forums

Ruiz potentially suing the NCAA….

Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Speaking solely from my impressions of past NCAA investigations, the NCAA usually doesn't allow the schools and the boosters and the players to share information about what is happening, and certainly not in a measure that allows everyone to have an understanding of the full impact of what is happening.

And don't even get me started on how the NCAA worded its finding.

Overall, what I mean is this.

Let's say Katie DOES say that she felt "uncomfortable". It's a word. What does it mean? Well, because it is not an aversarial criminal proceeding, you don't have things like representation of the "accused" or cross-examination. Things that you and I take for granted (such as a competent attorney redirecting questions such as "Ms. Meier, WHY did you say that you felt 'uncomfortable'?") are simply not the province of the NCAA. Nope, the NCAA is all about giving you the rope to hang yourself with, and then writing up HIGHLY slanted summaries which presume one-and-only-one interpretation (obviously THE NCAA'S INTERPRETATION).

So when you put everyone in a "separate room" so to speak, and then never give anyone a chance to respond or redirect or cross, then all you are left with is a "record" of a bunch of people's first responses to questions. And a questioning body that is only too eager to leap to assumptions by interpreting (or misinterpreting) everything you said in the worst possible light that is most helpful to them and most harmful to yourself.

It's a load of crap. And don't get me wrong, I can see where people can lie or give self-serving testimony. This can cut two ways. But it's possible...juuuuust posssssible...to imagine that these two situations are NOT the same and that there might be MUCH MORE motivation to lie (as well as a far greater need for the NCAA to assess substantial penalties:

1. Scenario 1, where there has been a "vouch-for-me" phone call between a coach and recruits, and a DINNER is the sole "impermissible benefit" offered; and,

2. Scenario 2, where a FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT has been offered by a collective to induce a recruit to breach a previously agreed-upon contract with another company in another location, and then when that FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT is repudiated by said collective, there is strong evidence of the interconnected efforts of the "collective" and the "athletic department", in terms of granting a release from a valid, signed LOI (also known as a "contract").
Click to expand...
In what world is the gator not under serious investigation right now???
 
NorthEastCane said:
I'm not sure. I'm going on memory and would have to search the archives, but I read it on this site (along with the supporting tweets).
Click to expand...
Yeah, it happened to a player though. He was shamed in Gainesville into withdrawing from the NIL deal because it was with Ruiz. I do think Ruiz has UiF women’s softball players on NIL deals.
 
RVACane said:
Was it the long snapper or punter?
Click to expand...
Udynasty said:







Some gator fan was talking smack about Lifewallet as fradulent and a scheme for UM blah blah blah and then RUIZ does that😂😂😂😂.
Click to expand...


Also from gator tears
Gi0logy said:
This guy has been hating on Ruiz for months on Twitter and claimed that Ruiz never actually offered the Gator’s long snapper an NIL deal.

Gator longsnapper came out and cleared the air. Ruiz did offer, he did accept the offer, but player backed out cuz of all the backlash from people like this guy.

Click to expand...
 
AtlAtty said:
This is great work. I wish we had an emoji for that. @RVACane is there a way to tack this somewhere as a reference for the details of this investigation?
If people could just refer to this post we could save a lot of time rehashing the facts.
Click to expand...
It does provide color on important details and timeline. Surprising.

With that said, does the new FL NIL law (allowing Unis to act on behalf of athletes for NIL), impact what reach NCAA🤮 has into programs?

Am I missing a key point or just making **** up?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Nope. You are wrong.

Here is what happened.

First, two "things" happened at roughly the same time. One is that the Cavinders were in the Portal and had an unofficial visit set up with Miami. Separately, UM had an event to introduce Dan and Mario to the UM community, and then included Jim and Katie in that event as well.

Second, Katie met John Ruiz FOR THE FIRST TIME at this Dan-Mario introductory event, and a communication began. The point of this is not to definitively establish "who initiated contact", but to point out that an ONGOING CONVERSATION arose. Which is exactly what happens at these events, at every college in the country.

