Tim Abromaitis Denied 6th Year

Donate To GopherHole
S

scher215

Active member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
6,609
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Didn't see this posted anywhere else and I know it isn't exactly Gophers related.

However, it did make me wonder how Mbakwe got one and Tim didn't? I am thrilled Trev is back and absolutley think he deserved it, but not sure how Tim then doesn't get one?

Tim sat out one redshirt year and then tore his ACL his senior year.

Mbakwe sat out one year due to legal issues (red shirt year) then tore his ACL his senior year.

Other than the fact Mbakwe had legal issues cause his red shirt vs. coaches/player decision there isn't much difference.

The NCAA must have been of the opinion that Mbakwe's legal issues were enough out of his control that he deserved another year and that Abromaitis' red shirt year was not out of his control so he did not deserve the 6th year. Just found it interesting that his was denied.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._tim-abromaitis-irish-hope-cameron-biedscheid
 

Also was surprised. I figured if Mbakwe was granted a sixth year, Abro would be, too.

Tough break for Notre Dame, but it sure seems like Scott Martin should get a 6th year.
 

scher215 said:
However, it did make me wonder how Mbakwe got one and Tim didn't? I am thrilled Trev is back and absolutley think he deserved it, but not sure how Tim then doesn't get one?

Tim sat out one redshirt year and then tore his ACL his senior year.

Mbakwe sat out one year due to legal issues (red shirt year) then tore his ACL his senior year.

Other than the fact Mbakwe had legal issues cause his red shirt vs. coaches/player decision there isn't much difference.
Click to expand...

Neither student-athlete circumstances fit the criteria to get a Five-Year Waiver; however, the Committee can review requests for an additional year for "circumstances of extraordinary or extreme hardship".

My read was that neither were likely to get an additional year, with Mbakwe having less than a 2% chance (as some love to point out) and TA having a little bit better chance.

Unfortunately, the Committee doesn't go into detail about their decisions and so we don't know the arguments from the University and thoughts by the Committee.

If you think about Mbakwe's situation, he would have had a compelling case if the story was that the U held him out for the betterment of the student-athlete because he was falsely accused in a case of mistaken identity and eventually the charges were dropped and he was never found guilty.

If those were the facts, I could certainly see the Committee saying, "poor guy, good choice by the school, we should give him an additional year".

However, the facts are that the school later played him (in 2011-12) with the charges still pending and in February 2012 he was found guilty in a court of law of the second-degree felony charges.

If the U did not provide the NCAA with the facts of the case (i.e., he was ultimately found guilty of the charge he was held out for), then I can certainly see the NCAA awarding an additional year. My thought is that the facts would come out in the Committee's review process, but they very well may not have. If they didn't, it's not that hard to imagine the additional year being granted.
 

1) The NCAA is not like a court that is bound by "precedent," leading to the expectation that similar facts will always lead to the same results. They might strive to be to some respect, but NCAA decisions are much more ad hoc.

2) There is cronyism in the NCAA and in this case it probably worked to Trevor's advantage, as Tubby is highly respected within NCAA circles (for a number of reasons, including his work as President of the coach's association, his foundation work, his perceived emphasis on academics and character, etc.) I'm not saying they granted it "because of" Tubby, but there is a certain amount of benefit of the doubt that can be given.

3) I sincerely doubt the legal aspect of Trevor's argument was presented the way GW describes it, as there is a much more charitable way it could be described, while still being accurate. We've been through it on this board ad nauseum. You can honestly describe Trevor's situation as a plea in which he simply took the deal that his lawyer advised (and any reasonable person would take, given the costs, time, etc. involved with continuing to fight), did not admit guilt, still maintains he was not guilty, etc. The "guilty" label, or whatever, in the FL system is NOT the same as a conviction, and that's why he took the deal. The U played him the next year bc by that point, holding him out another year would have resulted in him losing a year of eligibility whereas the prior year would not (confirmed by the committee's decision). It is a reasonable explanation.

4) Don't know about Abromaitis, but one way the NCAA could reason is that if they gave a 6th year simply bc of 1 voluntary redshirt year + 1 injury partial year, they'd be giving 6th years all the time. In theory, part of the "bargain" of redshirting voluntarily is that when it comes to eligibility, you're giving up your safety net if you get hurt in a subsequent year (safety net meaning, could take that as your RS year).
 

As I said from before any ruling was issued, I felt the NCAA would show Trevor sympathy for the year he missed his freshman year. While technically, that year counts as a year burned, I believe when you look at the entire set of circumstances, the NCAA had to have sympathy for him only playing 8 games in one year, 6 games in another year, and missing an entire season in a third year. That is why I believed all along that they would look more favorably at Trevor's case than most thought they would.

That's a major distinction from the ND's kid situation. Trevor missed all or parts of three years. Abromaitis only two years.
 


Gopher Warrior said:
the facts are that the school later played him (in 2011-12) with the charges still pending and in February 2012 he was found guilty in a court of law of the second-degree felony charges.
Click to expand...

