Tag:Julie Roe Lach
Posted on: March 6, 2012 3:20 pm
  •  
 

Auburn to unveil Heisman statues at spring game

Posted by Jerry Hinnen

Auburn fans treating themselves to the Tigers' "A-Day" spring game are going to be treated themselves to a one-of-a-kind ceremony involving the school's three Heisman Trophy winners.

The Tiger athletic department had announced previously that they would be commissioning and erecting statuses of Pat Sullivan, Bo Jackson and Cam Newton to be unveiled at a later date. A release from the school Tuesday established that date as April 14, when the statues will be dedicated in a special ceremony at 10 a.m. prior to the annual "A-Day" game.

According to the release, Sullivan (who won his Heisman in 1971), Jackson (1985) and Newton (2010, in case you've forgotten already) are all scheduled to be in attendance at the ceremony. The statues will be placed on the east end of Jordan-Hare Stadium.

In an interview with Auburn fansite The War Eagle Reader last April, statue sculptor Ken Bjorge said that the statues of Sullivan and Jackson had already been commissioned -- and completed -- when Newton's stunning Heisman season forced Auburn to ask for a third statue, and delay the unveiling of Sullivan's and Jackson's. In the interim, Florida became the first SEC team with a collection of Heisman statues, unveiling renditions of Steve Spurrier, Danny Wuerffel and Tim Tebow at their 2011 spring game. 

The delay also meant, of course, that Auburn avoided the awkwardness of either dedicating or not dedicating a statue of Newton, whose infamous NCAA investigation only wrapped up last October. Though going through with an order for $100,000 worth of sculpted steel was already a sizable vote of confidence on Auburn's part, there's little doubt the school is highly appreciative the statue won't have to be unveiled with a Julie Roe Lach-shaped monkey on its back. 

Keep up with the latest college football news from around the country. From the opening kick of the year all the way through the offseason, CBSSports.com has you covered with this daily newsletter. View a preview.

Get CBSSports.com College Football updates on Facebook   
Posted on: January 17, 2012 3:56 pm
Edited on: January 17, 2012 3:59 pm
 

Stiff NCAA penalties on the way with new model



Posted by Bryan Fischer


Scandals, scholarships and rules changes were among the topics of frequent conversation at last week's NCAA Convention and while not everything president Mark Emmert wanted - the $2,000 cost of attendance stipend for example - was passed by the Legislative Council and Board of Directors, it's safe to say what happened in Indianapolis laid the ground work for significant changes that will impact schools for decades to come.

While details on most proposals from Presidential Working Groups finally emerged in some areas, the one place where there was plenty of talk but little substance was the new enforcement model that some in the organization have been tasked with reforming. After a year that included news about major infractions at Tennessee, Miami, Ohio State, North Carolina and others, it's no surprise that this would be one area of emphasis.

"We were damn mad and not going to take it anymore," Ed Ray, Oregon State president and chair of the Enforcement Working Group, said.

The Enforcement Working Group that came out of August's presidential retreat was tasked with creating a tiered violation structure, new penalty procedures, a reformed process for adjudication and a reformed process that is fair while supporting the collegiate model the organization is looking to uphold.

"In terms of what is our charge, we heard President Emmert talk about this risk-reward analysis and the fact that there seems to be a general loss of integrity and upholding the rules," Vice President for Enforcement Julie Roe Lach said. "This isn't purely a reactive move, we're not just doing this because of the scandals or if there is a crisis. We're doing this because it's the right thing to do. This is a time to redefine what are our principles and what do we stand for."

In addition to following the principles of fairness, accountability and process integrity, flexibility is one of the key things the new model is designed to address as there are currently only two categories of violations: major and secondary. The new model would have four levels (most egregious, serious, secondary, minor) with the Committee on Infractions taking into account various mitigating or aggravating factors that would then help determine penalties. While many believe the enforcement side just makes it up as they go along (and they can because they don't follow past precedent), the model should help move cases along in the system quicker and result in more consistency among penalties given out to schools.