Now, let's be VERY specific. The NCAA chose to word its findings in a particular way. To incite MAXIMUM conclusions of "bad things". Nefarious activity. Dark shadows that would give rise to the OBVIOUS CONCLUSION that what happened was clearly against the rules that the NCAA refused to clarify in advance.

Examples?

---Jim and Katie received "late invitations". WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? Because after whiffing on its attempt to nail football, the NCAA is attempting to manufacture causality between what they DID FIND (a women's basketball violation) and the evil Miami NIL efforts that have clearly impacted football more than any other UM sport (there ARE more football players than basketball players, but I digress).

---The NCAA's language about the "true intent" of the event, whether it was a "university wide celebration" or a horrible event for "boosters and donors". There's a difference? Good lord, I've gone to B-School and Law School celebrations in which there was a hope (or expectation) that money would be donated. But to read the NCAA's language, they make it sound like poor poor Katie was tricked into coming to a booster/donor function that she had no intent to join otherwise.

---The "NIL guy" quote? What? I'm sure that's the ONLY thing Katie ever said about Mr. Ruiz, right? And I'm sure the NCAA only tightly quoted that phrase, completely out of context, in a good-hearted effort to be completely accurate and not-at-all-misleading, right? Give me a mother****ing break. Do you want to know how to spin something your way, while NOT misleading people? You provide THE WHOLE QUOTE, and then you put the key phrases in ALL CAPS or bold or BOTH. Unless, of course, the whole quote doesn't help the NCAA?

I could go on and on. And probably will in a separate post. But the fact remains, there is a pretty clear chain of events (regardless of how the NCAA tries to spin it into dark and evil behavior):

---Ruiz family attended a UM event they were invited to, and have conversations with coaches (permissible). They discuss some recruits with a coach (permissible), even though the NCAA attempts to make it sound horrible (how did the evil Ruiz family KNOW that the Cavinders were being recruited, they could not have possibly figured it out by reading websites, right?).

---Katie Meier DOES DUE DILIGENCE on the Ruiz family (as she SHOULD do in a post-Nevin-world-landscape).

---In the back-and-forth, John Ruiz indicates that on the abbreviated visit, which Katie was not even 100% involved in (due to other obligations), the Cavinder's NIL agent has indicated that the twins are ENTHUSIASTIC about talking with him, but have some time constraints.

---Now let's analyze two elements that you seem to think are so nefarious. (A) Katie Meier told John Ruiz that she would make sure the Cavinders "know who you are". But, as already established, the Cavinders already knew who John Ruiz was. So the issue of whether Katie's comments are just bluster is worth discussing. At no point is she setting up a meeting, discussing money, or doing a first introduction. So all she is doing FOR MILLIONAIRE TWINS WHO ALREADY HAVE MAJOR BUSINESS DEALINGS AND PROBABLY GET PHONE CALLS ALL THE TIME is saying "hey, I'll let them know that you are a businessman in South Florida, not just some rando looking to meet hot young girls". (B) Katie Meier then asks an assistant coach to let the Cavinder twins know that John Ruiz is a LEGITIMATE BUSINESSMAN. Which is true. So she's just vouching for him. "Yes, I've met the man, yes, he has a business that is about to go public, yes, he's not some creepy guy like you encounter at Penn State or Ohio State or Michigan State".

---So what's the NCAA's next brilliant conclusion? "As a result of the assistant coach's call, the prospects agreed to meet with the booster." REALLY? Who admitted this? Clearly, the Cavinders are saying otherwise. We have no idea whether the Cavinders even met with the NCAA. But, suddenly, the NCAA has created CAUSALITY. And for what? Because Katie and/or the assistant coach are conveying that John Ruiz is a legit businessperson? You know, since I heard NOTHING about how Katie arranged the meeting, or set the terms, or pushed a connection...

I'll wrap this up by focusing on a few key takeaways here.

First, the NCAA keeps talking about Katie Meier "making introductions". But, clearly, Mr. Ruiz had already made his own introductions BEFORE Katie (and/or her assistant) said a word. And what Katie (and/or her assistant) did was to VOUCH for Mr. Ruiz's legitimacy. It's like if Slingblade Billy Napier told Jaden Rashada "hey, you know that Collective that has been calling you nonstop, yeah, they are completely legit and have paid every NIL deal that they have promised to recruits". That's not an introduction, that's telling a recruit that THIS ONE is above-board and trustworthy.

