Points for Appeal/Errors in Findings
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 4:22 pmPoints 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!
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!