"The working group recognizes the wide-spread perception that the current penalty model leads to inconsistent and insufficient penalties and does not adequately deter other institutions and individuals from engaging in conduct contrary to the rules," the working group's report stated. "The working group believes that the severity of the penalty imposed must correspond with the significance of the rule violation(s)."

If it all seems a bit dense and hard to understand, it is. That's why the NCAA created this proposed penalty matrix that gives you a better visual idea of what future programs will have to get used to if they break rules. For example, if you commit a serious Level I offense and there were no mitigating factors, you can expect a 2-3 year postseason ban.

"We haven't had a lot of pushback on this," Roe Lach said of the new multi-level structure. "If there's anything in the package that is a no-brainer, it seems like this may be it.

"An issue we've heard is we need to be more consistent and allow for more predictability. I think if we are more consistent, it would afford more predictability. The idea is to move toward a penalty guidelines model."

So how does it really work? Well, take the infamous USC case involving Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo among others: violations of NCAA bylaws governing amateurism; failure to report knowledge of violations; unethical conduct; violations of coaching staff limitations; impermissible recruiting contacts by a representative of the institution's athletics interests; impermissible inducements and extra benefits; and lack of institutional control.  

According to the new model, this would be classified as multiple Level I violations with four significant aggravating factors. Here's a comparison of penalties with what the Trojans got and what they would have received under the new model:



So yes, USC would have been punished even worse under the new proposed enforcement model coming from the NCAA. That's interesting because athletic director Pat Haden is on the enforcement working group and has made it a point to say that the Trojans were unfairly punished. In other examples provided by the NCAA, Baylor's basketball program would have seen the number of scholarships available slashed in half following the school's 2005 infractions case. Instead of fewer practice hours for Rich Rodriguez and Michigan in their case, the Wolverines could have lost up to four scholarships per year. Florida State's 2009 case could have seen football scholarship losses of 10-21 per year for three years instead of the six they received.

Given the new model, expect the hammer from Indianapolis to come down harder on cheaters in the future.

Posted on: October 26, 2011 10:08 pm
Edited on: October 26, 2011 10:14 pm
 

Q&A with NCAA VP for Enforcement Julie Roe Lach

Posted by Bryan Fischer

NCAA Vice President of Enforcement Julie Roe Lach has been on the job nearly a year as the NCAA's top cop and made a number of changes to her department. She sat down with CBSSports.com to discuss several of the reforms that are currently making their way through the legislative process ahead of this week's meetings.

CBSSports.com: What are some of the ways you're looking to streamline the enforcement process?

"I think we're accomplishing what we set out to do in terms of focusing on the sports and issues that need a lot of attention; football, men's basketball and agents in both of those sports. The different approach to cases too, we've talked about surge, which is sending people out and sounds more dramatic than it is, but more people and hands on deck when needed. With some of our cases, we just have a lot of people working it with different roles. Multiple investigators are on a case but now we've got this information group. I was talking with a guy who heads up an investigative group somewhere else and he has a whole corps of what they call 'desktop investigators.' That's basically what our information group does, they are there to mine the internet for information and to help us when we go through thousands of phone records.

"That group is helping with some of the higher profile cases and that is starting to pay dividends by finding the information and connecting the dots."

It seems like there's an emphasis on compliance recently, what's the genesis of this new culture and all these new ideas?

"That was part of the vision coming out of the Presidential Retreat, the idea that we need some reform. It's under the auspices of the idea of risk-reward, both in terms of coaches and administrators, with people saying I'll take the risk because I'm not going to get caught and if I do, the penalty is not going to be that grave. The idea is how do we address that. The working group I have the privilege to work with, those presidents have said that we need to take a look at the violation structure because there's a pretty wide disparity between secondary and major. Those are two extremes, what about the stuff in the middle? Once we figure that out, what penalties need to be in place for each level. I think there will be some significant reform or change - it will be different."

Is there more of an emphasis on fixing your division?

