NCAA Rule 19.5.2 - Major Violations
Tim noted in the liveblog that UM is accused of violating NCAA Rule 19.5.2.2 and the punishments are found in 19.5.2.1 and .3
This rule covers major violations.
So while it may seem like the violations are trivial, it at least looks like UM is being accused of Major violations.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/Division_1_Manual_2008-09e9…
19.5.2.1 Presumptive Penalty. The presumptive penalty for a major violation, subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions on the basis of specifically stated reasons, shall include all of the following: (a) A two-year probationary period (including a periodic in-person monitoring system and written institutional reports); (b) The reduction in the number of expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport for one recruiting year; (Revised: 1/11/94) (c) A requirement that all coaching staff members in the sport be prohibited from engaging in any offcampus recruiting activities for up to one recruiting year; (Revised: 1/11/94) (d) A requirement that all institutional staff members determined by the committee knowingly to have engaged in or condoned a major violation be subject to: (Adopted: 1/11/94) (1) Termination of employment; (2) Suspension without pay for at least one year; (3) Reassignment of duties within the institution to a position that does not include contact with prospective or enrolled student-athletes or representatives of the institution’s athletics interests for at least one year; or (4) Other disciplinary action approved by the committee. (e) A reduction in the number of financial aid awards; (Adopted: 1/11/94) (f ) Sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport, particularly in those cases in which: (Revised: 1/11/94) (1) Involved individuals remain active in the program; (Adopted: 1/11/94) (2) A significant competitive advantage results from the violation(s); or (Adopted: 1/11/94) (3) The violation(s) reflect a lack of institutional control. (Adopted: 1/11/94) (g) Institutional recertification that the current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
I am so confused. What is UM being accused of (major/minor) and how big of a deal is this?
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
but I feel like if we did violate a rule (which we probably did according to the presser, no matter how minor) we should face the respective penalty no matter how sever. I don't care if "everyone else does it" or if its just a "witch hunt", we broke a rule and need to face the penalty. In this respect we can be a model University and show how to take your medicine when you deserve it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
Eff that - I'm not willing to potentially allow the football program to go down the shitter for the entire foreseeable future because some people didn't keep the right paper work. I.E. If everybody else is going 15 over the speed limit and you get pulled over for 5 I think that's BS.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
There is no doubt that every other major football program in the country violates the same rules. We break a rule everyone else breaks but we should be the only one punished for it because a slew of local newspaper reporters has it out for the program? This is all a farce. The NCAA is a joke if it punishes one university before looking into the same practice at other programs. We shouldn't be the ones who have to fall on our sword so we look better. This would never be an issue were it not for that Freep article. This is another thing the NCAA would rather sweep under the rug but now has to flex its muscle since it is out in the open.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
Do you drive 55 mph on all interstate highways? I hope so.
Do you see my point? I'd be glad to explain as necessary.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
explain, please.
edit: I actually want an explanation. I am not sure what point he is trying to make considering I have never seen an interstate freeway at 55mph. I don't know why he or I would be negged for that...
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
I-94 for a stretch (specifically wayne county, MI), is 55mph
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
The point was don't point your finger at someone when you have 4 pointing back at you. The speed was irrelevant. But that you're mentioning it, 127 has a stretch of 55 MPH.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^
I see the point now. I was thinking he was referring to some ancient federal law from the first gas crisis that forced the speed limit to 55mph on all interstate highways and was only enforceable by the federal government when they threatened to withhold money for road repairs if the states did not comply. I couldn't figure out how he was linking that to this.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
If you're making the point I think you are I get it, but I believe there are many interstate highways where the speed limit is higher. I also don't think you have much of a beef if you get a ticket for speeding even though you know there have been people that have sped in the past and not gotten caught.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
If the speed limit says 55 and you're going 60, you deserve a ticket. There is absolutely no grey area there. You know the rule and you broke it, so you get the punishment. What everyone else does is completely irrelevant to the fact that you broke the law.
