened but we don't know.

Wasn't there a rumor that Tony Conner took his ACT at Waynesboro?

[confucius say]

23 Ole Miss football players took their AC T at Waynesboro.

First time I've heard that. Interesting.

[Really Clark?]

Wasn't there a rumor that Tony Conner took his ACT at Waynesboro?

Yes. That has been mentioned before.

[MadDawg]

Allegations generally are based on violations that have occurred four or fewer years before the time an institution is notified of an investigation or an institution notifies the enforcement staff of violations. However, the enforcement staff may allege violations that have occurred beyond the four-year period if they involve (1) the eligibility of a current student-athlete, (2) a pattern of willful violations that began before the four-year window but continue into the four-year window or (3) a blatant disregard for certain fundamental rules (recruiting, extra benefits, academics, ethical conduct) or (4) an effort to conceal violations.

I believe all four apply, don't they?

[K9 Avenger]

If the NCAA sits this out, the Big 12, Big Ten, and possibly others will defect. It will rip the college football world in half. It will not happen. Too many people are pissed off.

^^^^^This^^^^^

[Lumpy Chucklelips]

My understanding on the statute of limitations is as coach described. 4 years back from when the investigation started. I believe it started in 2011. So they can go back to 2007. The caveat to that however is that if they find something within those four years, they can go back an additional 4 years from that date.

For example, if they found something in 2009, then they can go back 4 years from that date, which in that example would be 2005. If they don't find anything in those first four years, then they stop looking. So if they keep finding something within those four year windows, they can go back as far as they want.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the way I interpreted it.

[Really Clark?]

I believe all four apply, don't they?

Not sure on the first one. Just rumors concerning that.

[blacklistedbully]

If they really want to nail UNM, it seems to me they should start with a review of any and all athletes who tested at Waynesboro and signed at UNM from this class going all the way back to Saunders first stint with UNM in 1998.

Connect-the-dots, make a chronological link through the years, to include Hugh Freeze's tenure there, including his pre-HC years, in particular 2006, when Hugh was RC and Saunders was on the payroll.

Do that, and they may get plenty to bitch-slap UNM as much as they want. But will they?

[TUSK]

Does "legal process" have any influence over what penalties the NCAA may levy?

[sandwolf]

23 Ole Miss football players took their AC T at Waynesboro.

Where did this information come from?

[blacklistedbully]

Does "legal process" have any influence over what penalties the NCAA may levy?

If you're referring to the SOL wondering if it's just a law that doesn't apply to the NCAA, then know that the NCAA has made the SOL part of their rules.

[Liverpooldawg]

Has anyone heard anything about Pell Grants in the context of this investigation?

[Original48]

I think the SEC Office's lobbying had something to do with Auburn not receiving an NOA. Money that would be lost, Chance for a National Championship, etc. May be wrong , but I think that is correct.
And Slive would have lost a million dollar bonus so...

[Maroons]

Has anyone heard anything about Pell Grants in the context of this investigation?

Pell Grants for track athletes = $$$ for football players

[Ralph]

Pell Grants for track athletes = $$$ for football players

Care to expand? Interesting

[Ralph]

I've heard the rumor of track athletes funneling money to the football team but if they're using federal money to do that... Wow.

[Political Hack]

But at ULL Saunders had the undeniable fact that he had current athletes testify as to the academic fraud. The NCAA did not need to use an exception to the 4 year SOL to go after Saunders.

He got an 8 year show cause brother. The allegations cited his behavior at OM as justification for that. End of story.

[Political Hack]

Does "legal process" have any influence over what penalties the NCAA may levy?

No. But Om could file suit saying the penalties are too harsh after the fact.

[GTHOM]

I think the SEC Office's lobbying had something to do with Auburn not receiving an NOA. Money that would be lost, Chance for a National Championship, etc. May be wrong , but I think that is correct.


That is absolutely positively 150 percent correct

[Jarius]

Steve Robertson has said that nothing has changed and that Ross is going to look like a fool when more allegations come out. He has hit every single detail on the head of this investigation. Just let it play out.

[Jack Lambert]

It's 4 years from the notice of inquiry not allegations.

They are the NCAA and can do what they want.

[Bubb Rubb]

Let me clarify again. I do strongly believe the NCAA has the ability to go after UNM on the Saunders stuff. I question whether they will.

Cam Newton/Auburn has already shown us that the NCAA can choose to sit out a fight if they aren't up for the challenge.

It doesn't seem like they're willing to sit this one out, given all the time and resources they've invested. I think they're "pot committed" at this point. We talk about Bjork and Freeze being all-in, but it doesn't look like they're the only ones.

[yjnkdawg]

The NCAA says that it doesn't comment on current, pending or potential investigations. So they told Bjork, the investigation was complete? Hmmmm 2+2 does not= 4.

[blacklistedbully]

The NCAA says that it doesn't comment on current, pending or potential investigations. So they told Bjork, the investigation was complete? Hmmmm 2+2 does not= 4.

I believe they don't, "publicly" comment on cases. That would not preclude them from talking to Bjork, or updating him on the status.

Not defending Bjork by any means, just saying I think you're barking up the wrong tree with that.