"I've not spent a lot of time thinking about the other groups because I think we have a challenge from an enforcement perspective. Having said that, I know Kevin and his team are spending a lot of resources and time on looking at the rules, figuring out which rules make sense and which ones we need and which ones we do we not. That's a huge undertaking. Important but huge. I would not venture to say that we've got more work than somebody else, I know we've got our fair share."

Is there a new penalty structure forthcoming?

"I think it's too early to predict. Our group has met on the phone and they've rolled up their sleeves and done their homework. We're three meetings in and will continue that, including a lengthy in-person meeting in December. I think after that we'll have a better idea of where we'll end up."

We've seen some of the membership openly question some decisions, will this address some of the concerns from those at schools?

"I don't know if it's designed to address membership critique, I think that's healthy. But if there's a problem with the decision, that's what I've been asking in my travels and outreach. I'm asking what are we as an enforcement program doing well or not doing well. I prefer they tell me directly but they obviously can voice their opinions elsewhere and have the ability to do that. This reform isn't a knee-jerk reaction, it's more of a momentum from saying that we have a certain type of violation or mentality out there and what we need to do to address.

Will we see more financial penalties, taking away TV revenue from major rules violators?

"Financial penalties are on the menu of options the Committee on Infractions can impose. Even the enforcement staff can for secondaries infractions, obviously a lesser dollar value. In recent cases the committee had imposed financial penalties. There are two types of financial penalties, the flat-out fine and the requirement that schools receive from playing in - for instance - the tournament. I have a case in mind that the committee required that and the amount was well beyond $100,000. I don't foresee that penalty come off the table but I think we'll see a discussion as to when does that penalty, for corrective action, more appropriate. Does it make an impact or not? If it does, in what way? And who? That's what there's been a lot of talk about, what are effective penalties. Let's use the ones that work, if that means narrowing the list or you widen it, you do it. It's premature though to say what's in or what's out."

You have been looking to update the definition of the agent, will that close loopholes?

"We don't have jurisdiction over agents, that's the players associations and the states - according to laws and the (Uniform Athletes Agents Act).  It is the definition of the agent in the UAAA and the 42 states that have stepped up and adopted it. Does that capture more than just the typical sports agent? That's what many states are asking right now. We certainly think that definition from an NCAA standpoint, as far as student-athletes taking benefits from or not, should they not be entering into agreements verbally or in writing. That expanded definition is a reflection of what's going on in the world more than a typical, registered, sports agent. The former definition, it worked for the time when it was adopted, but times changes. We've got to figure out the rules change too."

The state of North Carolina is suing for access to records, is there a reason it's resulted to this?

"We have cooperated with them and have given them the information that we can give them under the law. We've shared insights of the investigations when we could share them, not just within the law but within our own procedures. Not just generally but this is specifically who we're looking into and what we've learned. It's one thing to say that - which we've done in conversations - it's another to give documentary evidence. You have federal law that says you can't give education records because those student-athletes signed the FERPA release. They don't provide those documents for us to then provide to the world. We can only do that if we get a valid subpoena and that's really where the lynchpin is right now, what's a valid subpoena and what's not. We're not trying to play games but we need to make sure that if we're going to provide records protected under law, we do so when however we're being asked is a viable legal request.

"Make no mistake, we want states to enforce the UAAA. The fact that we're being represented as standing in the way of that is just flat out wrong."

Will we see open COI hearings or a more transparent process in the future?

"Whether or not that can happen will be a membership decision. I don't see that happening anytime soon. I was talking with somebody the other day about this, I don't know of any other private association that opens up its disciplinary hearings."

Are you worried about Congress getting involved and looking at things?

