Bylaw Blog Reaction:
Compliance Guy (Bylaw Blog's author) is usually kind of grim-sounding, and has been generally on the pessimistic side in the Michigan case, as compared to what actually transpires. But he and Brian Cook have usually been pretty much on the same page in all of the investigation-prognostication.
Bottom line; Brian Cook (optimistic) seems to think that the NCAA will accept our Response after August. And Compliance Guy (pessimistic) seems to think that the NCAA might add a year of probation. Not an awful lot of difference.
No scholarship losses. No forfeits. No lost coaches. No other firings. No bowl-bans.
Bylaw Blog dude seemed to suggest the NCAA Infraction Committee would ask about specifying a coach to be among the casualties, be it for one or two years...
(By my admittedly NON-Legal brain. I stick strictly to medical opinions. Even if I watch hours of L&O AND sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.)
So there exists a possibility of something with respect to an adjustment in the number of coaches. But only a possibility, even in the routinely grim-sounding world of Compliance Guy.
You have to consider the source. While overall his reaction is fair, you are listening to a guy that writes about NCAA rules. I'm guessing his personality profile would indicate he is wound a little tighter than the average Joe and cares about meaningless details.
Which is nerve wracking. I won't put anything past the NCAA but the cat is out of the bag only thing left to do is to sit here and wait for August.
You are a partner at a prestigous accounting firm. You are finishing up a job at your largest client and 1 of your workers(bylaw guy) comes in and says their petty cash has very little controls applied to it and I think as much as $1,500 may have been used for frivolous purchases as there is little detail and almost no documentation. He has a nice report written up on all the violations and what needs to be done to fix it. You thank him for all his hard work and tell him you'll get right on it. He leaves and you toss it in the garbage,knowing that you don't want to risk pissing off your largest client over an amount of money that you won't even round to in your report. In passing you might mention that your team discovered some control problems with the petty cash and he might want to tighten it up.
In the real world with big boys and big money involved you don't run on the street yelling fraud with your largest client even though technically it might be true. That's why your appreciative you have a thorough worker, but there is a reason why you are in charge.
By-Law guy does a nice job, but this is being handled by the big boys. If Brandon and his lawyer who is Ex-NCAA don't have this thing nailed to the gnats ass I'd be shocked.
This is over.
What does a probation exactly entail?
hard steel and some KY.
Oh... you mean NCAA wise.
Extra paperwork requirements and the threat of major sanctions if we do anything else big wrong during that period.
Kind of like being on house arrest or having the bracelet thing that criminals have to wear. The NCAA will always be watching!
Just look at what happened to the former Mayor of Detroit today
I mostly agree with his take - yeah, it is a bit grim, but not sky-is-falling or anything extreme. I did laugh at this line, though:
especially in an era where there is enormous pressure on the Committee on Infractions to target penalties at the involved individuals.
I just imagine Pete Carroll, Steve Fisher, Lane Kiffin, and the king, John Calipari, laughing in their million-dollar homes at their new jobs while their former players (and even new ones who never met them) suffer for their transgressions. I am sure the Committee is under pressure to go after the guilty parties, but until I see one of them smacked with a fine or probation at their new position, I'll take this directive with a massive grain of salt.
Damn, I was hoping this was Bob Loblaw's Lawblog.
I think if they even add anything, it might be a extra year of probation. I don't see any lost scholarships.
but everytime you type something I want to give you a cracker.
The reply was meant for mgovictors, not you.