WVU presser about NCAA investigation at 1 p.m.

Submitted by allinforM on August 5th, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Rothstein said in his chat that Coach Rod might make a statement, as well. Figures it would come right before camp starts.

Comments

Blazefire

August 5th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^

"Routinely forced to exceed NCAA Practice limits." There's those wolves, again! They do tend to pop up, don't they. Let it GO, WVU.

First of all, we don't care, because it can't have any effect on our institution. Second of all, the presser will announce, "they haven't found anything", because there's nothing to find. Those records are destroyed within three or four years, I'm sure.

MGoAero

August 5th, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^

If there's one thing I've learned over the last few years is to not be cocky about the teflon-ness of our football program.  If something is found, it does affect our program because our coach would be implicated.  It'd be foolish to think that the charges would have a bigger impact to WVU, and not to the (almost) entire coaching staff that, you know, actually broke the rules, and ended up at Michigan.  Again, if anything is found.  And even though this is West Virginia we're talking about, don't assume that they haven't figured out how to keep soft copies of records that go back more than a couple of years.

MGoAero

August 5th, 2010 at 1:16 PM ^

Because I guess that NCAA sanctions are the only thing that look poorly upon a university/program.  What did everyone think of USC during the years of inaction by the NCAA?  Public perception matters, and to have a coaching staff that's responsible for violations at two different institutions does not make fans and observers feel warm and fuzzy, even if we only get penalized for one of his violations.  Just sayin'

Blazefire

August 5th, 2010 at 1:18 PM ^

Why the heck would ANYONE care if a coach has extra assistants helping coach the players? The only reason that's even an NCAA violation is because it helps level the playing field with the poor schools.

Seriously, that's like saying you're disappointed because you found out he used to jaywalk sometimes. Yes, it's a crime... but A: Why, and B: Who cares?

MGoAero

August 5th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^

Why would anyone care?  Have you been around for the last year?  The university and its reputation are going through the wringer because of this, rightly or wrongly.  Do you enjoy having to try to defend the coach and his staff to everyone?  I sure don't. 

Trepps

August 5th, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^

you have been asleep for the last 3 years or you have completely missed the point.  Anything that tarnishes RR's image tarnishes our image.  And frankly, I don't see why the NCAA would not consider RR's past conduct in their investigation of UM even if it is not officially considered in their UM inquiry.

Section 1

August 5th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^

The defense that Michigan and Rich Rodriguez together empahtically agree on is his "failing to encourage and atmosphere of compliance."  At Michigan.  Michigan says, "No."  Rodriguez says, "No."

A close look at the NCAA allegations in the Michigan case do not have much to do with Rodriguez at all.  Say what you will about the man, but intelligent observers know that it is not his job to prepare, collect, file and report on CARA forms.  A dozen other people are paid, nearly full time, to do that.  Most of the people at Michigan were doing the same thing before Rich Rodriguez got here.  Some of them are gone now.

So there is precious little to go on, in terms of RR failing to "encourage an atmosphere" at Michigan. 

And at WVU, it is clear enough that what was a technical problem there in terms of definitional roles of Assistants/QC people, was likewise an institutional thing that was either unwittingly or knowingly continued after RR.  Nothing at all that was specific to, or particularly related to, RR.

I just don't see how any of this "weakens Rich's case proclaiming his innocence."  RR's defense to the one NCAA allegation aimed at him seems unaffected by this, although I grant you that I can see, as you do, how the smear-meisters could blur it all into one.

DesHow21

August 5th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^

This could indeed have some (albeit small) effect on us. NCAA is much more likely to throw the book at us if they see RR as a repeat offender. Now what you saying would be perfect (and oh so sweet) if RR had indeed screwed the pooch at WV and we were NOT UNDER THE HAMMER, but sadly the NCAA does have us by the balls here.

So lets hope for the best for Aug 13th.

