OT: NCAA Gives Ultimatum to Former Miami (FL) Players - Talk or We'll Believe Shapiro
From a letter sent to former Miami players implicated by Nevin Shapiro's allegations:
The purpose of this letter is to apprise you that the NCAA enforcement staff is requesting to schedule an interview with your clients regarding their knowledge of or involvement in possible NCAA violations concerning the University of Miami, Florida, football program.
Interviewing your clients is important in order for the enforcement staff to conduct a thorough investigation, and both the staff and the institution request you and your clients’ cooperation in this matter. However, at this time, all attempts to schedule and execute interviews with [blank] have been unsuccessful. As a result, this letter serves as a formal and final request by the NCAA enforcement staff for interviews with [blank] to be completed by Nov. 23, 2012.
If we do not hear back from you or your clients by that time, the staff will consider the non-response as your client’s admission of involvement in NCAA violations. You may contact me at [blank] in order to arrange this interview. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Molly Richman,
Assistant Director of Enforcement
November 20th, 2012 at 11:51 PM ^
Seems a little iffy for the NCAA to be jumping the gun like this. At the same time, I really would like for all those former players to talk.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:53 PM ^
NCAA is a membership organization, not a court of law. They can do pretty much whatever they want so long as it's within the bylaws the schools have agreed to.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:55 PM ^
I'm looking through them right now, but pretty sure this is not in the bylaws. This is certainly news that this technique is being used as it has not been before, or at least hasn't been publicized.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:26 AM ^
I really don't think you'll find investigational techniques in the bylaws, but the fact is, the NCAA has basically heard what it needs to hear. Shapiro gave them quite a bit to go on. The players in question have been pointed out and fingered as guilty by a witness, so it's a threat, yes, but it's also a statement of fact. Shapiro is not an accuser, he's a witness, and the NCAA is no doubt well within their rights to believe him.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:31 AM ^
It's one thing to believe his testimony, sure, but I really think they're going a step past that. "The staff will consider the non-response as your client's admission of involvement in NCAA violations" isn't just "we will have no choice but to believe Shapiro's testimony."
November 21st, 2012 at 12:34 AM ^
Why? Shapiro's testimony is "they're guilty." Perhaps you're taking issue with the idea that the NCAA is considering that an "admission" of guilt, but as was mentioned, this isn't a court of law and there really is no difference. There would be in a court of law, yes, but...well, you know.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:43 AM ^
If they're going to use player silence adversely against the school, sure there is. And there's a difference between "well they didn't come forward to deny it" and "they didn't come forward, so they're admitting it." Let's suppose some of the players are guilty of receiving SOME benefits, but not as many or to as great an extent as Shapiro claims. Think they'll talk to the NCAA and admit anything? Of course not. The school and current players get punished because the former players have nothing to gain by being interviewed.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:49 AM ^
So the NCAA is supposed to do what....nothing? They have witness testimony that they find credible, but can do nothing unless they actually hear an admission of guilt from the involved players? What you're basically advocating is equivalent to never punishing anyone unless the guilty parties actually admit guilt; if they were to interview those players, they'd deny everything, as you suggest, so should the NCAA then punish Miami based on Shapiro's testimony?
They have Shapiro. They don't need anything else. Not punishing the school because they decided to ignore that testimony on the basis that they didn't get it corroborated by the actual perpetrators is patently unfair to everyone Miami competes against.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:53 AM ^
I'm not saying that they shouldn't punish the school, I'm saying they shouldn't use the players silence to buttress their case against the school, that's all. If they have enough from Shapiro, fine, sanction them based on that. But if the case is flimsy, don't pretend it's sturdy because the players wouldn't talk even after you gave them an ultimatum.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:56 AM ^
I don't think it's being used to buttress the case. I think they're saying "we have a case for NCAA violations, and that's what we're going with unless you feel like telling us otherwise."
November 21st, 2012 at 1:00 AM ^
Then why call it "admitting to NCAA violations?" If nothing else, it seems manipulative, no?
November 21st, 2012 at 1:39 AM ^
Manipulative, yes, and I don't mind. They've probably been trying to talk to these people for months, going on a year. Simply asking the same way for the umpteenth time isn't gonna cut it, and I would bet the NCAA has been more than patient and accommodating in trying to get them in to hear them out. I might be bothered if that letter was their first communication, but I'm sure it isn't. And isn't it better than just running with Shapiro's word without ever giving them a chance to say their side?
