OT: NCAA investigator & OSU alum Abigail Grantstein allegedly fired by NCAA

Or that Auburn case.

The major issue here was her disposition much more so than revealing details of the investigation to her boyfriend. The BruinsNation article may have not been the best one to link here, but they reference the LA Times story that first broke the story.

The bigger problem is she prejudged the case. The boyfriend's comments were made in August when the case was in its infancy and before many of the people involved in the case had even been interviewed. An investigator should never make the statements that were attributed to her, but it is even more incriminating to make them before you have even really started the investigation.

I suggest reading the LA Times article:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-1115-ucla-shabazz-ncaa-20121115,0,1557715.story

P.S. If this was done to a Michigan athlete, do you really think this blog and its readers wouldn't have done the same legwork as BruinsNation?

So you want people who are only qualified to be a fry cook at McDonald's running NCAA investigations?

Emmert bypassed Ms Grantstein all together when he dropped the hammer on PSU.

If you read the LA Times article that broke this story, the timing of the conversation, the subject matter, and the tone are very incriminating.

1. The overheard plane conversation took place in August well before the investigation had really started. No inteviews had been conducted at that point and this conversation took place only 8 days after the NCAA requested documentation from the Muhammad's family and UCLA. This documentation (over a thousand pages worth of evidence) didn't get filed until the end of September. For an investigator to have the attitude that a player is dirty, guilty, and guarantee he is not going to play before the investigation has even started is a really big deal. An NCAA investigator is not a prosecutor. The NCAA investigation is supposed to be an impartial fact finding enterprise. No charges had been filed at this point. Her impartiality was definitely in question.

2. The boyfriend spoke with enough detail that a woman with no knowledge of college sports understood the identity of the player and school involved. It's one thing to tell a partner that you are investigating a high profile college basketball recruit. It's another thing to tell your partner the recruit's identity, the school involved, and that the recruit was dirty and taking money BEFORE the investigation had even started. And the boyfriend was the one who included the details about the investigator's connection and bias toward Kansas.

3. She got fired months later after this report. I can guarantee you there was an internal investigation that justified her firing and probably confirmed the facts disclosed by the boyfriend.