20/20 hindsight.

Posted on: February 16, 2019 at 12:30:44 CT

I’m not pleased either but MU hired one of if not the top guys in this business. Reading between the lines, MU and Glazier worked with the Enforcement staff (which per my understanding is comprised of ncaa full time staff) with the understanding (and this is where Glazier is most responsible) that the COI (a separate committee, comprised of rotating non staff) would accept MU’s summary deposition and thereby forego the need for a hearing. Everyone was surprised when the COI rejected MUs summary depo and instead scheduled a hearing.

Unless you’re a lawyer with a working understanding of the process, we don’t know when or if MU could have disputed the Level 1 classification and also prepared a summary depo. My understanding is it’s one or the other - cooperate and have possibility of conducting your own investigation and preparing your own summary depo - OR - dispute the Level 1 classification and go to a hearing.

Either way is a gamble. Sure, now we know what the dealer has so everyone knows clearly what MU SHOULD have done.