November 21st, 2012 at 2:10 AM ^
I think you're getting hung up on semantics. These are former players, mostly beyond the NCAA's reach, so the impact of an admission is not the same as a guilty plea. What the NCAA is saying is "If you care about Miami, and want to protect her reputation*, now's the time to step up and tell your side of the story."
The letter should have been edited better, but there's nothing outrageous here.
*such as it is...
November 21st, 2012 at 12:59 PM ^
Putting it in a legal light (while keeping in mind that this is not a court of law): The NCAA has its prima facie case; it has direct evidence of a shit-ton of wrongdoing. Necessarily, that evidence includes testimony related to specific former Miami athletes. If those players do nothing to rebut the evidence against them (and, by proxy, against the University of Miami), then the only evidence in the record is evidence against Miami/those players. They can't consider non-evidence, and if the players don't offer anything to rebut what Shapiro has said, well, the only evidence that's presented is of Miami's guilt. Thus, whether the silence is deemed an admittal of the allegations or not is, in a way, simply semantics. It won't change the fact that on one side of the scale, you'll have direct evidence against these individuals (and by proxy, their university) and on the other side, in rebuttal, you'll have....crickets. In a court of law, that would mean a directed verdict at the close of evidence- wouldn't even get to a jury.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:37 AM ^
You can't, on the one hand, crticize the NCAA for being weak, ineffectual, and failing to come down on schools that cheat and, on the other hand, criticize them for aggressively using the only sources of leverage they have to investigate suspected violations.
The NCAA recognizes they can't compell anyone to talk. They are telling former players that their failure to cooperate will negatively affect the case against their alma mater. If they care at all about Miami (or "Da U" as they affectionatley call it) they will cooperate. If they don't really care and all the "Da U" stuff is bluster, we'll find that out as well. Good for the NCAA for playing hardball with this stuff. It is about time.
November 21st, 2012 at 10:57 AM ^
Under Bylaw 10.1, "Unethical Conduct", regarding what constitutes this very thing:
"Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual’s institution"
..as well as...
"Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;"
It seems to me that they might be leveraging this against those players from whom they have yet to hear. In other words, the NCAA seems to be giving them a chance to not make Miami's punishment with regard to this particular clause less gruesome than it might otherwise be.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:35 AM ^
November 21st, 2012 at 7:37 AM ^
November 21st, 2012 at 10:18 AM ^
Really?
If your employer suspects you've done something improper, something so egregious it's a fireable offense, and when they ask you about it you clam up and cite your right to remain silent, what do you think will happen next?
November 21st, 2012 at 12:54 PM ^
Its actually "presumed innocent until guilty" -- there is a big difference between actually being innocent and being presumed innocent.
November 21st, 2012 at 9:36 AM ^
I want to see the NCAA take the "Sacred Brotherhood" in Columbus down like they are going to take Miami down. The NCAA proved with the PSU case that they are capable changing their rules in a heartbeat and putting the hammer down when they feel it is necessary. They obviously feel it is necessary in the Miami case, and I have a feeling that the same thing will happen to Oregon if they can find other shoe companies to pay their member schools as much as Nike does.
So, if the NCAA can lower their standards of evidence for one or two schools, they can do it for everyone. They could have believed Maurice Clarrett and changed the history of the Big Ten. If Ohio State had been on probation, still struggling with a new coach, and were weakened by a loss of schollies, undefeated Michigan would have beaten them handily in 2006, and subsequently played Florida for the BCS "championship."
It's time for Ohio State to pay for their ten years of cheating. It's time for the NCAA to take a serious look at what's going on in Columbus. And it's time to tell the "Sacred Brotherhood," death threats and all, that if players refuse to testify before the committee, change their stories, or "don't remember," it will be considered an admission of guilt.
The NCAA has proven that it will go after relative upstarts who don't have the power to fight back. After Miami and Oregon become examples, let's see them hammer the three most prolific cheaters in the NCAA with real punishments that don't result in them playing for National Championships shortly thereafter: Ohio State, USC, and Alabama.
