Forde throws the Bears a bone

[DawgatAuburn]

In his weekly Forde Yard Dash column (which is increasingly self-indulgent, but I still read it), he acknowledges that immunity could be problematic. But he does still think they are going to have "serious sanctions."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/forde-yard-dash-000000224.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma


THE NCAA’S IMMUNITY WORMHOLE
Yahoo Sports reported last week that the NCAA’s investigation of Mississippi (15) has broadened in scope within the last month, with Enforcement representatives visiting SEC West rivals Auburn (16) and Mississippi State (17) – and possibly at least one other school – to interview players there who were recruited by the Rebels.

Sources told Yahoo that those players were offered immunity from potential sanctions in exchange for telling the truth about their recruitment at Ole Miss. While that’s become a more standard investigative tool for the NCAA – and one used frequently in the American judicial system – it also poses some potential issues.


For one thing, immunity does not equal anonymity. Those players could face backlash from Ole Miss fans. For another, if they took inducements from Mississippi but signed or transferred elsewhere, what did they receive from their current schools? And would that immunity transfer to dropping a dime on their own program? Thirdly, would there be any institutional pressure on those players to embellish what happened, in order to hammer a vulnerable rival?


The NCAA and SEC both have a lot at stake in the Ole Miss investigation. If it weren’t for two aggrieved parties fragging star Rebels offensive tackle Laremy Tunsil (18), the NCAA would have whiffed on a slew of
violations involving one of the high-profile recruits it allegedly monitors with special vigor. Now the organization needs to show it can identify a shady deal on its own. And if Mississippi escapes serious sanctions – which seems less and less likely – the response around the SEC could lead to an escalation of recruiting that throws the league back into the old, anything-goes days.

The NCAA needs to get this one right. If granting immunity helps that happen, fine. But there are some land mines to navigate along the way.

 

[AlCoDog]

It's almost like he has a reason to be nice to OM while still reporting on the situation. It's weird.

 

[aTotal360]

He doesn't fully understand what immunity means...

 

[3000lbchicken]

That third paragraph read like an OM fan or coach wrote it as a warning to the snitches.

 

[mount lefroy]

That third paragraph read like an OM fan or coach wrote it as a warning to the snitches.

My thought is that immunity is being offered to substantiate or refute prior testimony. Not to dig up new info. If it is successful, om is toast. They wont just go to chris jones and ask what happened. They will compare that to what someone rlse said or to what another player experienced to validate or determine if there is a pattern of cheating.

I just used joneses name. I dont know if he is one.

Fordes article is simply saying the ncaa had better dot their i's and cross their t's if they want to be regarded as legitimate going forward.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

The response to this would be has Ohio State gotten in any trouble for Aaron Craft in basketball? Crafts picture with Bruce Pearl at his house and what went on that weekend are one of the big reasons Pearl got hammered. Does anyone believe Craft went to OSU for nothing? Same can be said for whoever was interviewed with immunity from State or Auburn. The NCAA isn't interested in State or Auburn, they're interested in the allegations against OM. This isn't rocket science.


If the NCAA went after the schools that had players interview with immunity, do you think in the future anyone is going to let their players be interviewed?

 

[patdog]

The NCAA isn't interested in State or Auburn, they're interested in the allegations against OM. This isn't rocket science.


If the NCAA went after the schools that had players interview with immunity, do you think in the future anyone is going to let their players be interviewed?

This is exactly why MSU and Auburn are going to get immunity for anything the players being interviewed may say. Not that they're goint to say anything about MSU or Auburn anyway, because the NCAA is only going to ask them about one school, the one they're investigating.

 

[ckDOG]

Right. Nothing Forde said is wrong, but you have to think realistically.

My thought is that immunity is being offered to substantiate or refute prior testimony. Not to dig up new info. If it is successful, om is toast. They wont just go to chris jones and ask what happened. They will compare that to what someone rlse said or to what another player experienced to validate or determine if there is a pattern of cheating.

I just used joneses name. I dont know if he is one.

Fordes article is simply saying the ncaa had better dot their i's and cross their t's if they want to be regarded as legitimate going forward.

If the NCAA wants immunity to be a useful tool, it can't be used in a fishing expedition with nothing legitimate leading up to it. It has to be used to corroborate a lead and to confirm the investigated program is lying. Sure, they could uncover bogus stuff happening at the landing spot of the recruits in question, but if immunity is to work over the long term, the questioning has to be very targeted and on a subject they feel confident they could suspend a player's eligibility on without another word said. How else would you get the immune recruit to sing? College football players rarely snitch unless they have to. Also, common sense would say that our people will be present with our players and not allow them to fall into a "I'd have to say, yeah" moment that raises questions for MSU.

 

[thekimmer]

What outcome does the SEC want?....

Interesting thought. Sure there are individual schools that want to see the book thrown but as a league, i.e. the league office, what is the best outcome for the conference?