Second, if the issue is Katie Meier (and/or her assistant) MAKING THE CALL, and not, you know, the SUBSTANCE of the call, then it's a technical violation. How the NCAA keeps turning the phone call into an "introduction" when no "introduction" was made, I have no idea. But, yeah, if the phone call is wrong JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENED, then I guess there's no further discussion to be had.

Third, take note of the selective way that the NCAA tells its story. For instance, how Katie felt "uncomfortable" with the situation? Could it be that Katie thought it was WRONG? Of course! Because that's what the NCAA WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE. But could it be because NIL was BRAND-NEW and because Katie had never dealt with high-profile recruits who were ALREADY MILLIONAIRES, and that maybe she just wasn't accustomed to situations where women's sports could enjoy the same kind of attention and support and benefits that men's football and basketball had received FOR DECADES?

The point of all of this is simple. Words can be used in a very powerful way, to get you to pre-judge a situation, and maybe even your own conclusions. I am not trying to pull a Tucker Carlson and convince you that the Cavinders were just on a sightseeing tour of South Florida. But what I am trying to say is that the NCAA has cherry-picked its "quoted words" and conclusory language to convince the world that there was a causality between Katie (and/or her assistant coach) vouching for John Ruiz to a family that has probably already received more NIL overtures from unknown people than 99.9% of all other college athletes.

And it is RIDICULOUS for Miami fans to just swallow the NCAA bait hook-line-and-sinker and accept the NCAA's clearly biased characterization on its face value.
Click to expand...

Didnt the NCAA say that UM failed to do due diligence on Shapiro, so it was the partially the school's fault that Shapiro was allowed to be around players? So now the NCAA is punishing UM because Meier (acting on behalf of the school) did due diligence on Ruiz and communicated to the twins that Ruiz was legit? Seems the NCAA has deliberately created a Catch 22 specifically for UM.

Also, the fact that the ncaa is citing "late invitations" as evidence is hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
TimeBum said:
Didnt the NCAA say that UM failed to do due diligence on Shapiro, so it was the partially the school's fault that Shapiro was allowed to be around players? So now the NCAA is punishing UM because Meier (acting on behalf of the school) did due diligence on Shapiro and communicated to the twins that Ruiz was legit? Seems the NCAA has deliberately created a Catch 22 specifically for UM.

Also, the fact that the ncaa is citing "late invitations" as evidence is hilarious.
Click to expand...
Ruiz
 
TimeBum said:
Didnt the NCAA say that UM failed to do due diligence on Shapiro, so it was the partially the school's fault that Shapiro was allowed to be around players? So now the NCAA is punishing UM because Meier (acting on behalf of the school) did due diligence on Shapiro and communicated to the twins that Ruiz was legit? Seems the NCAA has deliberately created a Catch 22 specifically for UM.

Also, the fact that the ncaa is citing "late invitations" as evidence is hilarious.
Click to expand...
It was Shalala who allowed Shapiro to have the access to UM and its players. Shannon couldn't stand him, and wanted no part of him. I Vividly remember Shapiro being around UM as early as 2003. But Ole Shalala was too happy to recieve chks from the little azzwipe.
6a00d83451b26169e2015434af7202970c.jpg
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Speaking solely from my impressions of past NCAA investigations, the NCAA usually doesn't allow the schools and the boosters and the players to share information about what is happening, and certainly not in a measure that allows everyone to have an understanding of the full impact of what is happening.

And don't even get me started on how the NCAA worded its finding.

Overall, what I mean is this.

Let's say Katie DOES say that she felt "uncomfortable". It's a word. What does it mean? Well, because it is not an aversarial criminal proceeding, you don't have things like representation of the "accused" or cross-examination. Things that you and I take for granted (such as a competent attorney redirecting questions such as "Ms. Meier, WHY did you say that you felt 'uncomfortable'?") are simply not the province of the NCAA. Nope, the NCAA is all about giving you the rope to hang yourself with, and then writing up HIGHLY slanted summaries which presume one-and-only-one interpretation (obviously THE NCAA'S INTERPRETATION).

