NYDawg
06-13-2017, 07:49 AM
The PR plan out of Oxford is a classic misdirection campaign. The idea is simple and can be very effective: poke a few holes in parts of the story with selective recitation of evidence and craft the narrative about the entire situation around those holes. The OJ trial was a classic example of this approach in litigation, and it can work because it suggests something may be amiss about everything else, even where there is no reason to doubt the other evidence and, as here, they even admit that the evidence supporting the charges is substantial and compelling.
So, rather than focus on the few talking points they can actually muster, let's look at the flood of violations where they could not even cherry pick evidence to mount a defense.
If the COI were to accept everything that OM has said with respect to allegations 1-19, this is what they're looking at...NINE level one violations and FIVE level three violations involving:
TEN members of the coaching staff while they were employed by OM (not counting a GA mentioned in one allegation)
TEN boosters
SIXTEEN student athletes
These uncontested allegations include:
Two members of the football staff arranged for three student athletes to cheat on the ACT (1(a)&1(b))
Most of the booster violations involve not only impermissible contacts (15, 16(a)) but also gave recruits/players cash, interest-free loans, free hotels and housing, free tutoring, merchandise, and paid cell phone bills (2(a)-(b), 5(a)-(p), 7, 8, 11, 14(a)-(d) & (h)-(i), 15, 18, 19)
Several members of the football staff, including members of Freeze's staff, worked with or were aware of different boosters providing impermissible benefits to student athletes over a period of several years (2(a)&2(b)), 5, 11, 14(a)-(d) & (h)-(i), 17(a)-(b))
Freeze and his staff failed to consult/"mistakenly" misled compliance about potential violations and just went ahead with what they wanted to do (6, 8, 10, 13)
Coaches, ex-coaches, and boosters lied to the NCAA about these violations (3, 4, 15, 18)
This is the floor for the COI...before the allegations that are contested are even considered, you have a damning case that isn't contested: including NINE level I's, a level II (which OM wants reclassified as Level III), and four level III's. If "mistakes were made," they were because (a) the staff chose not to run things by compliance before they committed the violations or (b) the compliance staff did not ask the right questions or seek clarification when given ambiguous answers. Other times coaches just did what they felt like doing even though you couldn't possibly make a colorable case that their actions were permissible. Boosters, including some who were in frequent contact with coaches and staff, were running amok.
So, rather than focus on the few talking points they can actually muster, let's look at the flood of violations where they could not even cherry pick evidence to mount a defense.
If the COI were to accept everything that OM has said with respect to allegations 1-19, this is what they're looking at...NINE level one violations and FIVE level three violations involving:
TEN members of the coaching staff while they were employed by OM (not counting a GA mentioned in one allegation)
TEN boosters
SIXTEEN student athletes
These uncontested allegations include:
Two members of the football staff arranged for three student athletes to cheat on the ACT (1(a)&1(b))
Most of the booster violations involve not only impermissible contacts (15, 16(a)) but also gave recruits/players cash, interest-free loans, free hotels and housing, free tutoring, merchandise, and paid cell phone bills (2(a)-(b), 5(a)-(p), 7, 8, 11, 14(a)-(d) & (h)-(i), 15, 18, 19)
Several members of the football staff, including members of Freeze's staff, worked with or were aware of different boosters providing impermissible benefits to student athletes over a period of several years (2(a)&2(b)), 5, 11, 14(a)-(d) & (h)-(i), 17(a)-(b))
Freeze and his staff failed to consult/"mistakenly" misled compliance about potential violations and just went ahead with what they wanted to do (6, 8, 10, 13)
Coaches, ex-coaches, and boosters lied to the NCAA about these violations (3, 4, 15, 18)
This is the floor for the COI...before the allegations that are contested are even considered, you have a damning case that isn't contested: including NINE level I's, a level II (which OM wants reclassified as Level III), and four level III's. If "mistakes were made," they were because (a) the staff chose not to run things by compliance before they committed the violations or (b) the compliance staff did not ask the right questions or seek clarification when given ambiguous answers. Other times coaches just did what they felt like doing even though you couldn't possibly make a colorable case that their actions were permissible. Boosters, including some who were in frequent contact with coaches and staff, were running amok.