"It's interesting because I've gone back and looked at the historical enforcement files. As early as the 1970's, was one of the first congressional reviews of just enforcement and there have been several since then. That includes one that led to the Rex-Lee Report. There have been other individuals from the Supreme Court who have been involved in our review and come out with constructive suggestions that have shaped the fair process we have today. Many of the changes that have occurred, especially over the last 20 years, have been a result of membership asking strong legal minds to review the process and how to make it fair. I don't think congressional interest is new when you look at history. I wouldn't say it's in the back of my mind it's just a recognition that there is an interest in how we operate. Time and time again when a person reviews the reports, they say what you have works and it's fair and here are some ideas to improve it some more. No one has said that you need to blow this thing up and start over."

The SEC meetings, do you regret the run-in with Gene Chizik?

"I have no regrets. I think a run-in is really a mischaracterization, it was a discussion."

To his point, what is being done about concluding speedier investigations?

"When I've asked people what are we doing well, what are we not doing well from an enforcement standpoint. A common thread was investigations take too long. It's not from a lack of effort or energy from out staff. I can tell you that, our people work nights, work the weekends and take the red eyes. It has been what resources are we getting and when? Are we getting the right records, are people talking to us? How many doors get slammed in our face and how many tries to take before we say this person just won't talk to us? That obviously carries from case to case. The things we can control we demand it - putting more people, having people focus on heavy evidence review. There are somethings within our control that we are really track and improve on and we need to acknowledge what's beyond our control and is there anyway we can exert more influence over that."

Are things changing to where you will see major violations, secondaries go down?

"I don't know. I don't think secondaries going down are necessarily a reflection of risk-reward. Some secondaries, the intentional ones, yes. Some secondaries, it's a good thing because that means our schools are watching and monitoring and reporting. I think you can interpret those numbers in several ways. Same thing with majors, it depends on which types of cases we're talking about. I think it's too early to predict what sort of changes will happen. You hear anecdotally from some people, we never saw you before and now there's an enforcement presence. Does that mean there's a change in behavior or is it just driving it outside where it used to be? It's a big early to predict the impact."


Posted on: August 18, 2011 2:54 pm
 

Mark Emmert says he's 'fine with' death penalty

Posted by Jerry Hinnen

NCAA
vice president of enforcement Julie Roe Lach said Wednesday the "majority of ... support" she encounters within the organization is for sanctions like bowl bans and scholarship reductions that stop short of the death penalty--even in the event of mammoth scandals like the one unfolding at Miami. But apparently, she didn't talk to the NCAA's own president.

Mark Emmert, having already taken the unusual step of commenting on an ongoing NCAA investigation with his initial statement on the Hurricane allegations, told the USA Today Thursday that the death penalty ought to be one "tool" at the Committee on Infractions' disposal:
"We need to make sure that we've got, for the committee on infractions, all the tools they need to create those kinds of deterrents. If that includes the death penalty, I'm fine with that."
Emmert said those deterrents should "provide serious second thoughts for anybody who thinks they can engage in this kind of behavior with impunity." He also commented on the Miami case directly again, saying that "if these allegations are true," they are "very troubling, and ... point out the real need for us to make changes and to make them thoughtfully and aggressively."

All of that certainly sounds noble enough. But Emmert's tough talk of change and nuclear-option sanctions won't mean much in the public eye if his organization doesn't back it up with legitimate reform, and penalties with teeth in cases of wanton rule-breaking (like, say, Jim Tressel's cover-up at Ohio State).

Discussing the death penalty is one thing, and it's fine as far as it goes. (Though the seemingly contradictory statements from Emmert and Roe Lach don't exactly portray the NCAA as an entity whose left hand knows what its right is doing.) But all the talk in the world won't do as much for Emmert's crusdade as one sensibly firm decision in a case like Miami's--and that decision doesn't have to be death penalty-caliber to prove the NCAA is serious.

Posted on: August 18, 2011 1:33 pm
 

NCAA's Roe Lach: Little support for death penalty

Posted by Jerry Hinnen

From the moment the Yahoo! Sports story exposed the mindblowing scope of Miami's Nevin Shapiro scandal, one question about the Hurricanes' potential NCAA punishment has towered above all others: Could Miami receive the death penalty?

