The Free Press published a Q&A-style follow-up on the Michigan practice-gate investigation.  Here’s a few of the items republished. 

First, on who can take part in the interviews with the players:

  • Who’s in the interview room?

Michigan compliance director Judy Van Horn, U-M’s outside counsel (Alabama-based lawyer Gene Marsh, or a colleague), and an NCAA investigator. A university lawyer also might be in attendance. Players can have someone accompany them to the interviews, including a lawyer.

On the anonymity of the players:

  • The Free Press report was based in large part on interviews with former and current players who spoke on condition of anonymity because they said they feared repercussions if they criticized the program. Will the NCAA allow people to speak anonymously?

Players are not granted anonymity in interviews. They are expected to cooperate and risk losing eligibility if they don’t, or are caught lying. It is routine for interviews to be recorded. But there are strict limitations on what information is eventually released to the public because of federal confidentiality laws protecting students.

As for former players, if they are still playing college football they, too, can be compelled to testify. The NCAA can’t compel the testimony of former players no longer playing college ball, though.

Former Michigan receiver Toney Clemons, who has transferred to Colorado, has said publicly that the allegations are true and he will tell that to the NCAA if he is interviewed. He has not returned Free Press calls on whether he has been contacted.

On the potential length of the whole thing:

  • How long will the probe take? Will the results be made public?

In 2004, the NCAA said the average time for cases to be resolved was 22 months. Typically, the NCAA releases no information on its investigations until the committee completes its findings. Sometimes schools, particularly public ones, release results of their internal investigations before the NCAA probe is complete.

Buckner said investigations had gotten a bit quicker in recent years.

"It can range from a year and a half to two years," he said. "That’s the average time."


  1. Interesting to note that the NCAA is participating in the interviews and the last excerpt suggests that we are talking about a full blown NCAA investigative process. I was under the impression that the investigation was launched by the school itself and had expected the school and outside counsel to conduct the interviews. I don’t know much about NCAA investigations and haven’t read the rest of the article (refuse to click through to FREEP) but do we know whether the NCAA’s participation is more of a courtesy so that there is full buy in to Michigan’s/independent counsel’s findings when presented or whether this is a sign that the NCAA are all over this?

  2. You know, I only clicked through the first couple of pages as this seems like a rehash of what’s already been said time and time again… which is why I didn’t feel like wasting the time to read the whole thing.

    Nevertheless it certainly plausible to say that Rosenberg has an agenda. What is the point of repeating one’s self ad nauseum instead of letting the investigation run its course? The investigation is going to take time, all investigations do. This smells badly of Rosenberg wanting to keep his expose in the limelight and not let Michigan’s 4 – 0 record eclipse all the “dirt” he dug up.

    Moreover, what the @$#! is up with the citation from the NCAA about ethical conduct in the sidebar. What reason on God’s green earth is there to put that there? I am unaware of any accusations of cover ups being levied against Michigan — to suggest such a thing is completely unrelated to the article. Both Martin (despise him) and RR (still forming an opinion) have said they will fully cooperate with the independent auditor and the NCAA. They have said this several times. Is there any credible evidence which suggests they are not fully cooperating? If not, this is nothing more than some muckraking on Rosenberg’s part.

    To plant any seeds of doubt, to suggest, to imply, hint, etc., that Michigan isn’t cooperating, in the absence of such data, is completely unethical on Rosenberg’s part… how ironic!