Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Michigan has repeatedly made clear one thing since it first received the NCAA's notice of allegations in February and after filing its response earlier this week: The university shouldn't be considered a repeat offender.
In its response delivered to the NCAA on Monday, Michigan mentions its position on being treated as a repeat offender.
"When I read (Michigan's) argument, I thought it was an innovative argument because they had to try to limit the repeat violation impact," said Michael Buckner, a Florida-based attorney who has represented universities in NCAA investigations. "I don't think they could argue otherwise."
Michigan, in admitting to four of the five major football violations the NCAA alleged during 2008-09 under coach Rich Rodriguez, this week revealed self-imposed penalties, including two years of probation, reduction of 130 hours in practice and training time the next two years and reduction of quality-control staff from five to three.
When the university goes before the NCAA Committee on Infractions on Aug. 13-14 in Seattle, the committee could accept Michigan's self-imposed sanctions as punishment.
The committee, however, could deem Michigan a repeat violator under bylaw 19.5.2.3 because of the men's basketball case that concluded May 8, 2003.
If that's the conclusion -- the purpose of the repeat offender bylaw "is to penalize institutions with multiple major infractions within a relatively short time" -- the NCAA could hand down harsher penalties, such as reduction in scholarships, or postseason and television bans.
Michigan believes the committee should understand the time frame of the basketball infractions and realize that while the bylaw applies "from a technical standpoint," the lengthiness of the investigation and Michigan's persistence during the investigation should be a factor.
The bylaw states a five-year period "particularly where the cases involve similar issues or the same sport. Bylaw 19.5.2.3 applies here only because the men's basketball investigation case took seven years to complete."
The basketball investigation began in 1996 and ended in 1997 when the NCAA and Michigan agreed there was no evidence to suggest major violations. In 2002, booster Ed Martin, at the heart of the case and who had refused to cooperate in the school's investigation, was investigated by federal authorities and pleaded guilty to criminal charges. As part of his plea agreement, Martin had to cooperate with the university's investigation.
"The last major case (involving Michigan) was in and of itself unique," Buckner said. "Because of that uniqueness and time frame, the five-year repeat timetable, how it was originally designed, would not fit Michigan's case. They were, to me, in their argument, telling the committee, 'Look, you can't say the intent of the repeat violator fits here, therefore we shouldn't be punished.' "
The university's point is the violations didn't occur in the five-year period. It also believes that because there are significant differences in the cases, the basketball violations should have no impact when it comes to the football violations.
"Not only do the cases involve different sports, the issues themselves are entirely different," Michigan's response stated. "The men's basketball case involved the provision of impermissible benefits to the student-athletes and their families, while this (football) case involves violations of bylaws governing coaching limits and CARA."
Josephine Potuto, a University of Nebraska law professor and former chair of the Committee on Infractions, said she can't speak to the specifics of Michigan's case nor predict how the committee will rule, but said the eight committee members will examine all information.
"That doesn't mean a committee has to say, 'Ah-ha! A repeat violator,' and all these things are going to happen," Potuto said. "That just tells you if, in fact, this major violation was in the five-year window of the last case, that tells you, you are in the world of repeat violators.
"There's no way to say without knowing all the information before the committee, how much weight they're going to give to it. It's not a standalone. There are so many other things you have to think about."
Potuto said it's relevant to the case the football program had never before been investigated.
Buckner, who has read Michigan's response, said if he were preparing Michigan for the committee hearing, he'd suggest strongly arguing Michigan should be absolved of repeat-offender status.
"And hope the committee will buy their argument and say, 'You're right. You had unique circumstances,' " Buckner said. "They might have to make an exception for Michigan.
"Michigan makes a very good case. I think they do have a very good shot."
At least one expert who has been involved with NCAA investigations believes the length of Michigan's self-imposed football probation in its response to the NCAA's Notice of Allegations was well-conceived.
But, Michael Buckner, a Florida-based attorney who has represented universities during NCAA investigations, believes the NCAA could tack on another year.
Michigan, in admitting to four of the five major violations the NCAA alleged, self-imposed penalties that include two years' probation, the reduction of 130 hours in practice and training time over the next two years, and the reduction of its quality-control staff from five to three.
It will go before the NCAA Committee on Infractions on Aug. 13-14 in Seattle, and the NCAA will either accept Michigan's self-imposed sanctions as punishment enough or could further punish the program.
"I felt the two-year probation was a smart move based on case precedent," Buckner said. "I wouldn't be surprised if the committee added an extra year.
"What I was surprised about (from Michigan's response) was the lack of coaching restrictions."
Buckner suggested that could have been a strategic move by Michigan. His feeling is that in self-imposed penalties, the idea is to not over- or under-penalize.
Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon has said he wants to be "transparent" as this moves forward, which is why, he said, the response was made public Tuesday. Buckner, however, takes issue with the transparency of the response.
Buckner has prepared similar responses and said he goes into great detail about who he has interviewed and when. That is not included in Michigan's response.
"Michigan didn't list investigative methodology," he said. "They didn't list how they get to this finding. In all my reports, I list every single person I interview, date I interview them, my methodology, all the techniques I use, so they know where I'm coming from.
"When you're reading that (Michigan) report, they don't even quote individuals a lot, so they're just summarizing."
the NCAA could hand down harsher penalties, such as reduction in scholarships, or postseason...bans.
methomps;1709042; said:Does Michigan think that nobody else stretches?
Michigan: 30 minutes of stretching not counted, followed by 2 hour workout
University who read the manual: 30 minutes of stretching, followed by 90 minute workout
Net result: Michigan gets 30 extra minutes of workout.
methomps;1709042; said:Does Michigan think that nobody else stretches?
Michigan: 30 minutes of stretching not counted, followed by 2 hour workout
University who read the manual: 30 minutes of stretching, followed by 90 minute workout
Net result: Michigan gets 30 extra minutes of workout.
CalvinistBuck;1709361; said:Alas, I'm a bit late to this party, but I just read the AP story this a.m., and I was struck by the inconsistency of the AD's argument:
Brandon said the school decided not to take away scholarships or eliminate coaching positions based on precedent.
"That's usually a result of something deemed to be an offense that created a competitive advantage," Brandon said.
.
.
.
The school plans to cut back practice and training time by 130 hours over the next two years, starting this summer, to double the amount of time it said it exceeded NCAA rules. It also trimmed the number of assistants--the so-called quality-control staff--from five to three and banned them from practices, games or coaching meetings for the rest of 2010.
"It's a significant detriment to the program," Brandon said.
So...having the extra practice did not produce a competitive advantage. Yet, cutting back practice and training time is a significant detriment to the program?
jlb1705;1709370; said:It's really best not to think about it too hard. You're talking about a guy who thought Domino's Pizza was delicious.
jlb1705;1709370; said:It's really best not to think about it too hard. You're talking about a guy who thought Domino's Pizza was delicious.
Poe McKnoe;1709379; said:Or a guy that knows how to make a ton of cash selling a shitty product.
WolverineMike;1712260; said:The new Dominos pizza is pretty good though. I wonder if he had anything to do with it, or if I have to wait for him to leave to see this Michigan product get better.......LMAO. pizza analogies rock!