Rumored Violations

[sfk324]

Sure they do. When the case is first brought to someone, they had to choose how in-depth they were going to look, etc. They decided that they were going to not just handle the issue at hand, but instead go searching through 5 years of email history. That was a discretionary choice.

You are 100% correct though that at this juncture, the buck stops with the highest on the food chain. Don't know who is the head of the department in charge of this kind of inquiry, but the ball is in the court of them, Jenkins, and other senior leadership.

Who fits your definition of "mid-level academics?" Nobody I can think of that fits that description has the authority to order the investigation that is under way.

 

[BGIF]

Sid enote here...I thought Meyer turned down ND, because they were not going to give him any admissions exception like they did when Holtz was coach.

That was the public "polite" rejection. He made a request he knew was a deal breaker. He was at ND long enough to know the culture.

About two weeks earlier he had asked a former ND player if he would like to work with him at ND.

While Monk pissed and moaned over Tyrone, the UF President came up with a better package.

Mrs. M. did not want another cold winter in South Bend. Winter's aren't much better in Columbus but she can fly out of town on a private plane all but game weekends now. Happy wife; happy life.

 

[ScooterIrish]

Explain Derrick Rose and Memphis in context of your erroneous contention. Memphis and Calipari knew nothing about it, but they vacated all wins from that season.

Probably has something to do with the allegations coming up during the 2007 season, Memphis saying they couldn't find anything and continued to play him for 4 more months.

It's really a different situation.

 

[IrishLax]

Explain Derrick Rose and Memphis in context of your erroneous contention. Memphis and Calipari knew nothing about it, but they vacated all wins from that season.

LOL... my contention is not "erroneous"...

With the case of Memphis, it was deemed that they should have known that he faked his SAT score, and did not hold him out when they should have.

When accusations were made that someone other than Rose had taken the test — he had taken all three attempts at a qualifying score on the ACT in his hometown, Chicago — the SAT security testing agency started an investigation. After Rose did not cooperate with that investigation during the 2008 season, the agency canceled the test result in May 2008, making Rose retroactively ineligible for the 2007-8 season. Memphis knew of the investigation before the season but decided Rose could play. Memphis advanced to the national championship game that season before losing to Kansas.

Per the NCAA, knowing of the investigation BEFORE the season and not holding out Rose while his eligibility was in question was their sin. Memphis FOUGHT this ruling saying there is no way they should have known.

“We know the rules,” Raines said. “We did our due diligence. We did everything we could to determine the student-athlete was eligible and that the rules were being followed. That is the basis for our appeal.”

So this actually directly supports what I'm saying. I know what I'm talking about.

 

[BGIF]

I'm very aware of that history, and I'm not referring to Jenkins or Swarbick. I'm referring to those who are mid-level academics in charge of things like deciding to comb through years of emails to catch every honor code violation they can.

Those mid-level profs can create an issue or two but not vacate games which has become a mantra for you the past two days.

 

[Irish#1]

I'll do my best but I'm stuck at work as well and have a busy day. IF anyone could PM me too that'd be super.

Busy day at work for Koonz is only being able to post 500 times a day instead of his normal 1,000 per day.

 

[IrishSteelhead]

Just checking in now. There's nothing new is there?

 

[IrishLax]

Those mid-level profs can create an issue or two but not vacate games which has become a mantra for you the past two days.

True, so maybe I should decouple them.

1. I think this thing mushroomed because of people who were first in position to investigate got overzealous because they wanted to stick to football players and uncover something big.

2. I think Jenkins/Swarbick/etc. *might* be willing to vacate because they want to show that they took this very seriously and hopefully button up the whole ordeal once and for all once the investigation concludes. I don't think this is from malice, I think this is from a misconception of how it will play.

 

[Grahambo]

I'm willing to bet ALL my limited V-$ that no wins will be vacated. This whole thing is stupid and shouldn't even be happening right now.

