Rumored Violations

[phgreek]

...OK on the subject of what Kelly meant...


I'm sure it matters...


...but that burger looks good as hell...I'm Hungry...be back later.

 

[koonja]

so...this is to be 5 hearings...one for each guy....not one hearing for all 5 guys correct?

I'd imagine they hold a hearing for the first person, wait a week for appeal, hear the appeal the next week, then make a decision. Then the 2nd of the 5 players will have his hearing held.

 

[NDohio]

Eating it now

 

[wizards8507]

Huh?

Most cheating doesn't require a committee hearing, but there's sufficient quantity of cheating that the hearings occur often.

Like... there are several million whales in the ocean, but it would be a rare thing to see one when when you go swimming at the Jersey Shore.

 

[IrishinTN]

Most cheating doesn't require a committee hearing, but there's sufficient quantity of cheating that the hearings occur often.

Like... there are several million whales in the ocean, but it would be a rare thing to see one when when you go swimming at the Jersey Shore.

But you'd see plenty on the beach...

 

[NDBoiler]

Who knows. At this point, I imagine it goes something like:

Very tiny pebbles....


She's a witch! Burn her!!

 

[Irish#1]

I think I can summarize 7,800 posts. We understand the issue and the need for going through the standard policies and procedures. We're just pissed because its taken way too long to get an answer.

Did I get that right?

 

[NDBoiler]

Wait... do they make pitchfork scabbards?

www.pitchforkscabbards.com

 

[benneboy]

I think I can summarize 7,800 posts. We understand the issue and the need for going through the standard policies and procedures. We're just pissed because its taken way too long to get an answer.

Did I get that right?

No you did not. Kelly mentioned in his press conference that they abandoned their standard policies and procedures and are treating this situation different than any other they have encountered before. When I say they I mean the university not Kelly or the athletic department.

 

[dshans]

Keith said it best.

“You can’t accuse me of anything I haven’t already confessed to.” – Keith Richards

 

[kmoose]

Most cheating doesn't require a committee hearing, but there's sufficient quantity of cheating that the hearings occur often.

Like... there are several million whales in the ocean, but it would be a rare thing to see one when when you go swimming at the Jersey Shore.

If the committees convene "all of the time", then they are not "rare".

 

[Irish YJ]

I get what you are saying...I even understand the decision to hold out the players, but the TIME issue is what makes that bad.

My issue is that there are degrees of throwing yourself under the bus. I believe in full disclosure, but I also believe in doing so in a way that is balanced, providing all information but not providing value commentary unless you think it MITIGATES the situation from your organization's perspective...and then you only do that on key issues. In any organization...What you do to recruiting and morale by going overboard is far more damaging than dealing with the issues of human frailty.

...let me put it another way. EVERYONE understands that people get caught up in success, and can take shortcuts...while we do not condone it, we certainly understand it across all walks of life. When you get to a situation where organizational leadership's actions hurt the organization beyond what is understood to be reasonable, those inside it don't understand that. Now you are in a position where you are trying to rehab your image inside and out...and that never works real well.

You have got to be careful the message you put out is that we won't tolerate shortcuts, but we certainly will not be inviting regulators to treat us more harshly than is the norm.

Throw in the Dynamic of an NCAA desperately looking for a reason to appear "on it" and I worry Notre Dame's approach (whatever the hell it is) could be self destructive...and as a leader, if you allow that to happen...well thats not good.

Not saying I know what is going on, but when Fr. Jenkins opens with discussions of vacating wins...etc. Makes ya wander what in the hell the end game was. Seems like it was something on the order of ...we will skewer ourselves with a butter knife before the NCAA slaps our wrist...I don't think that is necessary or prudent. As an NCAA regulator I'd like to see what punishment you hand out, and what process changes will be implemented to safeguard against re-occurrence...while the NCAA is a bit of a wildcard, if I'm a NCAA regulator with some competence...you only make my job harder when you set mob expectations of outcomes like "vacating wins".

As well, when the internal disciplinary process itself appears punitive before judgement is rendered, thats really bad.

This stuff is simple organizational practice...and its disconcerting to see what appears to be bad practice from out here.

I have always been a defender of all things ND, and over the last 10 years the haters have had some cannon fodder for sure...And maybe this is far different than it appears...hoping it ends soon....and the actions all make sense.

I posted that on 8/16 LOL. I in no way meant the bus should roll onto these kids, stop, park, and set up camp for 50+ days. At this point, we are beyond ridiculous from a timing perspective. If the investigation truly concluded over a month ago, ND looks more like the federal government than an institution that is concerned about education and integrity. I'm sure info could come out that might change my mind, but again, if the investigative portion completed that long ago... no excuse for taking this long to get some people together in the same room and making a few decisions.

