Bylaw Blog on the Regents meeting
http://bylawblog.com/2010/02/michigan-regents-get-investigation-update/
Wild speculation that this meeting was not just "informal." Good god, I hope his logic is totally off, but it does make me pause.
February 4th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
that's wild speculation on his part. he has no idea what the meeting was for or what was discussed. you'd be better served just waiting for the results
February 4th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
While clearly presented and reasonably well written, this just boils down to fear mongering.
It's a good thing Drew Sharp
a) doesn't read blogs and
b) can't read
Or this would be up on the Free Press in a damn hurry.
February 4th, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
On the plus side, given the haste with which the freep FOIAs stories, we should be hearing what this meeting was about fairly quickly.
Gotta say though that despite the wild speculation, his logic does make sense.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
I will say this - if the blogger is correct that UM has received the Notice of Allegations and, ultimately, UM feels some heat, then they better go after all of the other schools that have recently flaunted various rules at least as egregiously. That means I expect to see USC, various SEC teams, etc. on the hot seat. If not, then what little respect I have for the NCAA will vanish.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^
they met to discuss the pros and cons of suing the Fr**p back into the Stone Age.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^
1. No basis for a case.
2. They already reside in the Stone Age.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
(hoped) there were some actionable factual errors in the original Practicegate story, which I have never actually read. (I'm afraid my head might asplode. Not to mention, Boycott.)
February 4th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
His main reason for asserting that Michigan has received (or will receive) a Notice of Allegation seems to be that a closed-door meeting of Mary Sue and the Regents (a great doo-wap band from the 50's?) would only happen in the most serious circumstances. However, given the fact that the school has taken this very seriously from the beginning, it would seem that a closed-door meeting at the conclusion of the investigation would be inevitable regardless of the outcome.
Assume for a second that the NCAA concluded that Michigan had done nothing wrong, and that Rosenberg was officially full of shit (tough, I know... but try to imagine it). The Regents aren't just Michigan boosters and RR groupies; they have a duty to get sufficient information to satisfy themselves that they understand exactly what happened. They would still do their due diligence to be sure that even in the absence of formal findings of violations, the investigation didn't turn up anything else that the University should know about.
I also feel better when I compare this latest development with the reports coming out regarding the USC fiasco;
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AqyZzs0S2WRJcC2DgFngqzo…
It appears that when Moses comes down the mountain, he does so with a hell of a lot more thunder and fury than we're seeing here.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:18 PM ^
This blog has been around, it would appear, for all of 2 1/2 weeks. I'd be more inclined to subscribe to his logic if the blog was well-established and the archives contained evidence he had dealt with this sort of thing before.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
Your logic is kinda flawed here. I could maybe get on board with your idea if he was citing inside information or some real knowledge of facts. Then I'd like a more established source before I believed it. However, in this case, he is admittedly basing this are practically zero facts other than a meeting occurred and is just using logical reasoning to come to a conclusion. How new his blog is has nothing to do with the sound or unsoundenss of his logic.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^
Ok, that's certainly fair. After all, people join Mgoblog and post well-written, logical posts the same day all the time.
However, while he didn't come right out and say "based on my experience working in D-1 compliance, here's what the possibilities are" the implication is there. (See his "About" tab if you didn't already.) I also question why he stopped at those four. Are there really no other possibilities for what went on in the Regents' meeting?
Perhaps my post should've questioned his conclusions and on what basis he made them (other than his own admitted speculation), rather than on the newness of his blog. Yeah, you're right... my logic is a bit flawed. But there are people out there just waiting for this to all come crashing down around us. I tend to be very skeptical when all of a sudden something like his post shows up.
February 4th, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
The reason for the "informal" meeting and "no comment" wasn't necessarily because there are secrets to be kept. They'll all be brought to light eventually because of Michigan's public status (and the aggressive FOIA-ing of area news outlets).
The Open Meetings law in Michigan means that any meeting of the Regents that's not "informal" requires public notice, minutes, and release of the record to the public (as well as opportunity for public comment). If they hadn't conducted the meeting as they did, they would have had to post agenda, minutes, content, et al.
Honestly, I was really surprised NOT to see a Freep rehash of practice gate on signing day or in the days leading up to it, and I'm sure the Regents were bummed to have this meeting timed as it was.
However, that they met on signing day may just have been the result of having to get all these people (who already have very full calendars) together.