On the one hand the SEC wants to avoid damage to the league's facade of compliance and a program getting major sanctions would be a mighty big ding.

On the other hand the SEC does not want the free-for-all that will follow a slap on the wrist.

My thought is the conference is hoping for the hammer for two reasons. 1) They see this as an opportunity to appease the NCAA and treble cheating a bit by making an example of a lower tier program without harming any of the bigs 2) It takes down an upstart who has stirred the pot a bit the last couple of years and provides a little red meat for the big boys for a couple of years.

 

[121Josey]

He went just short of saying that the NCAA should subpoena to get information. That article is so myopic it isn't funny.

I used to think Forde had NCAA sources. Then he wrote this.

 

[coach66]

I trust Bracky on this, i'm not kidding.

nm

 

[Xenomorph]

I've actually wondered the same thing a lot... Which option makes the SEC cringe more? The bears get off light and the rest of the nation knows they'll just go on breaking every rule in the book. Or Birmingham has to deal with one of its members facing multiple year, crippling penalties.

Oh well.. the SEC is partly to blame for letting Ole Miss continue what they were doing. Everybody else knew.. Hell, Steve Spurrier is 3 states away and hasn't done much other than play golf for 3 years and he knew. You can bet the SEC wasn't the last to the party.

A quick back channel call from the SEC office to Bijork could have shut them down.

 

[57stratdawg]

As we have said over and over again, this is the biggest case for the NCAA for a generation. OM fans did not think that was the case 6 months ago. I think it's starting to become apparent though.

 

[AssEndDawg]

Interesting thought. Sure there are individual schools that want to see the book thrown but as a league, i.e. the league office, what is the best outcome for the conference?

I think the SEC is going to let Ole Miss twist on their own here. I don't think it is either of your reasons, I think it is because Ole Miss only elevated itself by cheating and it was so obvious that it was openly discussed after they pulled the big recruiting class. I think the SEC would react differently if Ole Miss had elevated themselves legitimately and then got caught doing some shady stuff to stay up, but this idea that you can just cheat your way to making a difference in the conference can't really sit well with the SEC office. It was just so transparent. No name coach from Ark State pulls a top 5 class after a 6-6 year. Red flags everywhere...

 

[msstatelp1]

If I'm the SEC, I want the hammer to drop. The backlash of one school caught cheating would be easier to deal with than with all 14 teams going wide open "anything goes" recruiting.

 

[aTotal360]

Yup. He's not going to let our guys talk freely no matter what "immunity" we get.

 

[johnson86-1]

Interesting thought. Sure there are individual schools that want to see the book thrown but as a league, i.e. the league office, what is the best outcome for the conference?

On the one hand the SEC wants to avoid damage to the league's facade of compliance and a program getting major sanctions would be a mighty big ding.

On the other hand the SEC does not want the free-for-all that will follow a slap on the wrist.

My thought is the conference is hoping for the hammer for two reasons. 1) They see this as an opportunity to appease the NCAA and treble cheating a bit by making an example of a lower tier program without harming any of the bigs 1) It takes down an upstart who has stirred the pot a bit the last couple of years and provides a little red meat for the big boys for a couple of years.

I'm guessing the SEC wants punishment bad enough to move everybody back to the status quo prior to Auburn and for that punishment to impact SEC revenue as little as possible. Prior to Auburn, the SEC cheated enough that it was pretty much guaranteed a good shot at a championship and also enough to allow second tier SEC schools to be somewhat competitive with bigger name schools from other conferences. Everybody was more or less happy with that other than UM. When UM started to go crazy with illegal recruiting, it put the rest of the SEC of having to go above and beyond not to compete with the elite programs, but with Ole Miss, not only costing them money unnecessarily but also making it harder to cheat in a manner that would make it harder to keep everything under the table and more or less foolproof.

 

[thekimmer]

How do you know the back channel call didn't happen?....

I think it probably did happen but the forward rebels bunch were not going to be dissuaded or denied. Just consider how many stop signs they blew through at 70 MPH for the world to see in broad daylight. When you think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the SEC wasn't the ones who made the call to the NCAA.

 

[Tomas Smid]

Pretty simply really . . . . the NCAA has spoken with numerous athletes at MSU, Auburn and one other SEC school. If OM offered any of them illegal inducements I seriously doubt any of them are going to lie and deny it.

Accordingly, if OM gets serious sanctions everyone will know they cheated. If they don't, everyone will know they didn't cheat. One thing beyond any doubt is that if there is evidence of illegal inducements the NCAA will allege it and seek serious penalties. They are not going to invest all of this time and money to just walk away if recruiting violations occurred.

My sense is that the NCAA did not find any evidence of illegal inducements initially and has now cast a wider net seeking such evidence from recruits who did not sign with OM. Rashan Gary's mother had interesting comments about her son's recruitment by OM. If the NCAA can't come up with anything better than that, it's coming up snake eyes.