 

[wizards8507]

If the committees convene "all of the time", then they are not "rare".

Are we really going to do this? Last I checked, neither "all of the time" nor "rare" are explicitly defined units of frequency.

Translated for kmoose and the more literal among us:

The majority of instances of academic dishonesty do not require a committee hearing because most students accused admit what they did before it gets to that point. However, a sufficient quantity of Honesty Committee hearings do occur to render use of the term "unprecedented" inaccurate.

 

[kmoose]

Are we really going to do this? Last I checked, neither "all of the time" nor "rare" are explicitly defined units of frequency.

Translated for kmoose and the more literal among us:

The majority of instances of academic dishonesty do not require a committee hearing because most students accused admit what they did before it gets to that point. However, a sufficient quantity of Honesty Committee hearings do occur to render use of the term "unprecedented" inaccurate.

Didn't realize that was your point. My bad.

 

[Emcee77]

Are we really going to do this? Last I checked, neither "all of the time" nor "rare" are explicitly defined units of frequency.

Translated for kmoose and the more literal among us:

The majority of instances of academic dishonesty do not require a committee hearing because most students accused admit what they did before it gets to that point. However, a sufficient quantity of Honesty Committee hearings do occur to render use of the term "unprecedented" inaccurate.

Now I am not sure who you are arguing with ... no one said "unprecedented" except me, in a somewhat different context.

We think he means that he's never had one of his student-athletes go through this process. I know with 100% certainty that these committees convene all the time. They're rare, since most students confess when they're caught cheating (see Everett Golson), and confession circumvents then need for an Honesty Committee.

I don't think the bolded can be quite right. It might be true that he's never had one of his athletes go through this process, but I don't think that was what he meant when he made these statements:

Q. Lastly on this, after the season, once things calm down, will you go to Jack Swarbrick and try to sit down with the administration, the provost's office and get a better understanding of how this works, how it can be improved in any capacity?
COACH KELLY: Well, it's a very complicated situation, obviously. There are a lot of pieces here. There are NCAA implications, certainly. We're probably going down a path that has never gone before. So there are things there. But certainly these are dialogues that Jack and I are having not after the season, we're having them as they occur, because there are, clearly, ways that we believe, internally, that we need to get better. So we don't wait until January to have those conversations. We're having them right now.
...
Q. You said Notre Dame may be going down a road that it hasn't gone down before. Do you have some knowledge of beyond these five and the possibility of vacating wins from previous years?
COACH KELLY: I do not have any knowledge of vacating wins or NCAA implications. I have not been informed of that, and whether that is impending, I think I would have been informed of all those things, if we were in that kind of I am immediacy, if you will. What I do know is that a committee of this fashion has not, in my understanding, been set up before. So that was my reference to, we're going down a new road here, relative to the five players that are currently suspended.

The natural reading of those statements is that Kelly's understanding -- which may be incorrect, or incorrectly articulated -- is that there is something happening here that has not happened before.

Not that I have any better idea what is actually going on here than anyone else. Is it possible that there is some kind of "special" committee being formed that would have expertise in both academic honesty issues and athletics compliance issues? I don't know what Kelly meant, but he seems to think this is uncharted territory in some way -- and not just for him, but for the university.

 

[kmoose]

I don't think the bolded can be quite right. It might be true that he's never had one of his athletes go through this process, but I don't think that was what he meant when he made these statements:

Q. Lastly on this, after the season, once things calm down, will you go to Jack Swarbrick and try to sit down with the administration, the provost's office and get a better understanding of how this works, how it can be improved in any capacity?
COACH KELLY: Well, it's a very complicated situation, obviously. There are a lot of pieces here. There are NCAA implications, certainly. We're probably going down a path that has never gone before. So there are things there. But certainly these are dialogues that Jack and I are having not after the season, we're having them as they occur, because there are, clearly, ways that we believe, internally, that we need to get better. So we don't wait until January to have those conversations. We're having them right now.
...
Q. You said Notre Dame may be going down a road that it hasn't gone down before. Do you have some knowledge of beyond these five and the possibility of vacating wins from previous years?
COACH KELLY: I do not have any knowledge of vacating wins or NCAA implications. I have not been informed of that, and whether that is impending, I think I would have been informed of all those things, if we were in that kind of I am immediacy, if you will. What I do know is that a committee of this fashion has not, in my understanding, been set up before. So that was my reference to, we're going down a new road here, relative to the five players that are currently suspended.

