Points for Appeal/Errors in Findings

[Smulaw90]

Points for Consideration on Appeal:

1. According to the NCAA Report, Frazier developed a private relationship with the academic assistant. She was the one that obtained his password and credentials and assisted him in the courses. The NCAA Report states that it was unknown "whether she was instructed to complete the coursework or determined to do on her own." Absent this key piece of evidence, the NCAA erred in determining that either Brown, Magili, or SMU knew that this was being done by the assistant. Think about it, why would the girl ( in a relationship with Frazier, do anything to hurt his eligibility and his/her future? Why would she tell SMU?);

2. According to the NCAA Report, once the academic assistant told Magili about her taking the course for Frazier, Magili failed to immediately communicate his findings to Brown. However, he did notify SMU compliance;

3. Ultimately, the course was not needed or essential to Frazier meeting the criteria to become academically eligible under the guidelines;

4. SMU compliance was actively involved in vetting out the information through a series of interviews in July -August 2014. During this period, the NCAA report states that Brown did nothing "with the information", yet what was he to do? The information was already being vetted through the administrative compliance department. Had Brown gotten involved, in any way, I am of the opinion that they (NCAA) would've concluded he was tampering or trying to effectuate an outcome. From a compliance standpoint, the NCAA erred in concluding that Brown was somehow responsible by omission. Unless Compliance comes knocking on your door, you stay out of the way and let them do their job. This is what Brown did (essentially) ;

5. The NCAA report finds that Brown did nothing with the information he learned relative to the on-line course, the academic assistant and Frazier from July 25-August 4 and that he withheld providing SMU compliance with the information he knew when they interviewed him on September 9, 2014. I find this conclusion problematic from a legal standpoint. From an evidentiary standpoint, Brown did not have personal knowledge of any of the events and was probably advised not to provide second hand/hearsay evidence which he himself had not substantiated. With SMU compliance already having the information verified by Magili, I am of the opinion that Brown had no personal knowledge and therefore, was not withholding any information known to him. Thus, the NCAA findings are erroneous to find that Brown failed to provide information when the report finds that he had no personal knowledge of the events and conversations. Again, SMU compliance had this information already so what exactly was he withholding? ;

6. Conclusions: If the information was provided by Magili to the compliance department, and they determined that the source of the information and the scope of the parties were essentially Magili (setting up the course for Frazier), Frazier and the assistant (having a relationship and the assistant taking the course), how can the NCAA conclude that Brown failed to report information which had (1) already essentially been reported and, (2) of which he had no personal knowledge. One can argue that when the NCAA or investigative body comes calling you tell everything you know: personal knowledge, hearsay, scuttlebutt, rumors, bathroom writings, etc... But this is NOT EVIDENCE. I believe the error in these findings by the NCAA center on the conclusion that Brown had a duty to disclose rumors/hearsay and stories communicated to him. If I were his attorney, I would advise him as I do all my clients, "do not speculate, do not draw conclusions, do not restate things you have no knowledge about. You state what you know, what you saw and what you can raise your right hand to and say, "I know this to be the truth."

6. The sanctions against Brown and Frazier are overreaching. I do not know the appeal process for the NCAA. If this went to a US District Court, it would be thrown out much like the sanctions against Tom Brady. A lot of suspicion and innuendo, but no real hard proof against Brown and SMU. Look I hated that Brady "got away" with the whole deflate thing. But from a legal standpoint, I knew that report and its findings were flawed and erroneous. That's not to say the investigator didn't do his job, he simply could not connect the dots to Brady.

Here, there are no dots connecting anything to Coach Brown other than the dreaded "lack of control." But with compliance already involved, with him having no knowledge, I have no earthly idea what was he supposed to control? The private things that happen in apartment between a young man and young woman? Hell, please don't investigate me because I wrote a couple of essay papers for a hot girl in college who later became my wife. I suppose the Dean of the School should have known about that one!

[Top Twenty]

Excellent work.

[skyscraper]

Are you working on our appeals case??? Because you should be.

[smusportspage]

Good start.

[Lebanese4Life]

i know nothing of how these things are handled, but hypothetically, if the NCAA was to reject our appeal, would we be able to take them to federal court? Doing so would really show our balls.

[Mustangsabu]

If SMU does not appeal this we should just quit because it couldn't make anything worse.