 

[Drebin]

Pretty simply really . . . . the NCAA has spoken with numerous athletes at MSU, Auburn and one other SEC school. If OM offered any of them illegal inducements I seriously doubt any of them are going to lie and deny it.

Accordingly, if OM gets serious sanctions everyone will know they cheated. If they don't, everyone will know they didn't cheat. One thing beyond any doubt is that if there is evidence of illegal inducements the NCAA will allege it and seek serious penalties. They are not going to invest all of this time and money to just walk away if recruiting violations occurred.

My sense is that the NCAA did not find any evidence of illegal inducements initially and has now cast a wider net seeking such evidence from recruits who did not sign with OM. Rashan Gary's mother had interesting comments about her son's recruitment by OM. If the NCAA can't come up with anything better than that, it's coming up snake eyes.

That's not how this works. The NCAA isn't interviewing athletes to discover or uncover evidence of cheating. The NCAA is interviewing athletes to corroborate evidence they already have. They are asking very specific things about their recruitment by Ole Miss.

 

[121Josey]

Pretty simply really . . . . the NCAA has spoken with numerous athletes at MSU, Auburn and one other SEC school. If OM offered any of them illegal inducements I seriously doubt any of them are going to lie and deny it.

You lost me at "If OM offered any of them illegal inducements I seriously doubt any of them are going to lie and deny it."

Freezus has said that they've lost recruiting battles and that the NCAA should check out some of those players. For the uninitiated, it means they cheated.

So, to your statement, yes, the investigation was always going to expand outside of Oxford. The investigation never stopped with the NOA.

 

[KurtRambis4]

As Drebin stated,

that is not how the interviewing process works. You don't bring random people in, asking them questions you don't know the answer to. You ask them questions you DO know the answer to, and try to catch them lying.

 

[Junction John]

I read Fat Hugh's article, too, but you can't believe everything you read.

My sense is that the NCAA did not find any evidence of illegal inducements initially and has now cast a wider net seeking such evidence from recruits who did not sign with OM.

Which makes more sense, given the facts as we know them:

1. They spent years in Oxford but didn't find anything new. They found that Ole Miss was squeaky clean -- other than just a few major violations they already released in the NOA -- oh yeah, and the Tunsil draft night stuff... However, those items listed in the NOA - and don't forget the new Tunsil stuff - were simply not enough for the bloodthirsty NCAA, so they've picked three random guys on other teams to go "fishing"; or

2. They spent years in Oxford, found a bunch of stuff they could prove (see the NOA), PLUS, while they were digging, they found evidence of a lot more stuff they couldn't (yet) prove -- so they are following those trails?

I know which one sounds more plausible to me.

 

[Dawgtini]

Interesting thought. Sure there are individual schools that want to see the book thrown but as a league, i.e. the league office, what is the best outcome for the conference?

On the one hand the SEC wants to avoid damage to the league's facade of compliance and a program getting major sanctions would be a mighty big ding.

On the other hand the SEC does not want the free-for-all that will follow a slap on the wrist.

My thought is the conference is hoping for the hammer for two reasons. 1) They see this as an opportunity to appease the NCAA and treble cheating a bit by making an example of a lower tier program without harming any of the bigs 2) It takes down an upstart who has stirred the pot a bit the last couple of years and provides a little red meat for the big boys for a couple of years.

I hope both organizations are looking for the hammer to use this as future leverage - eg - you don't want what happened to Miss happen to you now do you?

 

[patdog]

My sense is that the NCAA did not find any evidence of illegal inducements initially and has now cast a wider net seeking such evidence from recruits who did not sign with OM.

So, basically you're saying the NCAA's strategy is to spend even more money and time chasing wild geese on an investigation where they really haven't found anything (despite plenty of major violations in the first letter). Keep on drinking that Kool-Aid.

 

[tatedog]

The NCAA is offering immunity from punishment based on admission to prior activities, not immunity from lying to them (i.e. embellishing violations to benefit current school). Nobody ever has immunity from giving false testimony.

 

[xxxWalkTheDawg]

My sense is that the NCAA did not find any evidence of illegal inducements initially and has now cast a wider net seeking such evidence from recruits who did not sign with OM. Rashan Gary's mother had interesting comments about her son's recruitment by OM. If the NCAA can't come up with anything better than that, it's coming up snake eyes.

No matter what the UM folks say, the NCAA is not going to other schools, with hat in hand, trying to find something to save face. If they didn't find anything they would leave. They are going to other schools to confirm what they found.

They are not offering immunity to get totally new leads. They already know some, if not all, of what they are going to told. The strategy is to ask general questions and wait for the specifics they either highly suspect or already know. If the player outlines specifics and it aligns with what they found, that's all the NCAA needs. If they were fishing, they would interview everyone that visited UM at MSU, AU, and the hereby unnamed other school. They would not be targeting certain players. They are targeting certain players because they have a reason to.