The natural reading of those statements is that Kelly's understanding -- which may be incorrect, or incorrectly articulated -- is that there is something happening here that has not happened before.

Not that I have any better idea what is actually going on here than anyone else. Is it possible that there is some kind of "special" committee being formed that would have expertise in both academic honesty issues and athletics compliance issues? I don't know what Kelly meant, but he seems to think this is uncharted territory in some way -- and not just for him, but for the university.

I took his statement to mean that this was something new for the football team, but not necessarily new to Notre Dame.

 

[Emcee77]

I took his statement to mean that this was something new for the football team, but not necessarily new to Notre Dame.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be doing that, but I would disagree with that reading. You bolded the following as support for your interpretation:

Q. You said Notre Dame may be going down a road that it hasn't gone down before. Do you have some knowledge of beyond these five and the possibility of vacating wins from previous years?
COACH KELLY: I do not have any knowledge of vacating wins or NCAA implications. I have not been informed of that, and whether that is impending, I think I would have been informed of all those things, if we were in that kind of I am immediacy, if you will. What I do know is that a committee of this fashion has not, in my understanding, been set up before. So that was my reference to, we're going down a new road here, relative to the five players that are currently suspended.

But I read that bolded sentence as a wrap-up or conclusion to his answer to the question, which was asking whether Kelly knew that others beyond the 5 presently accused players were involved. He was trying to emphasize, in answer to the question asked, that he has not heard that anyone but the present 5 has been implicated, and when he said "We're probably going down a path that has never gone before" [sic], he did not mean that other players were implicated. The sentence referring to the "committee of this fashion" is the one that clarifies what he was referring to when he said that "we're probably going down a path that has never gone before," not the bolded sentence. At least that's how I read it.

 

[NDohio]

I may be completely off on this, but I believe that this is uncharted territory for UND in the sense that one of the students involved was also an EMPLOYEE of the university. I think that is what is so unique about this situation.

 

[Cackalacky]

That's how I read it too Emcee.

 

[kmoose]

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be doing that, but I would disagree with that reading. You bolded the following as support for your interpretation:

Q. You said Notre Dame may be going down a road that it hasn't gone down before. Do you have some knowledge of beyond these five and the possibility of vacating wins from previous years?
COACH KELLY: I do not have any knowledge of vacating wins or NCAA implications. I have not been informed of that, and whether that is impending, I think I would have been informed of all those things, if we were in that kind of I am immediacy, if you will. What I do know is that a committee of this fashion has not, in my understanding, been set up before. So that was my reference to, we're going down a new road here, relative to the five players that are currently suspended.

But I read that bolded sentence as a wrap-up or conclusion to his answer to the question, which was asking whether Kelly knew that others beyond the 5 presently accused players were involved. He was trying to emphasize, in answer to the question asked, that he has not heard that anyone but the present 5 has been implicated, and when he said "We're probably going down a path that has never gone before" [sic], he did not mean that other players were implicated. The sentence referring to the "committee of this fashion" is the one that clarifies what he was referring to when he said that "we're probably going down a path that has never gone before," not the bolded sentence. At least that's how I read it.

I don't think you are wrong, necessarily. But I do think that it is possible that this is the first time that a football player(s) has denied wrongdoing long enough to have to appear before an honor committee. And maybe that is because the process takes forever, and players who previously might have had to face one, decided that they did not want to sit out of football, for as long as it would take to complete the process. Again, so that it's clear; it's possible, and not really all that much of a stretch. That's why I say that it's not obvious that the University has screwed these guys over, and we will just have to wait the process out, and see what the results are. The we can make judgments about how long it took; if it was handled incompetently; if it was a malicious effort to weaken the Football team, etc.

 

[IRISH in MT]

I'd imagine they hold a hearing for the first person, wait a week for appeal, hear the appeal the next week, then make a decision. Then the 2nd of the 5 players will have his hearing held.

The season would be over by the time they got to the 5th person! Right to a fair and speedy trial is definitely off the table for the players.

 

[ND NYC]

i think he was kidding MT...ps love the avatar

 

[IRISH in MT]

I'd imagine they hold a hearing for the first person, wait a week for appeal, hear the appeal the next week, then make a decision. Then the 2nd of the 5 players will have his hearing held.

i think he was kidding MT...ps love the avatar

I was hoping that wasn't the process...hard to know for sure though with how long this has already taken. Thank you.

 

[BGIF]

The season would be over by the time they got to the 5th person! Right to a fair and speedy trial is definitely off the table for the players.

That "right" was never on the table for players or for non-student athletes. This is an administrative procedure not a criminal case. There is no public trial, no right to counsel being present nor jury of ones peers either.