There's not a college football fan alive who doesn't know that the NCAA has ordered the temporary shutdown of a program just once, at SMU in the 1980s. But with a broad consensus that the Hurricane scandal appears to be the most serious since the "Pony Excess" days, the death penalty has been touted by more than one observer as ripe for revival. Two former school compliance officials told the Palm Beach Post Wednesday that the allegations "absolutely scream" for a program suspension, and that the 'Canes would be a "likely candidate" for the SMU treatment.

But within the actual enforcement wing of the NCAA, there doesn't seem to be much stomach for it. Vice president of enforcement Julie Roe Lach is prohibited from discussing the Miami investigation specifically (even if her boss Mark Emmert apparently has no such limitations), but in speaking to the New York Times Wednesday she made it clear no one in Indianapolis is chomping at the bit to use the nuclear option:
“I have not heard [conversation] turn much to television bans or the death penalty,” she said. “The majority of the ideas or support I keep hearing relate toward suspensions [of coaches] or postseason bans being the most powerful.”
One former chairman of the NCAA Committee on Infractions, David Swank, also said the NCAA would be reluctant to pull the trigger on sanctions that "destroy a program."

It's a position that makes sense in a vaccum. (And we're all for the continued elimination of television bans, which severely punish the sanctioned team's opponents simply for having the misfortune of being on the schedule.) Given that the Mustangs are just now crawling out of their smoking crater more than 25 years later, no one should want to see the death penalty handed down ever again.

But that doesn't take into account the USC problem. As the New York Times story notes, the Miami scandal appears to be of a magnitude greater than that of the Trojans' Reggie Bush case, which already holds the record for the stiffest penalties since the SMU decision--30 docked scholarships and a two-year bowl ban.

So how far past that standard can the NCAA go while still stopping short of the death penalty? Add another couple of years to the postseason ban, add in another several scholarships lost, add in the difficulty of (inevitably) finding new coaches at an already cash-strapped program and dozens of new players for the roster, and the 'Canes would be entirely crippled. They would face an enormous struggle to remain even marginally competitive in the ACC, or any BCS conference. They'd be, essentially, the walking dead version of what used to be Miami.

And if that's the case, would it be better for the Hurricanes to become the dead dead version for a year? Should they want to push the reset button, and start over after one lost season with fewer limitations and a cleaner slate afterwards?

Probably not. But unless the NCAA wants to undercut the Trojan decision and admit once-and-for-all that those sanctions were overboard and unfair -- not likely -- having the death penalty off the table means the COI will have a very, very fine line to walk when it comes to Miami.

Posted on: July 22, 2011 9:52 pm
Edited on: July 22, 2011 10:18 pm
 

Emmert's chance to shine doused by Ohio St. case

Posted by Bryan Fischer

Mark Emmert, you have lost our confidence in your ability to do the job.

The next time you speak, we won't be able to take you seriously thanks to news that Ohio State would not face additional charges of failure to monitor or lack of institutional control in the school's infraction case.

'It's all about what the NCAA can prove, not what we've read' is the company line. Well, you had a chance to prove things but you said you weren't going to try.

CBSSports.com took a thorough look at cheating in college football, spending nine days chronicling just how rampant the rule breaking has been over the years. The purpose was the examine the subject with an eye towards where the sport was headed in the near future.

Senior writer Dennis Dodd ended the series saying Ohio State would be a landmark case going forward.

"This is what NCAA president Mark Emmert has been advocating, a way to make the cheaters and liars think twice about cheating and lying," Dodd wrote.

The president failed, however, to send that message Friday. Emmert has called for tougher enforcement numerous times since taking office and here, in front of a primetime audience, was his Howard Beale moment.

He could have sent a message that he was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it anymore. Instead, he lost what little confidence we had in "fixing" college athletics.

Dennis Thomas, the chairman of the Committee on Infractions, said on a conference call earlier this month that the committee "was not in the business of sending messages."

Sorry to say it, but the NCAA's enforcement staff and the Committee on Infractions are in the business of sending messages.