 

[wizards8507]

Serious question. CAN we, in fact, unilaterally vacate our own wins? I feel like that's not a thing. If the NCAA says a fully eligible Notre Dame team defeated a fully eligible BYU team in November 2013, what difference does it make what John Jenkins says? A valid football game occurred and the record books will reflect that, right? We're not the arbiters of that kind of thing.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Interesting statement.

So, Jenkins, Swarbrick, The General Counsel, the Compliance Officer, and an unnamed professor are a cabal "to inflict as much harm on the football program as possible".

Jenkins was the guy that went to Monk to get rid of Willingham so he could fly to Utah as the incoming ND President to secure the college coach most ND fans at the time walked on water.

When Urban's wife wanted Florida winters, Jenkins hired Weis in a scramble with Kevin White as his albatross.

Jenkins approved the training table no prior ND president would allow.

Jenkins approved the student athletes to spend most of their non class time in the Gug where prior president's pushed Residentiality.

Jenkins hired Jack Swarbrick the first AD since Dick Rosenthal that WASN'T trying to downgrade the football in accordance with the directives of President Malloy and V. P. Beauchamp.

A spirit of cooperation between the Head Football and Admissions was achieved under Jenkins watch.

Jenkins replaced the head of Res Life creating a lesser draconian environment.

Micheal Floyd and the football programs were direct beneficiaries of Jenkins forward thinking. And Floyd didn't get a free ride.

ND had their first undefeated season in 24 years and 6 ND head coaches during Jenkins 9th year at the helm.

Jenkins O.K.ed the removal of The Traditional Grass

Jenkins approved the Stadium Skyboxes


I can go chapter and verse on Malloy and Company dismembering a successful program. You were what about 4 or 6 at the time.

Fr Ted and Fr Joyce were praised for rebuilding the program but that was AFTER Ted forced out ND's greatest coach ever, Leahy. Then he hired Brennan as HC although he has no college HC experience while he simultaneously cut scholarships. Five years later he hired Kuharich. Then he hired Ara BUT only after Ara turned down the job over admissions, scholarships, and other program issues.

ND's president in 1930 was the first to downgrade the program after Rock's death when he hired Hunk, cut scholarships drastically and bunches of players left school as academics were tightened.

It's a minor point but forcing Leahy out isn't evidence of anything to do with his stance on football. There were other factors and it was in the best interests of ND and Leahy himself to step down.

 

[Emcee77]

LOL... my contention is not "erroneous"...

With the case of Memphis, it was deemed that they should have known that he faked his SAT score, and did not hold him out when they should have.



Per the NCAA, knowing of the investigation BEFORE the season and not holding out Rose while his eligibility was in question was their sin. Memphis FOUGHT this ruling saying there is no way they should have known.



So this actually directly supports what I'm saying. I know what I'm talking about.

But Lax, that same article also says that

"Even though Rose’s test was declared invalid after that championship, Dee said, eligibility was a strict liability matter and any victories with an ineligible player had to be forfeited."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21memphis.html

"Strict liability" is a legal term that means NO mental state is necessary for liability. In other words, if he was ineligible, the wins must be vacated, regardless of the institution's knowledge. At least that's how I read it.

What rule are you referring to, specifically? I'm curious now about the actual language of the rule.

Also, just to be clear what we are talking about, we are talking about the following statement by Jenkins at Friday's presser, correct?

“The university has decided that if the investigation determines that the student-athletes would have been ineligible for past competitions, Notre Dame will voluntarily vacate any victories in which they participated in.”

Notre Dame response to fraud probe creates more questions than answers - South Bend Tribune: Football

 

[Woneone]

True, so maybe I should decouple them.

1. I think this thing mushroomed because of people who were first in position to investigate got overzealous because they wanted to stick to football players and uncover something big.

2. I think Jenkins/Swarbick/etc. *might* be willing to vacate because they want to show that they took this very seriously and hopefully button up the whole ordeal once and for all once the investigation concludes. I don't think this is from malice, I think this is from a misconception of how it will play.

The problem is that the rule itself is so arbitrary (or so it sounds doing some reading) that you can't know how it will play out.