 

[koonja]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BK: In talking to a couple of the suspended players, they have scheduled hearings next Tuesday and Wednesday</p>— Irish Sports Daily (@ISDUpdate) <a href="https://twitter.com/ISDUpdate/status/515266663676383232">September 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[koonja]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BK: Heard second hand that the meetings will be wrapped up by next Thursday. Uncertain if all are meeting with same committee</p>— Irish Sports Daily (@ISDUpdate) <a href="https://twitter.com/ISDUpdate/status/515266897198460928">September 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Booslum31]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BK: In talking to a couple of the suspended players, they have scheduled hearings next Tuesday and Wednesday</p>— Irish Sports Daily (@ISDUpdate) <a href="https://twitter.com/ISDUpdate/status/515266663676383232">September 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Well, there is some news. Thanks Koon!

 

[koonja]

HE GONE:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BK: Will be sipping drinks on the beach when ND plays TAMU...he said jokingly.</p>— Irish Sports Daily (@ISDUpdate) <a href="https://twitter.com/ISDUpdate/status/515267022452977665">September 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[koonja]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NotreDame?src=hash">#NotreDame</a> HC Brian Kelly also said won't rush the 5 suspended guys back into film/meeting rooms in case cleared, since timeline seems soon.</p>— Matt Fortuna (@Matt_Fortuna) <a href="https://twitter.com/Matt_Fortuna/status/515267797631647744">September 25, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[BGIF]

I may be completely off on this, but I believe that this is uncharted territory for UND in the sense that one of the students involved was also an EMPLOYEE of the university. I think that is what is so unique about this situation.

That's not uncharted for UND. There was an incident with backup QB Eric Chappell in 1999 with a tutor and a paper. I've posted about in this thread twice back on 8/15/14 when this thread started and again in more detail on 9/17/14 after Fr Jenkins comments to the Faculty Meeting noted in the Observer.

08-15-2014, 11:35 AM

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/notre-dame-football/203702-rumored-violations-192.html#post1326073


09-17-2014, 08:44 PM
http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/notre-dame-football/203702-rumored-violations-17.html#post1354920

About 7600 posts ago I commented about the NCAA precedent finding Dunbar a booster for a $25 charge to defray mailing list expenses for the QB Club and concern if a tutor was truly involved. During that same period as the Dunbar NCAA Inquiry there was another incident with some similarity to the current one.Michigan

Backup QB Eric Chappell was dismissed early in the '99 season and ND acknowledged, if I recall correctly, that he had swapped Complimentary Player Game Tickets with a girl friend tutor to write a paper for him.Michigan

Each player is allowed a specified number of game tickets that the players generally use for family and friends to attend games. The athletes are allowed to swap the rights to those tickets so they can bring more people to the game but they don't physically take possession of the tickets. There is a highly regulated sign in procedure to prevent abuse.Michigan

I was a guest of an athlete for the '98 USC game. My name was submitted for the game ticket list through the athletic department several days to a week before game day by the athlete. I was told that the spelling I gave had to match my driver's license exactly. On game day I had to go to table in a tent outside the Coliseum where a couple ND personnel checked IDs versus the typed ticket list. The photo on the ID was checked to assure I was the right party before I got my ticket.

As I recall the story, Chappell told the girl she could sell the tickets for cash. The sign in process pretty much precludes that as the athlete has to know the ID information for the actual game attendee and the university has to have it days in advance to prepare the typed list. I believe she felt duped when he couldn't produce the actual tickets, making a fuss, and blowing the whistle.

The incident was reported to the NCAA by ND as a misuse of complimentary ticket rules and "extra benefits", the paper for the bartered tickets. He was kicked off the team and left school although I don't recall any discussion of an Honesty Committee hearing. Back at the time I had several contacts in the Administration, on staff and among athletes. The Extra Benefits was the buzz with Chappell but it was thought to be minor infraction as a one time deal and no cash had exchanged hands.Michigan

Many people thought this was a more significant infraction than Dunbar as the girl was a student and tutor thus having an institutional connection, albeit small, while Dunbar had no affliation to UND ... until an NCAA committee reached a landmark decision with the long reach to the $25 mailing list charge. I don't recall the girl's name ever being revealed nor if she suffered an Honesty Committee penalty. I suspect Honesty Committee business was confidential back then as well. I don't recall FERPA being discussed either although it was in effect having been passed in '74.


Jenkin revelation to the Faculty I'll take as good news. But as Lax noted. "So with the NCAA being consistently inconsistent who knows what happens."