HeCannotGo
05-28-2016, 01:12 PM
The UM response to the NCAA's Notice of Allegations was prepared by their outside law firm. As most of you know, in the legal world, associates do the bulk of the work and the partners provide high-level supervision in between rounds of golf and expensive lunches.
Picture for a moment the initial conversation between the partner and the associate at the law firm hired by UM. The partner is assigning the associate the task of writing Ole Miss's response to the NCAA's Notice of Allegations.
Partner: "I want you to take the first crack at drafting the response for this mess that Ole Miss has landed themselves in. No big rush; I don't need it before 8:00 Monday morning." [It's currently Friday afternoon at 5:30 and the associate will now have to work all weekend, but that's what associates are for.]
Associate [resisting the urge to strangle partner for ruining his weekend]: "Ok. I'll need the details of the case and will need to know how our client plans to refute the NCAA's allegations."
Partner [scratching his head uncomfortably; unable to look associate in the eye]: "Well, that's where this gets interesting. The charges are all true, and we don't have any way to refute them. So I'll need you to be a bit, uh, creative with the written response."
Associate: "If the charges are true, why are they paying us $500 an hour to prepare a response? They should just skip ahead to the penalty phase and get this done quickly and cheaply."
Partner: "I suggested exactly that to Ross Bjork, and he yelled at me for half an hour. Called me all sorts of nasty names. Believe me, it's no fun to have a moron like Ross Bjork tell you that you're an idiot. Anyway, it seems that Bjork's been telling everyone who will listen that these charges are no big deal, that everything has been self-reported, that the charges don't relate to football or the current staff, etc. Turns out that that isn't quite true. The charges ARE a big deal, they DO relate to football and they DO relate to the current staff. But instead of getting his administration and his fan base mentally prepared for serious sanctions, he's been painting this rosey picture: remain calm, all is well, yada yada yada. Therefore, the response has to look like it has real substance to it. We can't make it seem like Ole Miss is just rolling over here."
Associate: "Got it. We'll go with the 'isolated incident' approach. We'll say that Ole Miss competes in numerous sports, with hundreds players and coaches involved. The NCAA rule book is huge and complicated, and it's inevitable that someone will accidentally violate a technical rule at some point."
Partner: "Won't work. The allegations, which Ole Miss admits are true, aren't minor foot-faults. We've got clear violations of major rules here."
Associate: "OK, then, we'll go with the 'single sport' defense. We'll say Ole Miss is clean in all sports but one . . ."
Partner: "Let me stop you there. The violations involve football, track and women's basketball."
Associate [getting desperate to come up with some sort of defense]: "Alright, certainly not good for us, but we can always fall back on the rogue booster argument."
Partner [shaking head]: "Can't go there. The allegations name at least three different boosters. They paint a pretty clear picture of a culture of corruption, as opposed to one bad apple."
Associate: "But surely there aren't any coaches or other university employees involved . . ." [voice trails off as partner's eyes drop to the floor]
Partner: "Let's just say I'm glad our law firm is much cleaner than that so-called university. They've got multiple coaches, across multiple staffs and multiple sports, clearly violating major NCAA rules, then being less than forthcoming with NCAA investigators. I'm amazed that they haven't been hit with a Lack of Institutional Control allegation. At least not yet."
Associate: "What do you mean, not yet? If we're responding to the allegations, then the allegations are all out there at this point, right?"
Partner: "Well, not the Tunsil stuff from draft night. That's still being investigated."
Associate: "What 'Tunsil stuff?'"
Partner: "You don't know about that? How can you claim to be a sports attorney and not even watch the NFL draft?"
Associate: "Perhaps you're forgetting that I work for you eighty hours a week and haven't watched TV since law school."
Partner: "Short version is that Laremy Tunsil admitted to taking money from Ole Miss coaches on national TV. Text messages corroborate this. None of that was covered in the current Notice of Allegations. Bjork told me that Ole Miss initially hoped to be able to argue that it was all legit, that the money had come from the players' opportunity fund or something, but he knows that won't fly."
Associate: "So let me sum this up. Ole Miss is admitting guilt on numerous major violations involving multiple sports, multiple coaches and multiple boosters. There are also additional major violations that aren't even included in the current batch of which Ole Miss is, again, clearly guilty with no plausible defense."
Partner: "Sounds about right. Glad I'm not an Ole Miss fan. I'm also glad those fools paid us a big retainer. Make sure you bill all of your time on this. I just bought a new boat and need a big bonus this year to pay for it."