Maybe you can explain further, but from reading the NCAA's "Strict Liability" provision (for lack of a better term), it sounds like it could play out any number of ways, just depends on how the NCAA would choose to enforce this instance of ineligibility.

 

[Irish#1]

Like I alluded to and is being confirmed... could've dealt with what was in front of them and called it a day, instead decided to go on an epic crusade through everybody's email folders to catch any past transgressions they could find. Why?

My only takeaway from this is don't use University email.

My only question is, in the course of their "due diligence" they inevitably stumble upon MORE cheating (remember, 80%+) that isn't related to the girl in question, what happens then? Surely they don't ignore it... so does this whole mess continue to exponentially propagate outwards?

This is why they haven't opened and shut the door on this already. As much as we would like to get an outcome five minutes after the story came out, it's just not going to happen. If this had been isolated to current players this may have been wrapped up already. People need to take a drink, a puff or whatever and live with it. Nothing we say, do or feel is going to expedite this process. Personally, I feel for the IT admin that had to spend his entire weekend restoring thousands of email for perusal.

 

[sfk324]

LOL... my contention is not "erroneous"...

With the case of Memphis, it was deemed that they should have known that he faked his SAT score, and did not hold him out when they should have.



Per the NCAA, knowing of the investigation BEFORE the season and not holding out Rose while his eligibility was in question was their sin. Memphis FOUGHT this ruling saying there is no way they should have known.



So this actually directly supports what I'm saying. I know what I'm talking about.

The score was cancelled in May 2008, the season ended in April 2008. ETS made that ruling, not the NCAA. The NCAA continued to say he was eligible. So they couldn't and shouldn't have known at that time. The NCAA applied strict liability to the case, stating it didn't matter whether or not Memphis knew or should have known--he was ineligible and that's the end of it.

"As the committee looked into the matter, it was clear that from the time that the testing service canceled the test score that that meant the student-athlete had been ineligible from the very beginning and didn't require further inquiry or finding as to whether or not there were improprieties in the administration of the exam," Paul Dee, the former athletic director at the University of Miami who led the Committee on Infractions, said in a teleconference.

Memphis Tigers found guilty by NCAA; must vacate 2007-08 basketball season, will appeal - The Commercial Appeal

So no. You don't know what you're talking about. LOL.

 

[NDhoosier]

I'm curious to where the "consolidated effort to do harm to the program" stuff is coming from. Having worked with 2 people on the leadership council, and from what others have mentioned about Jenkins and Swarbrick, I'd think the program was fairly well protected from internal issues.

Seriously asking because I never saw this when I sat in on leadership meetings.

IrishLax is just a conspiracy theorist when it comes to those things. For some reason, he think the school is out to get their money maker.

 

[wizards8507]

"Strict liability" is a legal term that means NO mental state is necessary for liability. In other words, if he was ineligible, the wins must be vacated, regardless of the institution's knowledge. At least that's how I read it.
What rule are you referring to, specifically? I'm curious now about the actual language of the rule.

I don't think that article is using "strict liability" correctly in the context of the rule. It does, in fact, matter whether the University KNOWINGLY played an ineligible player, with the exception being something so obvious that the program damn well SHOULD have known (lack of institutional control).

I think Lax's point is that no program since the forward pass has ever played a football game with 100% academic purity from 100% of their players. College students cheat, including athletes and everyone else. Whether it's inappropriate help on homework or storing formulas in the memory of your calculator, this shit happens all. the. time. While it's good that the University deals with it, they use a ridiculously fine-toothed comb and then go overboard with self-punishment.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

IrishLax is just a conspiracy theorist when it comes to those things. For some reason, he think the school is out to get their money maker.

Lax isnt the only one to say that there are people, not 'school', at ND that are happy to see the football program in trouble.

The closest to names I've heard are "mid-level academics" and "people on the Board of Trustees."

At least this is what I remember from the thread.

 

[IrishLax]

The score was cancelled in May 2008, the season ended in April 2008. ETS made that ruling, not the NCAA. The NCAA continued to say he was eligible. So they couldn't and shouldn't have known at that time. The NCAA applied strict liability to the case, stating it didn't matter whether or not Memphis knew or should have known--he was ineligible and that's the end of it.

