alright let's go -

Posted on: February 10, 2019 at 23:27:21 CT

First, I have not read the university's investigation-stage position statements to the NCAA about this matter. Nor have I studied the rules in this area.

It seems possible that MU failed to state and show clearly, however, that one rogue non management employee acted wrongly (level 1) but that MU did not. And that MU neither would nor could stipulate to any level 1 wrongdoing as an institution, under the facts. The committee either did not hear any such distinction, if made, or regarded it as not relevant. Of concern: If the record is not clear that MU distinguished the severity of the employee's wrongful level 1 conduct from that of the institution, and argued that the difference was material to the severity of penalty available to the NCAA, then ordinary appeal proceedings mean MU has "waived" this basis to overturn the sanction. Also of concern: the NCAA description of the wrongdoing included that the employee felt pressured, was once reassigned, and once told that a non-passing grade meant non-graduation. Those findings may not have been opposed expressly by MU.

Edited by @larsophagus at 23:32:46 on 02/10/19