So when you put everyone in a "separate room" so to speak, and then never give anyone a chance to respond or redirect or cross, then all you are left with is a "record" of a bunch of people's first responses to questions. And a questioning body that is only too eager to leap to assumptions by interpreting (or misinterpreting) everything you said in the worst possible light that is most helpful to them and most harmful to yourself.

It's a load of crap. And don't get me wrong, I can see where people can lie or give self-serving testimony. This can cut two ways. But it's possible...juuuuust posssssible...to imagine that these two situations are NOT the same and that there might be MUCH MORE motivation to lie (as well as a far greater need for the NCAA to assess substantial penalties:

1. Scenario 1, where there has been a "vouch-for-me" phone call between a coach and recruits, and a DINNER is the sole "impermissible benefit" offered; and,

2. Scenario 2, where a FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT has been offered by a collective to induce a recruit to breach a previously agreed-upon contract with another company in another location, and then when that FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT is repudiated by said collective, there is strong evidence of the interconnected efforts of the "collective" and the "athletic department", in terms of granting a release from a valid, signed LOI (also known as a "contract").
Click to expand...
Maybe I am just programmed from so many years as a lawyer, but I don’t trust anything other than the adversarial process. We all know the adversarial process is flawed, especially those of us in the system, but we also know that it is still the best system for getting as close to the truth as possible. The inability to cross examine makes this current NC2A system virtually useless IMO.

I had this same complaint when I repped students accused of sexual misconduct under Title IX. We could not cross examine the accuser, but the hearing examiner was permitted to cross examine our client. And needless to say we almost always “lost” but with limited damage to the accused. Thankfully this has been changed but only in the past few years.
 
RVACane said:
Well they actually can’t post false information in here without recourse. This is a Miami Hurricanes fan board as you know. We support the the Canes. Ruiz has done a lot to help Miami players with NIL. Jealous “supposed fan” loudmouths don’t get to freely use our forum to help the NCAA undermine UM. They’re not taking over here.

My only question is why UM agreed to a settlement? My guess is that there’s politics and they were afraid of another long, drawn out cloud.
Click to expand...

My guess: Miami, as are most university administrations, are super risk-averse.
 
RVACane said:
My only question is why UM agreed to a settlement? My guess is that there’s politics and they were afraid of another long, drawn out cloud.
Click to expand...

This is a very good question.

I'd be willing to bet that UM took a NEGOTIATED settlement to avoid the disassociation element. Clearly, we self-assessed Katie's suspension, and the monetary settlement is just money, it's replaceable. I'm not a fan of the "probation" component, as this was ONE low-level violation.

I also think that UM and Mr. Ruiz did not coordinate their defenses, and only upon reading the wording of the ruling did either party realize how badly we had been taken advantage of by the "negotiated settlement".

I am entirely unhappy with the mixing and matching of serious penalties and hand-slap-type violations.

1. The UNDERLYING violation (a dinner) is minor and usually results in the athlete repaying the value of the impermissible benefit. In particular, nobody is alleging that the Cavinders predicated their decision on the dinner, and the value of the dinner pales in comparison to their net worth.

2. The TRIGGERING violation (the fake "introductory" phone call by Katie, but not really by Katie, as she had an assistant make the call) is similarly troubling in the disparity between what happened and what the NCAA is trying to prevent. I would be 50% less critical of the NCAA's enforcement RIGHT OFF THE BAT if there was any merit to this call being something that Katie had orchestrated on her own, in order to SET UP an NIL opportunity. But the ruling itself indicates that Katie had some initial questions about whether the Cavinders were interested in Miami for the glitz/glamour or the BASKETBALL, and also that Katie had AWARENESS that John Ruiz had already reached out to the Cavinders prior to Katie telling her assistant to make a call to vouch for John Ruiz.