They sent one loud and clear: It's ok to cheat. Blame it on the coach if you get caught. No need to monitor emails either.

But you better check on that house 100 miles away.

Emmert has talked about openness and a better understanding. The organization invited several members of the national media to Indianapolis for what they called the "Enforcement Experience."

The aim of it, as Vice President for Enforcement Julie Roe Lach explained to compliance officers from across the country, was for a good number of positive pieces and to remind everybody that the NCAA and the Committee on Infractions are separate.

Last I checked though, the enforcement staff reports to the president. If Emmert wanted to push for a message, a simple walk down the hall could have resulted in serious charges against Ohio State.

According to interview transcripts, Jim Tressel mentioned an email tip to school compliance officers but failed to mention what was actually in the emails. The compliance office - or anyone else for that matter - failed to follow up on this. Yet the NCAA enforcement staff said the school "followed up on tips it received."

The school said they only found out about the emails in January "due to an unrelated legal matter." Ask Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany though and he'll tell you it was due to a FOIA request.

Appears no one, not even one of the most powerful people in the country, could get an accurate answer from the Buckeyes.

At one point in an interview, Tressel told the NCAA that Ohio State told him to get rid of documents so they wouldn't become public record.

The folks at Enron are very impressed.

If the committee can nail USC based on a two minute, thirty-two second phone call, they surely could nail Ohio State with all that.

Ohio State was lauded by many as having a large and well respected compliance office. Yet both the NCAA and Ohio State agreed in December that their education efforts were inadequate. That was the basis for allowing the so-called "Buckeye Five" to play in the Sugar Bowl.

So Ohio State didn't do a good job at rules education in December but by July, according to the case summary, the institution "provided education to football student-athletes and staff regarding extra benefits and preferential treatment."

That statement was contradicted by the enforcement staff five paragraphs later by the way.

"The institution took monitoring efforts designed to identify the sale or distribution of institutionally issued athletics awards, apparel apparel and equipment," but somehow didn't know Terrele Pryor was taking "whatever" he wanted out of the equipment room.

And let's not forget the school's treatment of their beloved "Senator."

"This is an individual that I have tremendous respect for," University president E. Gordon Gee said of Tressel on March 8. "He's had great success in working with young people and we applaud that. But I think equally importantly, he's had great success in building the character and reputation for this university, which I'm entirely grateful for. He's done so by example."

A few months later in the Buckeyes' self-report: "The institution is embarrassed by the actions of Tressel."

At least the flip-flopping when they're backed into a corner is consistent.

There's still one more chance for the organization to say enough is enough. The committee could add a failure to monitor charge or lack of institutional control charge following Ohio State's August 12th meeting with them. The committee did it with Indiana in the Kelvin Sampson case but has rarely done so. It can also choose to punish the school harshly despite the two serious charges, as it did with Alabama several years ago in the Albert Means case. They can also cite the enforcement staff for doing a bad job, which they have also done on occasion.

"I fully expect that every NCAA member institution be held to the same high standards," Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said after USC's appeal was denied.

But based on everything that's happened so far with Ohio State, does anyone expect them to? Athletic director Gene Smith was the recent chairman of the NCAA Men's Basketball committee. Gee was Emmert's boss years ago at Colorado.

And even if the committee did hold them to those same high standards set in the USC case?

"I'll be shocked and disappointed and on the offensive, Smith told The Columbus Dispatch. "If I don't agree, we'll do everything we can to battle it and go through the appeals process."

Don't worry Gene, you've already won. Sorry Mark, you didn't.

After all, actions, Mr. Emmert, speak louder than words.

Posted on: July 20, 2011 1:39 pm
Edited on: July 20, 2011 2:13 pm
 

NCAA still sniffing around Auburn

Posted by Tom Fornelli

As Auburn head coach Gene Chizik recently found out in Destin, Florida after a rather testy exchange with NCAA Vice President of Enforcement Julie Roe Lach, the NCAA's investigation into Auburn is not over. More specifically, Chizik will "know when we're finished, and we're not finished." Now according to a report from outkickthecoverage.com, we know that the NCAA was in Montgomery asking questions as recently as last month.

