Miami Notice of Allegations “Imminent”

The Miami herald is reporting that the delivery of the NCAA’s formal Notice of Allegations against Miami is imminent, according to sources close to the case. This comes on the heels of an Associated Press report that the NCAA will discuss specific violations with individuals involved in the case on Monday. There is so much smoke around the Miami case right now that Miami receiving their Notice of Allegation later than the end of this week would seem like an upset.

That would set in motion a timeline, the “beginning of the end” as both articles have called receiving the notice. Miami has 90 days to respond to the allegations, followed by a hearing date that will be scheduled as part of the Notice of Allegations. That puts Miami’s response due sometime around mid-April, with a hearing date in June most likely. After the hearing, the Committee on Infractions tries to release the public report within six weeks, but often takes longer. Given the complexity of the Miami case and the attention it has attracted, two months is probably a minimum. August or September seem more likely than not.

Such a timeline assumes no further delays though. Miami could request an extension for their response. The Committee on Infractions schedule could push the hearing date to August, also possible if Miami requests an extension. Once the hearing is over, the Committee on Infractions could have new allegations or more questions, although this is rare. Or writing the public report could take longer than expected.

If Miami were to appeal any findings or penalties, that appeal would not be heard and the report released until 2014 at the earliest. Given Miami’s self-imposed postseason bans and apparent excellent cooperation, an appeal seems unlikely unless the Committee on Infractions imposed scholarship reductions worse than USC’s or added another postseason ban.

Finally, this more or less assures that the Oregon case will be with us for some time. Even if the NCAA delivered Oregon’s Notice of Allegations immediately following Miami’s, that would still be mid-to-late April before Oregon’s response is due. It is unlikely that given the size and import of the Miami case, the Committee on Infractions would attempt to squeeze in the also-important Oregon case on the same weekend. At this point, August looks like the earliest possible date for Oregon’s hearing, with the report delivered in October at the very earliest.

Given the history of Oregon’s case, specifically the failed attempt to come to a summary disposition agreement that satisfied the Committee on Infractions, an appeal of all penalties and/or the findings themselves seems more likely. That would mean any sort of definitive resolution in the Oregon case would not come until 2014.

2 Responses to “Miami Notice of Allegations “Imminent””

  1. Truth_is_Out_There

    John, when the allegations and proposed penalties come out, I hope you do a close examination of the penalties compared to what was handed out to USC’s football team, which for reminders, involved one football player and whose link to USC (i.e., USC’s “knowledge” of the transgression) was tenuous at best – particularly in light of a court saying that it is seems possible for McNair (the SC coach) to show that the NCAA lied or willfully disregarded the truth. As an SC fan, I’m not going to be too moved by this “new” NCAA if they attempt to punish the Miami coaches and not the University of Miami. Why didn’t NCAA do that with USC and McNair?
    Just think it’s important to reconcile the penalties. I don’t know anything more than you do at this time, but given Paul Dee’s affiliation with the NCAA COI and my deep belief that the COI is corrupt, I’m very skeptical that the NCAA will handle Miami anything remotely similar to how it handled USC. And the funny thing, when this all came out Emmert was talking tough about the possible death penalty, and I’ll bet you anything that Miami gets less than USC in terms of harsh penalties. And I don’t buy Miami’s selective bowl ban as a real penalty – they did it when they had 5 or 6 losses, so likelihood of a good bowl game was low and the impact on recruiting isn’t there, since a recruit would be less inclined to go to a school that still has two bowl bans to go. But when the school waits to see where the end up for the season, and then decide to forego a lower-tiered bowl, this clearly manipulating the process.
    In any event, let’s have some fun and reconcile the transgressions (including exactly who within MIami’s administration knew) against those at USC and exactly who in USC transgressions knew. And then let’s look at the penalties doled out to each school. Given that Paul Dee set the standard with USC, it seems his university, of all universities, should live by those same very standards…what was it…. “High profile athletes demand higher profile compliance.” Do we really think Mr. Dee adhered to that rule while the AD at Miami?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>