3. So then we are left with a SINGULAR violation. And, again, I'd give the NCAA 50% more credit RIGHT OFF THE BAT if they would acknowledge that Katie's efforts were, at worst, clumsy in the new NIL environment. But by NOT publicly admitting that perhaps, JUST MAYBE, a lot of coaches weren't sure how to proceed in the NIL era, the NCAA is deceptively giving the impression that a coach willingly tried to evade the rules by using selective ignorance, which is BULLCRAP.

Finally, if anyone wants an indication of the TRUE STORY of how this played out, go back and re-read the threads on the Cavinders. Many of OUR OWN POSTERS who were knowledgeable about UM sports questioned whether the Cavinders had the skills to be welcomed onto the UM team and contribute. Even I made a few jokes about how beautiful the twins were and how Miami would be a great fit, IF EVEN FOR JUST NIL OPPORTUNITIES. So to see the way Katie Meier openly questioned the prioritization of recruiting the Cavinder twins (who were clearly a package deal, even if only Haley is a starter-level player) is a pretty good indication that UM wasn't exactly plotting some masterful cheat to lure the Cavinders to Coral Gables.

But, hey, we have some dopey porsters who are just spouting "OUTCOME!", as if that's the full story.
 
TimeBum said:
Thats actually an interesting one because people use it all the time, yet they don't know the reason that the character (D ick the Butcher) wants to kill the lawyers. The reason is that he is describing how he wants to overthrow the monarchy and make himself king, then basically create a society totally dependent on him and where he is worshiped like a God.
Click to expand...
True, but most people don't know that, they just know the quote (and they have a sentiment about lawyers to match). Can you imagine a world where our government gets out of the way and lets the people flourish?
 
Advertisement
Some additional thoughts on the NCAA Violations case...

3-person panel:

Chief hearing officer - Gary Miller - president of the University of Akron
Dave Roberts - VP of Athletics Compliance at USC (but not, you know, the AD), he was the interim AD when Lynn Swann stepped down
Cassandra Kirk - some rando chief magistrate judge in Fulton County, Georgia (Atlanta)

Important factors here:

1. The NCAA is DEFINITELY tipping its hand that all future cases will be based on a PRESUMPTION of causality and guilt, and will not be burdened down by some horrible requirement to investigate and develop facts.

2. The NCAA reeeeeeaaaaaallllllly wants to disossociate somebody/anybody, not because it is the right or fair outcome in a case, but to scare everyone else straight ("the disassociation pently presents an EFFECTIVE penalty...").


1678739902841.png
 
As a longtime UM student and alum, allow me to assist the NCAA here.

A university celebration for the new AD and football coach? At which....a bunch of NON-EMPLOYEES are present? You know, people who are usually given NAME TAGS (if only for conversational purposes). Here's a good idea to differentiate between whether an event is a "university employees only event" versus an event open to alums and donors and prospective donors...THE FOOD AND DRINKS ARE BETTER...

And even if Katie didn't have an "understanding" or "frame of reference" for whether donors and prospective donors were at the event, she immediately KNEW that John Ruiz was not, say, the Chairman of the Anthropology Department, because, you know, HE WAS A PROMINENT MIAMI-AREA BUSINESSMAN. And also because John Ruiz and his sons SPOKE TO KATIE MEIER AT THE EVENT about the possibility of doing NIL deals.

So I'm not sure why the NCAA labors so hard to make it seem like Katie was bushwhacked into an event about which she knew nothing, only to be subjected to a painful and unwanted conversation with some horrible BOOSTERS who somehow knew about her top-secret recruiting files...

1678741332881.png
 
So now we get cranking.

Katie calls John Ruiz to do due diligence. Notice the NCAA doesn't specify who started the texting. Plus, they make a big to-do about Katie being "unaware" that John Ruiz had already talked to the Cavinders' agent. Although, of course, she finds out 24 hours later, before she actually does anything to "initiate" or "arrange" any sort of contact.

And all Katie does is to say that she will "make sure the Cavinders know who you are". Vouching for Mr. Ruiz. Letting the Cavinders know that in a sea of unsolicited offers sent to Haley and Hanna, the one from Mr. Ruiz is legitimate and connected to the geographic area in which they might choose to live.

****. Sounds horrible, right?

1678741992245.png
 
Back
Top