I'm not even going to pretend that I don't do this every single day multiple times, but I wouldn't cry about it if I got caught for it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^
everybody murders, kills people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever, so it's all good.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
There actually is a "grey area" when it comes to speeding in certain states. "Some states (such as Pennsylvania) have official tolerances. Per state law, one cannot be cited by an officer using a radar/laser gun for traveling less than 10 mph (16 km/h) over a speed limit of less than 55 mph (89 km/h) or for traveling less than 6 mph (10 km/h) over a speed limit of 55 mph (89 km/h) or greater." That is quoted from Wikipedia which we all know isn't the greatest or most reliable website but my lawyer backed this just the other day when one of his clients got out of a ticket for going 50 mph in a 45 mph zone. Is this relevant to the OP topic? Not at all so it doesn't really matter.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^
I'm fine with taking the punishment if it is due - like the Ed Martin scandal and how I hope USC will be treated. But this isn't a major violation from all that I've read - there were some minor overages and a couple of issues with reporting. If something more substantial comes out we can reevaluate this position, but right now UM doesn't need to be the sacrificial lamb for the NCAA over such (relatively) trivial mistakes.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
Let’s not get to hyperbolic until we see what the fall out is. Today we got a lot of information but not a lot of questions answered (how long are we in the penalty box? What is this penalty box? How did I get in this nutshell?) I’m not going to hop ship without knowing how big a hole the iceberg made especially when the range is: A Charlie Weis donkey kick to a Tickle-Me-Elmo love smack.
Allegations, alabaster, major violation, major tom, probation, prohibition, impropriety and most importantly inconclusive... lots of words today....breathe
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
Brian and co. are working on a summary post for all to read. Let's hold off on the apocalypse for a minute, here.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
Full Reports
Just in case anyone wants to see a lot of dates, numbers, and allegations.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
Says that *if* violations are found to have occured, *then* penalties under the bylaw posted by OP will by applied.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
That said, I went and read the NCAA allegations. It certainly paints a picture of a program running amok in regards to the issues raised (use of quality control coaches, practicing too much etc.). Hardly seems as bad as paying players etc. but who knows how the minds of the NCAA work. Perhaps the most disconcerting to me was the allegation towards the end discussing how when Rodriguez came aboard he hired the QC people and some A.D. employees were raising questions that apparently went unheeded.
I watched the press conference live. It sure sounded like Brandon was taking it on the chin and not trying to deny anything. I think the issue of deniability is long past (particularly the way Brandon basically point-blank accepted responsibility). I think this is going to come down to how hard the NCAA wants to punch us.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:48 PM ^
19.5.2.1 is a list of possible punishments, not a rule (a prohibition) itself. Was this something that he said *would* be applied or *could* be applied?
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
varsityblue:
Codes violated: 19.5.2.2, potential penalties described by 19.5.2.1 and 19.5.2.3
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
I believe this means that we are guilty of a minor violation (19.5.2.2), and possible a major one (19.5.2.1) or knowingly repeating an offense (19.5.2.3). They all describe possible penalties for for the corresponding violations that we are guilty of, but not the violations themselves.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
THis would only be if we committed anything major during the time frame for which the athletic program was under probation for the BBall scandal. I don't believe they were.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
I believe the probation was self-imposed and there were some other sanctions by the NCAA which are still in effect. I don't know how the NCAA handles this, but if we are still being punished for that, then they may consider that to be a probationary period.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
I'm confused as to why the football program would be in more trouble because they had seemingly accidental violations a decade and a half after the basketball program became a flaming car wreck. That seems...unfair.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
Wow. So if we can possibly face these vioalations what does USC have to look forward to? Does the NCAA blow up the Colisuem?
This all seems a bit ridiculous to me. I prefer not to worry about it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^
Seriously, I was thinking the same thing...this is such a load of shit, I just don't see how we're getting pushed around while the SEC...exists.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
If you take a look at the full reports and the Rich Rod cover letter, you will see that everything is construed as a major violation unless the committee determines it is a secondary violation.