Blazefire

August 5th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^

They have too many graduate assistants, etc, just like every single other school in the entire country. They have continued to have them since Rodriguez left. No issues with practice time, etcetera. Like every other school, they had graduate assistants helping out in places they shouldn't be.

Yeah, this is totally expected and won't hurt anyone. I'd be surprised if the NCAA even gives WVU a stern look over it.

ironman4579

August 5th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^

Actually, it doesn't say they have too many.  What it says is

"The allegations focus primarily on the activities and roles of graduate assistants, student managers and other non-coaching staff in the football program"

Activities, not numbers.  I'd also point out that they received a notice of allegations, so clearly the NCAA feels that there's something more there.

allinforM

August 5th, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^

Part Coach Rod, part not Coach Rod. Mixed feelings, but this will have A LOT to do with our institution. We are under NCAA scrutiny right now, esp. Coach Rod.

Mattinboots

August 5th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^

The not all Coach Rod leads me to believe that WVU didn't know the proper rules.  That said, perhaps this is partly why we're running into issues here - that Coach Rod's general understanding of the rules were impaired by his time at WVU. 

Blatant speculation, but still possible.

EDIT: Our compliance department clearly had dysfunctionality too.  I didn't mean to imply we only face issues due to actions/inactions of Coach Rod.

Blazefire

August 5th, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^

The NCAA has already made their decision on whether to accept our punishment. They'll announce in less than a week. They're NOT going to punish Michigan for things that took place at WVU, ESPECIALLY not things that nobody had any way of knowing happened at WVU before they hired Rodriguez, and also especially not things that have only in the last year or so become clear as to why and how they are violations.

BiSB

August 5th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^

Next week the NCAA hears our defense. This is essentially the "trial phase" of the proceeding, where we respond to the NCAA's allegations:

  • Notice of Inquiry = investigation
  • Notice of Allegation = indictment
  • School's Response = pleading
  • Next week's hearing = trial
  • Some time in November(?) = verdict, sentencing

The school is essentially pleading guilty to some of the "charges," but contesting others.

UM4ME

August 5th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^

This new news makes me more than a little nervous to go before the committee next week. What a great way to start fall camp - ugh!

Mattinboots

August 5th, 2010 at 1:45 PM ^

Have any of you heard of a blog about compliance?  I think it's called the Bylaw Blog.  This guy, "the compliance guy", could probably shed some light on the potential ramifications to coach Rod and UofM.

His website is...oh wait...

Section 1

August 5th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^

1.  This is grist for the mill of those sportswriters who crave the five-sentence story.  RichRod = Michigan NCAA trouble + WVA NCAA trouble = reeeaally big problem.

2.  The apparent facts should not cause any concern for the more thoughtful observer(s).  Indeed, there is in fact another way to look at the story, almost as simple as #1.  That is "Eevrybody does it; even when they think they know the rules and are trying to comply with the rules."

3.  Somebody suggested that Michigan gets its final news from the NCAA in a couple of weeks.  That's incorrect.  In a couple of weeks, Michigan gets its hearing with the NCAA, in Seattle, and a chance to make its case, in person, with repsect to the NCAA allegations that Michigan and RR have together denied:  that RR "failed to encourage an atmosphere of compliance."  Final news from the NCAA comes weeks, or months, after that.  (I suspect it will be 5-6 weeks later.)

4.  The WVU formal Notice of Allegations might have a bearing on discussion of RR failing to encourage an atmosphere of etc and etc.  Compliance Guy, before he was outed, commented briefly on that subject.  Complinmace Guy was dubious.  I suspect that today's news would leave Compliance Guy even more dubious.  But this is the one wild card in the upcoming hearing.  But I am encouraged.  Short of giving RR a 10-year contract extension, it seems to me that in the "pleadings" so far, Michigan as been both aggressive in taking responsiblity fo the minor silliness in the real NCAA allegations (as opposed to the plainly horeshit Free Press allegations) AND Michigan has been aggessive in defending RR against the "failing to encourage an atmosphere" allegation.