Or could it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SMU 86]

Points for Consideration on Appeal:

1. According to the NCAA Report, Frazier developed a private relationship with the academic assistant. She was the one that obtained his password and credentials and assisted him in the courses. The NCAA Report states that it was unknown "whether she was instructed to complete the coursework or determined to do on her own." Absent this key piece of evidence, the NCAA erred in determining that either Brown, Magili, or SMU knew that this was being done by the assistant. Think about it, why would the girl ( in a relationship with Frazier, do anything to hurt his eligibility and his/her future? Why would she tell SMU?);

2. According to the NCAA Report, once the academic assistant told Magili about her taking the course for Frazier, Magili failed to immediately communicate his findings to Brown. However, he did notify SMU compliance;

3. Ultimately, the course was not needed or essential to Frazier meeting the criteria to become academically eligible under the guidelines;

4. SMU compliance was actively involved in vetting out the information through a series of interviews in July -August 2014. During this period, the NCAA report states that Brown did nothing "with the information", yet what was he to do? The information was already being vetted through the administrative compliance department. Had Brown gotten involved, in any way, I am of the opinion that they (NCAA) would've concluded he was tampering or trying to effectuate an outcome. From a compliance standpoint, the NCAA erred in concluding that Brown was somehow responsible by omission. Unless Compliance comes knocking on your door, you stay out of the way and let them do their job. This is what Brown did (essentially) ;

5. The NCAA report finds that Brown did nothing with the information he learned relative to the on-line course, the academic assistant and Frazier from July 25-August 4 and that he withheld providing SMU compliance with the information he knew when they interviewed him on September 9, 2014. I find this conclusion problematic from a legal standpoint. From an evidentiary standpoint, Brown did not have personal knowledge of any of the events and was probably advised not to provide second hand/hearsay evidence which he himself had not substantiated. With SMU compliance already having the information verified by Magili, I am of the opinion that Brown had no personal knowledge and therefore, was not withholding any information known to him. Thus, the NCAA findings are erroneous to find that Brown failed to provide information when the report finds that he had no personal knowledge of the events and conversations. Again, SMU compliance had this information already so what exactly was he withholding? ;

6. Conclusions: If the information was provided by Magili to the compliance department, and they determined that the source of the information and the scope of the parties were essentially Magili (setting up the course for Frazier), Frazier and the assistant (having a relationship and the assistant taking the course), how can the NCAA conclude that Brown failed to report information which had (1) already essentially been reported and, (2) of which he had no personal knowledge. One can argue that when the NCAA or investigative body comes calling you tell everything you know: personal knowledge, hearsay, scuttlebutt, rumors, bathroom writings, etc... But this is NOT EVIDENCE. I believe the error in these findings by the NCAA center on the conclusion that Brown had a duty to disclose rumors/hearsay and stories communicated to him. If I were his attorney, I would advise him as I do all my clients, "do not speculate, do not draw conclusions, do not restate things you have no knowledge about. You state what you know, what you saw and what you can raise your right hand to and say, "I know this to be the truth."

6. The sanctions against Brown and Frazier are overreaching. I do not know the appeal process for the NCAA. If this went to a US District Court, it would be thrown out much like the sanctions against Tom Brady. A lot of suspicion and innuendo, but no real hard proof against Brown and SMU. Look I hated that Brady "got away" with the whole deflate thing. But from a legal standpoint, I knew that report and its findings were flawed and erroneous. That's not to say the investigator didn't do his job, he simply could not connect the dots to Brady.

Here, there are no dots connecting anything to Coach Brown other than the dreaded "lack of control." But with compliance already involved, with him having no knowledge, I have no earthly idea what was he supposed to control? The private things that happen in apartment between a young man and young woman? Hell, please don't investigate me because I wrote a couple of essay papers for a hot girl in college who later became my wife. I suppose the Dean of the School should have known about that one!

Good points.

[Rebel10]

Smulaw90,

You might want to email that to Hart and Turner.

[Palmskee]

Smulaw90,

You might want to email that to Hart and Turner.

I sincerely hope (and believe) we had some SMU Law alums at the office today picking apart the findings and offering support to the Athletic department.

[Blvd_Stang]

I really like the Syracuse punishment as a benchmark for gauging the justness of our penalties. Because the two penalties are almost identical.

Read both of these summaries of infractions from the NCAA reports, and tell me they deserve equal punishments.

