Updated below the fold...you just can't make this stuff up! - P
I was bemused reading the Notice of Allegations from the NCAA.
It's the typical mish-mash that you would expect in one of these.
Stewart Mandel is right...Bruce Pearl is a dead man walking so I am not going to waste any time on his issue. Obviously I am more interested in the allegations leveled towards Lane Kiffin.
The notice contains the following allegations of violation of NCAA rules against the football program:
1) By former members of the football coaching staff: impermissible telephone contact (16 total calls) with prospective student-athletes from Jan. 3-9, 2010.
2) By a former assistant football coach: allegations relating to impermissible contacts with prospective student-athletes.
3) By a former head football coach: failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the football program and failure to monitor the activities regarding compliance of several assistant coaches have also been made against a former head football coach, and permitting a football recruiting intern to make impermissible contact with high school staff during a recruiting visit.
On the face these seem minor in nature...secondary is the proper word.
But this is the NCAA and in reading the document it is pretty clear that Tennessee did every thing they could to make Kiffin the fall guy in specifically targeting the Jan. 3-9 time frame. Typical PR move to throw the last man out under the bus and with the media's continued assault on USC, UT will use that to spare itself the wrath of the NCAA as it pertains to football.
The allegations mention Kiffin and Orgeron but it is still primarily a UT problem. But it looks like the UT football program escaped the NCAA's wrath...No LOIC and No Failure to Monitor etc. In fact, the only charge directly related to the university is this:
Additionally, the University is alleged to have failed to monitor the men's basketball coaching staff's telephone contacts with prospective student-athletes and their relatives in order to ensure compliance with NCAA telephone contact legislation (from Aug. 1, 2007 - July 29, 2009).
But don't kid yourself, Looking at it carefully it is safe to assume that the NCAA will hold Kiffin solely responsible for the football violations and that the University played no role. So, it should not surprise anyone if the NCAA tries to go after Kiffin to try and hurt USC further. They (UT) are already teeing it up to say that they informed Kiffin of the rules only to have himbreak them anyway. Because Kiffin is no longer at UT he has no say and no control of what Mike Hamilton said to the NCAA.
The NCAA has an agenda and they have already played their hand.
Don't be fooled by the UConn case or even what we know about Bruce Pearl...
The NCAA could use some past cases as a guide as to how they go after Kiffin...the Kelvin Sampson case and the Neuheisel case.
So, the question to me is pretty simple...will Pat Haden go on the offensive to protect his coach who has been a model citizen or will become mute on the subject, allowing him to become another target of the NCAA?
I don't care about what Haden may have said publicly, I am talking about him going to war for his coach...its the actions that matter.
And from what I have seen, I wouldn't count on that...
UPDATE #1:
I really could not say it better than this, brdcstr hits a HOME RUN ...
...In order to apparently pursue their witchhunt against Kiffin.
After reading through the 26 page notice of allegations, a few glaring omissions simply didn't pass the smell test as to why Kiffin is being charged with a failure to monitor, but the UT football program is not.
- On October 10, the UT director of football operations, David Blackburn, allegedly informed Kiffin and intern Steve Rubio that Rubio was not allowed to enter the St. Thomas Aquinas property.
- It's alleged that on October 12, Kiffin disregarded Blackburn's warning and allowed Rubio to accompany him on to the St. Thomas Aquinas property.
- In spite of the alleged blatant insubordination, Kiffin remained employed at UT for over three more months before leaving for USC.
- In those three months, Kiffin never received any disciplinary action from Tennessee for his insubordination and subsequent violation.
Is it reasonable to expect no consequences for employee insubordination that results in a willfu land blatant violation?
If Tennessee wants to claim they weren't aware that Rubio accompanied Kiffin to St. Thomas Aquinas, they have a difficult case to make that there was no way they could have or should have known of that violation.
After all, Blackburn was aware they were going to visit St. Thomas Aquinas, so a simple follow-up conversation with the both of them would've clarified their actions. It he wants to claim Kiffin lied, just how does he discover the lie in January, but couldn't discover the lie in October?
The fact that Tennessee never extended disciplinary measures on Kiffin for insubordination and purposeful violations is telling. They either chose to become complicit in the violations by their silence, or were negligent in their monitoring of his activities.
Yet, no failure to monitor issued against the University.
Blackburn covered his behind by forewarning Kiffin, but he's not out of the clear if he never followed up. After all, having a system in place to prevent cheating is only half of the equation, according to the NCAA. The other half is establishing an effective system of monitoring and enforcing the athletic department's policies.
Another aspect that simply doesn't pass the smell test and reeks of a preferential treatment is in the area of the University monitoring phone calls.
- Between 2007 and 2009, the NCAA discovered 96 impermissible telephone calls to 12 different recruits and/or their family members in the basketball program.
- In January, the football program was alleged to have made 16 impermissible calls over a six-day period of time.
Yet, no failure to monitor charges against the University, who is supposed to be regularly monitoring all phone logs of coaches and recruiters. The fact these calls went undetected within the athletic department for over two years suggests insufficient monitoring by the compliance department was taken place.
And yet, only Bruce Pearl and Kiffin were given failure to monitor charges, and the University of Tennessee receives another pass.
Well said!
UPDATE #2:
Here is a little more from brdcstr in the same thread that I linked above (Ted Miller linked to the above as well.)
To add to the discussion, simply consider...
Intern Steve Rubio was presumably forewarned by David Blackburn, along with Kiffin, to not set foot on the property of his alma mater, St. Thomas Aquinas.
Not heeding the alleged warning given to him, Rubio apparently disregarded Blackburn's warning and set foot on the property of St. Thomas Aquinas. Hence, the failure to monitor charges against Kiffin.
If Rubio was not forewarned by David Blackburn to not step foot on the property of St. Thomas Aquinas, can Tennessee claim they provided sufficient monitoring when failing to inform an employee of a potential violation involving him?
Today, all of the coaches/employees involved in the allegations pertaining to Tennessee football are no longer at the school, with the exception of one.
Steve Rubio.
Not only is there no mention made of Rubio being disciplined by UT for insubordination in regards to a directive aimed at him by his superior, but he has since been given a promotion by the University of Tennessee when hired by new coach Derek Dooley as the director of player personnel.
://www.utsports.com/sports/m-f...o_steven00.html
We now know that just 4 Days after Bruce Pearls teary public admission of wrongdoing that he willfully committed another secondary violation.
Given that, coupled with Rubio's promotion, can it be said that the University of Tennessee is serious about ridding its department of flagrant violators, or more concerned with minimizing the repercussions of those same violators previous actions?
Another great take!
I am going to keep pouring it on as long as the hypocrisy continues to bubble over...