Me neither. Here's what is important to keep in mind about this investigation, from top to bottom: we gave them the opportunity to look under our skirts, they've spent two years doing so, and they probably did not find anything major--despite that asinine, anyonymous proclomation a couple of years ago that if you threw a dart at the rule book, you'd hit a rule we broke.
Instead, they found four different categories of stuff that are all pretty minor:
- A bunch of penny ante stuff--administrivia type of infractions
- Things that seem unseemly on the surface [like this report], but for which they lack evidence to support that something actually happened that was an instance of rules breaking
- Minor procedural violations that required adjustment to the controls to ensure that they don't happen again, and for which we've already made those adjustments before the NCAA got involved
- Stuff that we self-reported that was fairly minor, but we still proactively addressed it
Their strategic approach is to take stuff from all four categories, that don't amount to a hill of beans individually, and paint the picture that the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts vis a vis lack of institutional control. In other words, throwing sh-t against the wall to see what sticks. SU has solid footing IMO to tell the NCAA to go pound salt if it comes to that, because it isn't difficult to envision most of this not holding up.