Over the course of a decade, the institution set in motion or otherwise permitted institutional staff and persons associated with its athletics programs to engage in conduct contrary to established NCAA bylaws and institutional rules and procedures. The violations in this case centered around the institution's men's basketball program, its student-athletes and staff. These violations included academic fraud, instances of extra benefits, the institution's failure to follow its written drug policy, impermissible activities surrounding the conduct of a representative of the institution's athletics interest and student-athletes' involvement in promotional activities and outside competition. In total, the self-reported and agreed-upon violations made up 10 of the 14 allegations in this case. The other four violations included academic extra benefits, the institution's failure to follow its written drug testing policy, the head basketball coach's failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor his staff and and the institution's lack of control over its athletics program. The case also involved a former staff member's failure to cooperate with the NCAA enforcement staff's investigation. The institution acknowledged and the panel concluded that violations occurred...The institution failed to control and monitor athletics and academic initiatives it set in motion – ultimately resulting in extensive academic misconduct, including four instances of academic fraud and three instances in which student-athletes received academic extra benefits. The institution also encouraged student-athletes' and staffs' relationships with a known representative of the institution's athletics interest without ensuring that those relationships continued to comply with NCAA requirements.

Summary of misconduct:

- 10 years of violations
- Lack of Institutional Control
- 4 instances of academic freud
- 3 instances of on inappropriate academic benefits
- Failure to report drug tests
- Head coach did not promote atmosphere of compliance
- Staff member misleading investigators

The violations in the men's basketball program centered on academic fraud and unethical
conduct. A former men's basketball administrative assistant, hired by the head men's
basketball coach, engaged in unethical conduct by impermissibly assisting a highly
recruited prospective student-athlete to obtain fraudulent academic credit. The former
men's basketball administrative assistant committed an additional act of unethical
conduct when she provided false or misleading information during the investigation and
failed to cooperate in later stages of the investigation. The head men's basketball coach
failed to report the incident of fraudulent academic credit after it had been brought to his
attention, and he initially lied about the underlying violations when interviewed by the
enforcement staff. The panel concludes that the head men's basketball coach's violations
were severe breaches of conduct and classifies them as Level I – Standard.
Although the case involved Level I violations, the panel did not conclude there was a
lack of institutional control or a failure to comply with the terms of probation. The
institution had engaged in compliance efforts that satisfied its probation terms, and the
falsified documents did not go beyond the former compliance director.

Summary of misconduct:

- 1 year of violations
- 1 instance of academic freud
- 1 instance of inappropriate academic benefits
- 1 staff member misleading investigators
- Head coach did not report the violations (but he DID to SMU compliance)
- Head coach initially lied, but DID eventually tell the truth in the SAME interview

Given the precedent set by the NCAA for this level of punishment, the punishment certainly does not match the crime.

[SMUstangs22]

The NCAA left an out. It claimed punishments were "lighter" because most infractions were during the time before enforcement restructuring.

I referenced that a few months ago on a different site and the NCAAs public commitment to harsher punishments as a reason to be worried and I got blasted.

[RyanSMU98]

I must admit, this made me feel better. I hope we have plenty of folks helping RGT and Hart make these points and any others. Bring it on!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tx_Mustang10]

Don't forget the policy points for all the idiots saying what are these kids supposed to do when they don't go pro and they've been helped all the way through school. These errors were a result of getting Keith into school so that when he doesn't have a pro career he can fall back on a college education; NCAA and its supporters are arguing KF was too dumb to have been allowed the college opportunity. NCAA is saying if you are a not well educated innercity kid, you have no place in college and you should be left behind; athletic talent should not be leveraged to provide the disadvantaged with opportunities they otherwise would not have had.

[RyanSMU98]

Don't forget the policy points for all the idiots saying what are these kids supposed to do when they don't go pro and they've been helped all the way through school. These errors were a result of getting Keith into school so that when he doesn't have a pro career he can fall back on a college education; NCAA and its supporters are arguing KF was too dumb to have been allowed the college opportunity. NCAA is saying if you are a not well educated innercity kid, you have no place in college and you should be left behind; athletic talent should not be leveraged to provide the disadvantaged with opportunities they otherwise would not have had.

From the PR side, this is an excellent point to keep driving home: SMU took a chance on giving a kid (and his kid) a shot at a better future; he faltered at first, but has since done everything within his power to take full advantage of that opportunity and as Coach said yesterday is on track to graduate with a degree next year. Some people did some stupid [deleted] before he got here; we know it, NCAA knows it, and they have been/are being held accountable in different ways. But from the moment Keith started taking classes AT SMU he has worked, stumbled, worked harder and is on track to succeed. As an alum, I have NO problem with my alma mater trying to give this kid a chance that NOBODY else was going to give him. The Brett Shipp's of the world that think kids like KF "aren't worth the headache" can kiss off; they are EXACTLY the kids that are worth putting in a position to succeed because they appreciate the opportunity more than many who have had their lives handed to them.

[Oliver]

Can we be certain that Maligi & SMU compliance didn't inform LB of what was going on? Is it possible that he did know the details for certain when he met with the NCAA the first time (and could they prove it via emails, texts, etc between Brown and Maligi and/or Compliance?)