I'm on now. Will update with information. The call is with David Roberts, chief hearings officer for the panel and special advisor to the president at USC
Roberts: Laying out the details of the course you already know in his opening statement.
Tutor completed online assignments for most student athletes. University determined three athletes violated the honor code.
Some of these things include courses taken at institutions other than Mizzou (online I assume)
Kumar told the NCAA she felt pressure and was told by an academic coordinator that one student "needed to pass" to maintain eligibility. "The investigation did not support the allegation that her colleagues directed her to complete the work for the student-athletes."
Now laying out the penalties which you all know already
There are bylaws which provide for the transfer of Missouri seniors. Committee has made a recommendation for waivers for the senior football players (or softball or basketball) who would seek them
Missouri has the opportunity to appeal to the COI appeals board. Time frame "obviously will take several months."
On why Mizzou got such severe penalties (tough question asked by Kietzman): Not going to compare cases. In this case, the institution, the tutor and enforcement agreed it was a level one violation.
The committee believes that the tutor acted on her own and was not encouraged to cheat by the University.
There will be no further investigation by the NCAA, but they'll have to prepare annual reports, etc.
Roberts refuses to compare the cases, but when I asked if Missouri had refused to cooperate or had not agreed the violations were Level One violations prior to the ruling he said
"you have hit on a key difference" in comparison to North Carolina. "I would not say they were penalized improperly or extraordinarily. The guidelines put in place operated as intended..if they had chosen a different route, I can't say what the outcome would be."
Nicole Auerbach asks if schools are now being encouraged not to cooperate or tell the truth. Roberts: "You can certainly make that argument."
The call is over. Here's the deal: Mizzou agreed there were level one violations. When there are level one violations, there are prescribed penalties. That's what Mizzou got. The simple fact is Mizzou shouldn't have agreed to anything.
Roberts: Laying out the details of the course you already know in his opening statement.
Tutor completed online assignments for most student athletes. University determined three athletes violated the honor code.
Some of these things include courses taken at institutions other than Mizzou (online I assume)
Kumar told the NCAA she felt pressure and was told by an academic coordinator that one student "needed to pass" to maintain eligibility. "The investigation did not support the allegation that her colleagues directed her to complete the work for the student-athletes."
Now laying out the penalties which you all know already
There are bylaws which provide for the transfer of Missouri seniors. Committee has made a recommendation for waivers for the senior football players (or softball or basketball) who would seek them
Missouri has the opportunity to appeal to the COI appeals board. Time frame "obviously will take several months."
On why Mizzou got such severe penalties (tough question asked by Kietzman): Not going to compare cases. In this case, the institution, the tutor and enforcement agreed it was a level one violation.
The committee believes that the tutor acted on her own and was not encouraged to cheat by the University.
There will be no further investigation by the NCAA, but they'll have to prepare annual reports, etc.
Roberts refuses to compare the cases, but when I asked if Missouri had refused to cooperate or had not agreed the violations were Level One violations prior to the ruling he said
"you have hit on a key difference" in comparison to North Carolina. "I would not say they were penalized improperly or extraordinarily. The guidelines put in place operated as intended..if they had chosen a different route, I can't say what the outcome would be."
Nicole Auerbach asks if schools are now being encouraged not to cooperate or tell the truth. Roberts: "You can certainly make that argument."
The call is over. Here's the deal: Mizzou agreed there were level one violations. When there are level one violations, there are prescribed penalties. That's what Mizzou got. The simple fact is Mizzou shouldn't have agreed to anything.
Last edited:
