Article: Random Thoughts... Witch Hunt continues...

Feb 21, 2013

Witch Hunt continues… ESPN.com published an article today about three former UM coaches asking the ncaa to throw out the Miami case. It’s been a wild week. What’s next?

READ MORE: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...rricanes-coaches-want-case-thrown-report-says

:cigar:

Facebook X (Twitter) Reddit WhatsApp Email Link

Comments (16)

View as thread

CaneTheGaytors

Feb 22, 2013

I have a feeling that the NCAA is about to get that *** whopped real good. They opened up a can of worms that they should have left the lid on. Hope to see that WEASEL Emmert and that rest of the National Corrupt Athletics Association on their knees real soon.

eliteproxy

Feb 22, 2013

as much as I would love to think the NCAA is going to fold their hand, it is not looking that way.

as published before majority of the board wanted to settle but 2 key members did not. They won't want to look week and they rather "lose" this in the appeal process vs settling. They know VERY well how this hurts the program and to them this gets the point across. "You commit violations... no matter the penalty, the process is worse! so be careful"

I see Miami getting no more penalties, but this will drag on

Classic

Feb 22, 2013

Who published the report about the majority of board members wanting to settle?

eliteproxy

Feb 22, 2013

CaneClassic said:
Who published the report about the majority of board members wanting to settle?

only 2 members did not want to settle

U
umcane4life

Feb 22, 2013

eliteproxy said:
as much as I would love to think the NCAA is going to fold their hand, it is not looking that way.

as published before majority of the board wanted to settle but 2 key members did not. They won't want to look week and they rather "lose" this in the appeal process vs settling. They know VERY well how this hurts the program and to them this gets the point across. "You commit violations... no matter the penalty, the process is worse! so be careful"

I see Miami getting no more penalties, but this will drag on

First I heard of this.. where was this published?

B
btcane

Feb 22, 2013

eliteproxy said:
as much as I would love to think the NCAA is going to fold their hand, it is not looking that way.

as published before majority of the board wanted to settle but 2 key members did not. They won't want to look week and they rather "lose" this in the appeal process vs settling. They know VERY well how this hurts the program and to them this gets the point across. "You commit violations... no matter the penalty, the process is worse! so be careful"
I see Miami getting no more penalties, but this will drag on

-----------
What 'Board'? Where published?

frostycane

Feb 22, 2013

Yeah elite, your gonna need a link on that one. I have read TONS of stuff in the past week on this and that is the first I have heard of that. Not that I dont believe you but I would like to see the link.

Honestly, the only reason I wanted to see any other coaches get hit was because I figured if we were going to get hit they should too as they were the 'responsible adults' around when this stuff happened. But, if they can get their cases dismissed that will bode VERY well for us. So I guess I want to see them get off on this one.

C
CaneWasher

Feb 22, 2013

The two who did not want to settle aren't necessarily out to get Miami. One of them was quoted as saying that the process needs to take its course, even if it means no additional penalties. He did not like the idea of stopping mid-stream because even they don't know the full scope of the NCAA's internal issues at this point. I saw it in the Dallas paper, not sure where eliteproxy saw it.

JerseyCanes

Feb 22, 2013

Once again... Where did everyone see this?

JC

B
btcane

Feb 22, 2013

Apparently, from unconfirmed reports, the alleged (unnamed) Board member was NOT opposed to a settlement based upon the merits of the settlement per se, but on the basis that there is no basis for such action procedurally. He (or she) felt that the process should run it's course. i.e. before the COI.
Again, I do not know the origon of these statements, so they may not be accurate.

stat1124

Feb 22, 2013

****, I can't remember where I saw it to but it was online via one of the sport outlets. CBSsports maybe but I can't remember. What I read didn't say all but two didnt want to settle. It said something along the lines of the board discussed settling with Emmert vocally opposing a settlement. A majority was not met and was decided that the COI should finish the process. I'll try to look back through my history to find the article.

A
alostgeneration

Feb 22, 2013

The only thing I've heard, to this end, came from Barry Jackson's column.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...r-more-reasons-why-um-is-angry-with-ncaa.html

From the article: ### As if the NCAA hasn’t done enough already to aggravate UM, add this to the list: Last week, UM and the NCAA engaged in serious settlement talks, and several UM people expected a deal because president Mark Emmert seemed initially supportive. UM wanted a settlement and likely would have accepted modest scholarship reductions.

But a source said the NCAA then informed UM there would be no deal and suggested to UM the enforcement staff and two key boards were against it because of concerns about “not deviating from the rules.”

So it wasn't two members, but rather two boards that would have needed to approve the settlement. There could have been some further account, though...

JerseyCanes

Feb 22, 2013

or board members?

JC

H
Houtxcane

Feb 22, 2013

alostgeneration said:
The only thing I've heard, to this end, came from Barry Jackson's column.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...r-more-reasons-why-um-is-angry-with-ncaa.html

From the article: ### As if the NCAA hasn’t done enough already to aggravate UM, add this to the list: Last week, UM and the NCAA engaged in serious settlement talks, and several UM people expected a deal because president Mark Emmert seemed initially supportive. UM wanted a settlement and likely would have accepted modest scholarship reductions.

But a source said the NCAA then informed UM there would be no deal and suggested to UM the enforcement staff and two key boards were against it because of concerns about “not deviating from the rules.”

So it wasn't two members, but rather two boards that would have needed to approve the settlement. There could have been some further account, though...

Boards are usually swayed by powerful CEO's. If the NCAA boards were against settlement it was because Emmert saw writings on the wall -- settlement = Emmert not having a job.

frostycane

Feb 22, 2013

page 39 of the LOIC thread, someone copy and pasted it there....

H
Houtxcane

Feb 22, 2013

JerseyCanes said:
or board members?

JC

More likely Boards. The rules of boards are usually majority rules. So if only 2 members against it it would have passed the motion.

/Not a NCAA expert though.