I don't know what is going to happen, but I am pretty confident that the final NCAA ruling on Michigan will be virtually unaffected by all of this.

Blazefire

August 5th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^

Yeah, but it basically says the same stuff happened in the 07-08 school year, just with more detail (probably because more files were available). It's all the same. GA's watched film or helped players during practices but were not available to the other sports. Clearly, since everybody has got this wrong, there has got to be some sort of poorly described terms in the rules that make it hard to understand.

I'm sure the same stuff happened before RR showed up. I'm sure we had too many assistants under Carr. I'm sure OSU has too many assistants doing the wrong things under OSU. I don't think it's intentional. I think the intent is to scrape the law as close as possible, and the law is poorly written.

NateVolk

August 5th, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^

It doesn't seem like every few weeks something happens to ding the football program pr-wise.  It IS every few weeks. Like clockwork almost. 

But really what has changed here?  The larger issue is that all the aggravation, whoever's fault, is made worthwhile only by winning big on the field.  That still applies.  Win and all this is growing pains. Lose and it has all been wasted time and mess for the next guy to clean up.

I am squarely behind Rich, but I admit it is mostly because I think he will get the job done on the field. Not that I enjoy fighting off mouthy UM haters about being a cheater. The off the field stuff is disturbing because it is piggy backing on the two tough seasons.  Gotta win now. 

goody

August 5th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^

its an honest mistake that Rodriquez and now Stewart's coaching staffs had made.   I hate the arguement that "eveybody does it" but is everyone trying to get that extra edge or is everyone just confused about how to interpret the rules regarding off-season "coaching".

Blazefire

August 5th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^

and a little from Column B, I should think.

I'm sure that most athletic programs operate in a nebulous gray area with rules like these. I'm sure there's somebody in the AD whose job it is to tell the coach, you can have X number of grad assistants, etcetera. I'm sure they're told to find every loophole to make the program the best they can, and maybe sometimes they take it too far.

I doubt if RR or many other coaches have ever intentionally broken rules on assistants, practice time, etcetera, but I'm sure almost all coaches are quite happy to toe the line as closely as they can.

Edit: Allow me to state I am not actually "SURE" about anything here, no matter what I say. I don't know. But it seems the most logical.

Waxing Gibbous

August 5th, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^

NCAA has a hard time trying to put numbers on things when every school's athletic department is different in terms of the number of sports they sponsor, the makeup of them, etc. How do you impose hard rules when every situation is different? And then with the rules they have now, they're ambigious enough so that each school can interpret things their own way based on the makeup of their AD. Then factor in tight budgets and trying to get people to do multiple jobs across different sports to save money ... I don't envy the jobs the complaince folks have.

davidhm

August 5th, 2010 at 8:34 PM ^

...while I believe Rich Rod is at fault for some of this, the Compliance people should be a "checks-and-balance" on all the athletic teams.  The fact that these charges are being levied at programs where Rich Rod was a coach, shows that the rules are so vague that: 1) the coaches aren't fully aware of the rules and 2) the Compliance people who are supposed to oversee the "student athlete" don't understand them completely either.

I'm not saying "everybody does it" as an excuse, what's wrong is wrong and I believe that, but I think that this instance alone shows that its a problem that isn't limited to just one coach. That fact that Stewart is wrapped up in this is further evidence.   

Wolverine318

August 5th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^

yyyyaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn....

wake me up when it is football season

I am a fan of south carolina in the SEC. If you aint cheatin you aint trying. Welcome to modern college football.

Geaux_Blue

August 5th, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^

is the stupid response from tRCMB. as if RR hadn't said from the start that he didn't know it was a violation. well if he didn't know it was a violation, odds were damn good it was happening at WVU also. someone on there actually said this was worse than what occurred at USC... good God. i guess logic is the Michigan Difference.