Associate: "But what can we possibly say in the response?"
Partner: "Look, I know this is unusual. Our clients in NCAA investigations usually have at least a colorable defense, but not these fools at Ole Miss. They thought they could sign the top players in the nation and that people would believe it was because of their beautiful campus. Keep this in mind, though: Bjork made it clear to me that they know major punishment is coming. Their primary goal is to push it off as far into the future as possible. They want another year of season ticket sales, fat donations from granddaddy's pile of money, and Game Day in the Grove. They also want another good recruiting class before the penalties are imposed."
Associate: "But won't their fans, players and alumni get angry when they find out they've been lied to?"
Partner: "That's the beauty of it, and it's one of the few advantages Ole Miss has over the other schools we've represented. Their fans are willing to believe anything. If the university says the response is good and that the penalties will be light, their fans will believe it. Here's another little secret that Bjork let me in on: Ole Miss has a group of sportswriters that will say whatever the university wants. Maybe Ole Miss bribes them or something, I don't know. Anyway, the plan is: we prepare the response, Ole Miss proclaims that it's a home run, and their media mouthpieces chime in and say the penalties will be light."
Associate: "But you still haven't told me what to say in the response that I'm supposed to spend my weekend writing."
Partner: "Do what we always do when the facts and the law aren't on our side. Argue about process. Talk about how helpful Ole Miss has been with the investigation. Come up with a fancy-sounding phrase, something like "exemplary cooperation," and pretend that it's something the NCAA cares about. You and I both know that's not the case, but remember: the Ole Miss stakeholders will believe anything. Hell, throw in a graph and a pie chart or two."
Associate: "A graph of what? And why a pie chart?"
Partner: "You'll think of something. Just jazz it up, take up space, use a big font, whatever else you can come up with. Talk about how many changes and improvements Ole Miss has implemented in its compliance department recently. Before you ask, I don't know how many changes that is, but the NCAA doesn't know either. Just make something up that sounds impressive, yet believable. We'll get Bjork to confirm that it's true before submitting it to the NCAA. Also, if there's anything minor in the NOA that we can quibble with, spend a page or two doing so. We might be able to get a Level II allegation reduced to a Level III."
Associate: "I'll give it a shot."
Partner: "Knew I could count on you. I'll be at my lake house this weekend. Don't call unless it's an emergency. And, in case you don't know by now, nothing about this Ole Miss fiasco qualifies as an emergency."
Picture for a moment the initial conversation between the partner and the associate at the law firm hired by UM. The partner is assigning the associate the task of writing Ole Miss's response to the NCAA's Notice of Allegations.
Partner: "I want you to take the first crack at drafting the response for this mess that Ole Miss has landed themselves in. No big rush; I don't need it before 8:00 Monday morning." [It's currently Friday afternoon at 5:30 and the associate will now have to work all weekend, but that's what associates are for.]
Associate [resisting the urge to strangle partner for ruining his weekend]: "Ok. I'll need the details of the case and will need to know how our client plans to refute the NCAA's allegations."
Partner [scratching his head uncomfortably; unable to look associate in the eye]: "Well, that's where this gets interesting. The charges are all true, and we don't have any way to refute them. So I'll need you to be a bit, uh, creative with the written response."
Associate: "If the charges are true, why are they paying us $500 an hour to prepare a response? They should just skip ahead to the penalty phase and get this done quickly and cheaply."
Partner: "I suggested exactly that to Ross Bjork, and he yelled at me for half an hour. Called me all sorts of nasty names. Believe me, it's no fun to have a moron like Ross Bjork tell you that you're an idiot. Anyway, it seems that Bjork's been telling everyone who will listen that these charges are no big deal, that everything has been self-reported, that the charges don't relate to football or the current staff, etc. Turns out that that isn't quite true. The charges ARE a big deal, they DO relate to football and they DO relate to the current staff. But instead of getting his administration and his fan base mentally prepared for serious sanctions, he's been painting this rosey picture: remain calm, all is well, yada yada yada. Therefore, the response has to look like it has real substance to it. We can't make it seem like Ole Miss is just rolling over here."
Associate: "Got it. We'll go with the 'isolated incident' approach. We'll say that Ole Miss competes in numerous sports, with hundreds players and coaches involved. The NCAA rule book is huge and complicated, and it's inevitable that someone will accidentally violate a technical rule at some point."
Partner: "Won't work. The allegations, which Ole Miss admits are true, aren't minor foot-faults. We've got clear violations of major rules here."