That's why I bolded what I did.............................................

The issue is that they decided to play him while being aware of an unconcluded investigation that would compromise his eligibility... and that Rose was also refusing to cooperate with.

So no... I still 100% do know exactly what I'm talking about. Learn the rules, or shut up.

 

[Emcee77]

I don't think that article is using "strict liability" correctly in the context of the rule.

What rule? I'd like to read the rule. Can anyone point me to it?

 

[NDdomer2]

ok conspiracy thought from way out of left field:

there has been a couple of articles this summer that have mentioned how the ncaa hasnt actively investigated anything in quite some time.

knowing that and how ND proactively approached them over something, who as far as we know the NCAA has nothing to do with.

Could something more being going on here and ND is just "telling on themselves" so that the NCAA says "oh how nice they did our work for us" and moves on. And in reality it is just a smoke screen for the real issues.


hmmm.......


I honestly dont think the above is anywhere close to whats going on. just randomly popped into my head.

 

[sfk324]

That's why I bolded what I did.............................................

The issue is that they decided to play him while being aware of an unconcluded investigation that would compromise his eligibility... and that Rose was also refusing to cooperate with.

So no... I still 100% do know exactly what I'm talking about. Learn the rules, or shut up.

I just quoted the chairman of the rules committee who said it was strict liability--whether Memphis knew or not was irrelevant. Provide a source for stating otherwise or YOU shut up.

And since you only seem to understand bold face, here it is again

"As the committee looked into the matter, it was clear that from the time that the testing service canceled the test score that that meant the student-athlete had been ineligible from the very beginning and didn't require further inquiry or finding as to whether or not there were improprieties in the administration of the exam," Paul Dee, the former athletic director at the University of Miami who led the Committee on Infractions, said in a teleconference.

And if what you are saying is the case, Memphis should have been able to keep all wins prior to notification in January 2008. They were not allowed to as the ineligibility went back to his very first game. As a result, the entire season was vacated. Whether a school knows or should know is irrelevant.

 

[IrishLax]

To add on, no one here will be able to find a single example in the history of the NCAA of a school vacating wins for an academically ineligible player unless they did not remove him from competition or report the concern when they first learned about the question or ignored/should've known of an event that would've compromised the eligibility.

 

[IrishInFl]

ok conspiracy thought from way out of left field:

there has been a couple of articles this summer that have mentioned how the ncaa hasnt actively investigated anything in quite some time.

knowing that and how ND proactively approached them over something, who as far as we know the NCAA has nothing to do with.

Could something more being going on here and ND is just "telling on themselves" so that the NCAA says "oh how nice they did our work for us" and moves on. And in reality it is just a smoke screen for the real issues.


hmmm.......


I honestly dont think the above is anywhere close to whats going on. just randomly popped into my head.

 

[IrishLax]

I just quoted the chairman of the rules committee who said it was strict liability--whether Memphis knew or not was irrelevant. Provide a source for stating otherwise or YOU shut up.

You aren't grasping the concept of strict liability as it applies here and are misinterpreting the quote.

 

[Emcee77]

That's why I bolded what I did.............................................

The issue is that they decided to play him while being aware of an unconcluded investigation that would compromise his eligibility... and that Rose was also refusing to cooperate with.

So no... I still 100% do know exactly what I'm talking about. Learn the rules, or shut up.

You may be right, I am certain that you know more about the NCAA rules than I do, but the article does not say that what you say. On the contrary, it says that

"Even though Rose’s test was declared invalid after that championship, Dee said, eligibility was a strict liability matter and any victories with an ineligible player had to be forfeited. The N.C.A.A. said it did not need to determine whether Rose actually took the disputed SAT test because once the agency declared it invalid, Rose was automatically ineligible. Dee said the agency made its decision “based on his failure to cooperate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21memphis.html

The article suggests that, although Memphis knew of the investigation, it was ROSE'S failure to cooperate, not Memphis's connivance, that was the basis for the decision.