NOAcover_022210_Michigan_RRodriguez.pdf Page 3 > Paragraph 3
You should understand that all of the allegations charged in the notice of allegations are considered to be potential major violations of NCAA legislation, unless designated as secondary violations..."
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
So when they meet with the NCAA in April, the NCAA can (will) say, Yes, these things happened, but they were all secondary. Don't worry about it.
Awesome.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
well if you read it carefully, some of these punishments aren't as severe as they seem, for example:
(b) The reduction in the number of expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport for
one recruiting year; (Revised: 1/11/94)
Can't we just reduce it by 1 visit and satisfy this rule?
(c) A requirement that all coaching staff members in the sport be prohibited from engaging in any offcampus
recruiting activities for up to one recruiting year; (Revised: 1/11/94)
It says "up to one recruiting year," so the penalty could be like no offcampus recruiting activities for 2 weeks
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^
FWIW, A lot of criminal statutes are written so that a wide range of penalties are available for a specific crime. That's why you sometimes hear about athletes facing "possible jail time" even when they end up with relatively minor penalties.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20100223/SPORTS0201/2230404/Michigan…
I thought the overages were in minutes. This makes it sound excessive and with major intent to violate. Why do local papers always excentuate the worst.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^
Doesn't say anything about how many hours U of M was over - unless I missed something. It just says they were over...To me the "bad" part of the article is the AD saying, "This is a tough day," but you have to say stuff like that. It's sort of like going in front of a judge for a speeding ticket. You don't act like it's not a big deal.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
It's crap, though, that Angelique didn't put in the article that we may have gone over by 20 fucking minutes in a week. I want to email her and ask her why this very key bit of information was not included, but cannot seem to find her email address on the page after a quick scan. She is normally my favorite Detroit MSM writer; not including this detail is upsetting.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
The article might still be fleshed-out further, though. It was obviously put together quickly.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
Good call- I'd imagine she'd have a better, more thorough take within a couple hours. And christ- the Freep headline is absurd; "NCAA Accuses Michigan of 5 Major Violations." Those self-righteous little pricks. This makes me angry, obviously.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
Their headline is accurate. Don't let that dissuade you though.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
Why did they change it to POSSIBLE major violations?
Oh right... because it's not MADE major violations!!!!
Jesus Christ... It's bad enough that Michigan men, women, children have to deal with dumbasses but to have to bicker amongst your own who can't tell the difference is well... extremely frustrating...
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
is somewhere between flat-out inaccurate (are they "major" violations?) and very misleading. The last two allegations come from the same set of facts as the first two and the third allegation is that the grad assistant lied during the investigation.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^
My favorite is the typo that there is an "international investigation" going on instead of an internal one.
Looks like the News was in a rush to get this one online.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:32 PM ^
INTERPOL.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
If we are facing such a stiff punishment/reaction, I would think that USC & Kiffin should get hammered hard. Death penalty hard, otherwise it is a freaking joke.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
Tell me about it. talk about slant
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/02/23/michigan-ncaa…
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
Where is this "Free Press" located. Mother fuckers gonna burn.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^
Paging through it, the vast majority of the "overages" are for going over the voluntary offseason workout limits (WHAAA? -- they regulate VOLUNTARY activities?) and the same overage repeatedly for specific days. Seems clear to me that someone thought something didn't count that the NCAA thinks does count.
Other than that, you have guys allegedly breaking a rule that doesn't exist anymore (and the allegations for the most part are not very specific on who did what), the punishing kids for missing summer classes with conditioning work thing, and one QC guy who is so fired.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
SO promoted
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^
Yep.
The fact that our recently promoted OLB/SS/whatever the hell he coaches is mentioned by name in this just does not look good at all.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
where was adam braithwaite's name listed?
EDIT: found it
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^
as the use/abuses by the quality control coaches. That scares me far more. Paints the whole picture of RR not having control of his program.