November 21st, 2012 at 10:25 AM ^
I am not optimistic that will happen. I see NCAA going after these two big programs (Miami and Penn State) only after the court of public opinion has swung against these schools. People were absolutely HORRIFIED about the Sandusky thing, and Miami has earned itself a reputation as a pool of slime. That makes it lot easier for the NCAA to ride in and look all tough and heroic. I don't see them making the same move against programs that are dirty but still widely admired.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:55 PM ^
It doesn't matter. No death penalty. It will never happen again. Too many jobs and too much money involved to shut them down.
November 20th, 2012 at 11:57 PM ^
I dont know, maybe they could get away with it at Miami. I mean the stadium's already empty.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:06 AM ^
It is not about selling tickets. It is about preventing players from getting cream cheese on their bagels.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:42 AM ^
You think the Miami stuff is equivalent to getting cream cheese on a bagel? You haven't been paying attention, obviously.
November 21st, 2012 at 10:38 AM ^
November 21st, 2012 at 12:08 AM ^
November 21st, 2012 at 12:27 AM ^
I think that's from their Bethune-Cookman game this year. Miami has become notorious for not putting any butts in any seats ever since their move from the OB, and they didn't exactly fill the OB on the regular either.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:32 AM ^
And here's a shot supposedly taken ten minutes before kickoff of the N.C. State game:
Looks to me like they could stand to shrink their student section by about half so they could sell those tickets to the ordinary fans that would love to see a game but can't...um...never mind.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:54 AM ^
That, I don't buy. The Bethune-Cookman one at least shows a fair-sized semi-crowd in front of the camera and the smoke by the helmet shows it's pretty close to game time. Even Miami doesn't put five dozen people in the stadium; there has got to be another explanation for that photo. An hour before the NC State game, maybe.
November 21st, 2012 at 1:01 AM ^
That's what I'm guessing. Or a cheerleader problem.
November 21st, 2012 at 10:24 AM ^
Or maybe it was a late-arriving crowd. Here's what it looked like five minutes into the game:
Maybe the students are all squeezing into those first two or three rows, and that explains all the empty seats behind them. Or maybe it was Halloween and a lot of people came dressed as empty chairs.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:29 AM ^
November 21st, 2012 at 12:30 AM ^
November 21st, 2012 at 8:44 AM ^
Could be from any Miami game. College Football Talk for a while was posting weekly pictures of the crowd at Miami games and they all looked like that.
November 21st, 2012 at 2:14 AM ^
Jeeeeeeeezus is that the spring game? For their sake, I hope so.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:16 AM ^
I thought it was a Maryland - Wake Forest game.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:35 AM ^
Dont show Delany this picture or the next thing you know they'll be getting in invite to join the B1G
November 21st, 2012 at 12:12 AM ^
Do you guys remember how good Miami was in 2000/2001/2002? Or the fact that they won 34 consecutive games in that stretch? Remember how many current NFL players were on that roster? Despite all the ridiculous stuff that has gone on in that program, it's hard to believe that they could fall so far.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:47 AM ^
It seems a stretch to say that their success was despite all the ridiculous stuff that's gone on. Shapiro inherited a going concern and his predecessor was apparently a lot better at it than he was.
November 21st, 2012 at 9:09 AM ^
Did the NCAA assume this same hard-line stance (talk or we will assume you are guilty) with OSU and Pryor?
November 21st, 2012 at 9:48 AM ^
Pryor talked to the NCAA.
November 21st, 2012 at 10:41 AM ^
That is really pathetic attendance.
I knew they'd rue to the when Larry Coker left. What's incredible is that former powerhouse Miami actually got WORSE when it left the Big East to join the ACC.
2006: 7-7
2007: 5-7
2008: 7-6
2009: 9-4
2010: 7-6
2011: 6-6
2012: more of the same - 6-5 with an iceberg dead ahead - Duke
Last New Years Day Bowl Game was from 2003 season (2004 Orange vs. FSU).
November 21st, 2012 at 10:49 AM ^
"I've never heard of anything like this before," said the source. "This seems like a total bullying tactic and sounds like a desperate move. They're basically saying they're taking the word of a billion-dollar ponzi schemer over some guys who may have taken a few steak dinners? It looks like the NCAA has spent a ton of money and time investigating this and they're trying to cover their investment."
November 21st, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^
November 21st, 2012 at 12:00 PM ^
Isn't this basically how it works in the court of law? If you're accused of something, have no witnesses that say you're innocent, and refuse to testify on your own behalf, aren't you tacitly acknowledging that the allegations being put against you are true?