I also agree with sfk's interpretation of the term "strict liability." I am very familiar with the meaning of this term, as I am a licensed attorney. Now, this Dee, the person interviewed for the story, may have been using it improperly, but based on what he said, sfk's interpretation is not wrong.

It absolutely may be the case, as wizards suggested, that the article is poorly written and the writer or interviewee misspoke. But I'd like to read the rule, if you can find it, or tell me where I might find it.

 

[IrishLax]

You may be right, I am certain that you know more about the NCAA rules than I do, but the article does not say that what you say. On the contrary, it says that

"Even though Rose’s test was declared invalid after that championship, Dee said, eligibility was a strict liability matter and any victories with an ineligible player had to be forfeited. The N.C.A.A. said it did not need to determine whether Rose actually took the disputed SAT test because once the agency declared it invalid, Rose was automatically ineligible. Dee said the agency made its decision “based on his failure to cooperate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21memphis.html

The article suggests that, although Memphis knew of the investigation, it was ROSE'S failure to cooperate, not Memphis's connivance, that was the basis for the decision.

It absolutely may be the case, as wizards suggested, that the article is poorly written and the writer or interviewee misspoke. But I'd like to read the rule, if you can find it, or tell me where I might find it.

It's a poorly written article, and the statement is being misinterpreted. The implied premise is that because there was an ongoing investigation and Memphis chose to ignore it and play Rose anyways, that since the result came back bad for them that it's a strict liability case. They rolled the dice, they lost, they lose the "we did everything in our power" excuse.

The grounds for Memphis' appeal... as quoted above... pretty clearly show what I'm talking about. If "we did everything right and timely" wasn't a cure all... then you couldn't use it as a grounds for appeal. What Dee is saying is why that defense doesn't hold water in this case.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

I've been a little MIA today following this thread. I'm not a major poster on here or anything...BUT...

if some of you guys don't think that there is faculty at ND that hates the football team you've lost your mind. I went to a small high school, there were clicks of teachers that HATED the football team and everything it stood for, make your mind up, there are some lifetime educators that have never left the textbooks and have no clue about the outside world.

point being, you guys can argue with LAX all you want. But this investigation is insane. I can't believe that some of you actually think the University possibly vacating wins is a good thing, you guys must live one hell of a boring life, you guys sound like the Anti Porn crowd, get over it. ND is f'ing this up period. there is a part of me that hopes the players are reinstated and then they tell the University to jamb it in there ass and walk.

 

[sfk324]

You may be right, I am certain that you know more about the NCAA rules than I do, but the article does not say that what you say. On the contrary, it says that

"Even though Rose’s test was declared invalid after that championship, Dee said, eligibility was a strict liability matter and any victories with an ineligible player had to be forfeited. The N.C.A.A. said it did not need to determine whether Rose actually took the disputed SAT test because once the agency declared it invalid, Rose was automatically ineligible. Dee said the agency made its decision “based on his failure to cooperate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21memphis.html

The article suggests that, although Memphis knew of the investigation, it was ROSE'S failure to cooperate, not Memphis's connivance, that was the basis for the decision.


I also agree with sfk's interpretation of the term "strict liability." I am very familiar with the meaning of this term, as I am a licensed attorney. Now, this Dee, the person interviewed for the story, may have been using it improperly, but based on what he said, sfk's interpretation is not wrong.

It absolutely may be the case, as wizards suggested, that the article is poorly written and the writer or interviewee misspoke. But I'd like to read the rule, if you can find it, or tell me where I might find it.

It's funny....the two of us are both licensed attorneys and the non-attorney is trying to tell us what strict liability means.

EDIT:: As for the rule, it's actually the NCAA's Committee on Infractions interpretation that is at issue. The rule cited by the committee was bylaw 31.2.2.3, but that rule says "may." The committee has been less than consistent in its application, to put it mildly, and most believed they went into new territory with the strict liability application of the Rose case.

 

[NDBoiler]

So has the rumor of players being reinstated been proven false or is it still up in the air? Just trying catch up, thanks.