Associate: "OK, then, we'll go with the 'single sport' defense. We'll say Ole Miss is clean in all sports but one . . ."
Partner: "Let me stop you there. The violations involve football, track and women's basketball."
Associate [getting desperate to come up with some sort of defense]: "Alright, certainly not good for us, but we can always fall back on the rogue booster argument."
Partner [shaking head]: "Can't go there. The allegations name at least three different boosters. They paint a pretty clear picture of a culture of corruption, as opposed to one bad apple."
Associate: "But surely there aren't any coaches or other university employees involved . . ." [voice trails off as partner's eyes drop to the floor]
Partner: "Let's just say I'm glad our law firm is much cleaner than that so-called university. They've got multiple coaches, across multiple staffs and multiple sports, clearly violating major NCAA rules, then being less than forthcoming with NCAA investigators. I'm amazed that they haven't been hit with a Lack of Institutional Control allegation. At least not yet."
Associate: "What do you mean, not yet? If we're responding to the allegations, then the allegations are all out there at this point, right?"
Partner: "Well, not the Tunsil stuff from draft night. That's still being investigated."
Associate: "What 'Tunsil stuff?'"
Partner: "You don't know about that? How can you claim to be a sports attorney and not even watch the NFL draft?"
Associate: "Perhaps you're forgetting that I work for you eighty hours a week and haven't watched TV since law school."
Partner: "Short version is that Laremy Tunsil admitted to taking money from Ole Miss coaches on national TV. Text messages corroborate this. None of that was covered in the current Notice of Allegations. Bjork told me that Ole Miss initially hoped to be able to argue that it was all legit, that the money had come from the players' opportunity fund or something, but he knows that won't fly."
Associate: "So let me sum this up. Ole Miss is admitting guilt on numerous major violations involving multiple sports, multiple coaches and multiple boosters. There are also additional major violations that aren't even included in the current batch of which Ole Miss is, again, clearly guilty with no plausible defense."
Partner: "Sounds about right. Glad I'm not an Ole Miss fan. I'm also glad those fools paid us a big retainer. Make sure you bill all of your time on this. I just bought a new boat and need a big bonus this year to pay for it."
Associate: "But what can we possibly say in the response?"
Partner: "Look, I know this is unusual. Our clients in NCAA investigations usually have at least a colorable defense, but not these fools at Ole Miss. They thought they could sign the top players in the nation and that people would believe it was because of their beautiful campus. Keep this in mind, though: Bjork made it clear to me that they know major punishment is coming. Their primary goal is to push it off as far into the future as possible. They want another year of season ticket sales, fat donations from granddaddy's pile of money, and Game Day in the Grove. They also want another good recruiting class before the penalties are imposed."
Associate: "But won't their fans, players and alumni get angry when they find out they've been lied to?"
Partner: "That's the beauty of it, and it's one of the few advantages Ole Miss has over the other schools we've represented. Their fans are willing to believe anything. If the university says the response is good and that the penalties will be light, their fans will believe it. Here's another little secret that Bjork let me in on: Ole Miss has a group of sportswriters that will say whatever the university wants. Maybe Ole Miss bribes them or something, I don't know. Anyway, the plan is: we prepare the response, Ole Miss proclaims that it's a home run, and their media mouthpieces chime in and say the penalties will be light."
Associate: "But you still haven't told me what to say in the response that I'm supposed to spend my weekend writing."
Partner: "Do what we always do when the facts and the law aren't on our side. Argue about process. Talk about how helpful Ole Miss has been with the investigation. Come up with a fancy-sounding phrase, something like "exemplary cooperation," and pretend that it's something the NCAA cares about. You and I both know that's not the case, but remember: the Ole Miss stakeholders will believe anything. Hell, throw in a graph and a pie chart or two."
Associate: "A graph of what? And why a pie chart?"
Partner: "You'll think of something. Just jazz it up, take up space, use a big font, whatever else you can come up with. Talk about how many changes and improvements Ole Miss has implemented in its compliance department recently. Before you ask, I don't know how many changes that is, but the NCAA doesn't know either. Just make something up that sounds impressive, yet believable. We'll get Bjork to confirm that it's true before submitting it to the NCAA. Also, if there's anything minor in the NOA that we can quibble with, spend a page or two doing so. We might be able to get a Level II allegation reduced to a Level III."
Associate: "I'll give it a shot."
Partner: "Knew I could count on you. I'll be at my lake house this weekend. Don't call unless it's an emergency. And, in case you don't know by now, nothing about this Ole Miss fiasco qualifies as an emergency."