According to the report, NCAA investigator Jackie Thurnes was in Montgomery interviewing a businessman with ties to the school.

As part of the latest round of investigation in Montgomery, Thurnes conducted interviews with Montgomery businessmen with relationships to Auburn University. Reached for comment by outkickthecoverage.com multiple individuals who spoke with Thurnes declined comment. Those interviews dealt with the NCAA's continuing probe of Cam Newton, but also focused on allegations levied on HBO's Real Sports by former Auburn player Stanley McClover. McClover told HBO that he'd been paid to play football for Auburn. The NCAA investigating McClover's claims is interesting because typically the NCAA statute of limitations on collegiate wrongdoing is four years. McClover last played at Auburn in January of 2006, but the NCAA reserves the right to expand the statute of limitations if there is a connection or pattern of wrongdoing.

Here's our original story on Stanley McClover

One allegation that Thurnes is reportedly looking into has to do with the suit Cam Newton wore to the Heisman Trophy ceremony.

One such individual, Thomas Buckelew, a tailor at Buckelew's Clothing for Men in Montgomery, Alabama, finds himself buffeted by allegations that he provided high-priced suits to Cam Newton at reduced costs. The very suits, you guessed it, that Newton wore at the Heisman ceremony. According to sources, Newton's suits, ties included, cost in excess of $4,000 each. NCAA investigator Jackie Thurnes was informed of this allegation, and the NCAA has spent time investigating its validity.

Since providing the suits at a reduced rate, if proven, would constitute an improper benefit and hence an NCAA violation, the NCAA has to take each allegation seriously. Indeed, last week Georgia Tech's 2009 ACC title was stripped for a mere $312 in improper clothing benefits.

When contacted by outkickthecoverage.com Buckelew admitted that he knew Newton and had worked with him but then said he'd "rather not get into it" and that he hasn't talked to anyone with the NCAA about his relationship with Newton. Buckelew also went on to say that he hopes the attention on him continues because it's been "good for business."

Maybe for him, but should these allegations turn out to be true and the NCAA keeps looking around and finds more violations at Auburn, it won't be very good for business at Auburn. 

Posted on: July 13, 2011 8:32 pm
 

NCAA investigation of Auburn isn't over

Posted by Tom Fornelli

If you thought that the NCAA's investigation of Auburn and its recruitment of Cam Newton was over, then it seems you'd be wrong. At least, that's the impression NCAA Vice President of Enforcement Julie Roe Lach gave Auburn head coach Gene Chizik last month. That's when football and basketball coaches from the SEC were in Destin, Florida where Lach made a presentation to the group.

According to a report in the New York Times, after Lach opened up her presentation for discussion, Chizik had quite a few questions for her and then she dropped a bombshell on him.
[Chizik] peppered Roe Lach with a flurry of questions about the N.C.A.A.’s investigation into Cam Newton and why the N.C.A.A. had not publicly announced that the investigation was over. Chizik complained that the inquiry’s open-ended nature had hurt Auburn’s recruiting and he followed up at least three times, leading to a testy exchange.

“You’ll know when we’re finished,” Roe Lach told Chizik, according to several coaches who were at the meeting. “And we’re not finished.”
Well then!

While neither the NCAA or Auburn would confirm the exchange between Chizik and Roe Lach, according to the New York Times report, four fellow SEC basketball coaches -- Vanderbilt's Kevin Stallings, Arkansas' Mike Anderson, LSU's Trent Johnson and Ole Miss' Andy Kennedy -- did confirm the exchange to the paper.

Of course, just because the investigation isn't over, that doesn't mean the NCAA is going to find any new evidence than what it has already and use it to punish Auburn. Still, the fact that the NCAA is still digging around can't be all that comforting for Auburn faithful.


 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com