You KEEP saying that, as if one day Joel Maturi simply woke up and said, "ok let's play Trevor now even though nothing has changed." Clearly, things changed, and, in turn, so did Trevor's playing status. The court of law in Florida set into motion a set of circumstances that would eventually lead to charges being dismissed. Upon that news, the U lifted the suspension. I'm fairly certain the NCAA heard that version, also was filled in on the Facebook mistake, and was probably still informed that Trevors "guilt" in this case was mostly a risk management legal defense tactic to make sure Trevor stayed out of jail.
 

tjgopher said:
You KEEP saying that, as if one day Joel Maturi simply woke up and said, "ok let's play Trevor now even though nothing has changed." Clearly, things changed, and, in turn, so did Trevor's playing status. The court of law in Florida set into motion a set of circumstances that would eventually lead to charges being dismissed. Upon that news, the U lifted the suspension.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is all correct with the exception of "would eventually" should be "would have eventually had he not gotten arrested during the six-month probationary period". But that's ignoring what transpired after the lifting of the suspension.

tjgopher said:
I'm fairly certain the NCAA heard that version, also was filled in on the Facebook mistake, and was probably still informed that Trevors "guilt" in this case was mostly a risk management legal defense tactic to make sure Trevor stayed out of jail.
Click to expand...

"Fairly certain"? "Probably still informed?" Those are the unresolved questions. Why all the quotations around "guilt"? The court found him guilty of a second degree felony assault. That's factual. I'm just saying that if the Committee knew that, I would think there would have been a very slim chance of them granting an additional year... and that a possibility is that the Committee didn't know he was found guilty. If they didn't know, then it's easier to understand why Mbakwe would get another year, but Abro didn't.
 





From the Barn said:
A GW Mbakwe rampage. Original and unexpected.
Click to expand...

It's not a rampage, just trying to explore what answers to the OP's question may be. A rampage would be more like what you said in 2009:


fromthebarn.org said:
The unpleasant details clearly show that if the allegations are true, Mbakwe belongs as far from the basketball team, and society as a whole as possible.

Are the allegations true though? Who knows? This is why we have a legal system after all.
Click to expand...

Then, when someone posted a comment that you should drop it, you defiantly proclaimed:

fromthebarn.org said:
If there is news, I won’t drop it. Like it or not, a highly touted recruit was arrested and charged with a felony. It is news, it is Gopher basketball related news, and it is going to show up on a Gopher basketball blog.
Click to expand...

Well, the legal system has found him guilty of the felony charge. Sounds like you have flip-flopped on your stance.
 

Still chasing 16 year old girls at high school basketball games?

And by the way, I don't think he did it. So no flip-flopping.
 

From the Barn said:
And by the way, I don't think he did it. So no flip-flopping.
Click to expand...

Definitely flip-flopping. You left it to the legal system to decide guilt or innocence in 2009.

From the Barn said:
Are the allegations true though? Who knows? This is why we have a legal system after all.
Click to expand...

The legal system says guilty. You say the legal system got it wrong. Maybe they did - happens often. Nonetheless, you've changed your tune ("the legal system will give me the answer..."... to "the legal system got it wrong").
 

That was before the legal system mangled the case and he plead no contest to make it go away. At the time I expected a competent defense and a competent prosecution. I was wrong about that.

Too bad you can't get out of your Mbakwe obsession vortex.
 



Gopher Warrior said:
Definitely flip-flopping. You left it to the legal system to decide guilt or innocence in 2009.

The legal system says guilty. You say the legal system got it wrong. Maybe they did - happens often. Nonetheless, you've changed your tune ("the legal system will give me the answer..."... to "the legal system got it wrong").
Click to expand...

You like to ignore the fact that the legal system did not convict him. Of course that means things aren't as black and white as you like to make them. It's understandable though, your brain can't quite comprehend that type of conclusion.
 

I used to think "Art" was the most annoying poster on this site, but I think gW has long since surpassed him. Why isn't he spending his time on Marquette basketball forums where he belongs? He is definitely not a Gopher fan.
 

Gold Vision said:
You like to ignore the fact that the legal system did not convict him. Of course that means things aren't as black and white as you like to make them. It's understandable though, your brain can't quite comprehend that type of conclusion.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite - I understand why.

What is clear is that the court found him guilty of a second degree felony. That's fine if most people don't care, think what you will - I'm simply saying that I thought if the Committee had that information, they would not award an additional year. Without that information, the case for another year actually sounds reasonable and helps to explain why perhaps the U's player has another year, but the Domers' guy does not.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Quite the opposite - I understand why.

What is clear is that the court found him guilty of a second degree felony. That's fine if most people don't care, think what you will - I'm simply saying that I thought if the Committee had that information, they would not award an additional year. Without that information, the case for another year actually sounds reasonable and helps to explain why perhaps the U's player has another year, but the Domers' guy does not.
Click to expand...

He was found guilty because Mbakwe entered a plea of no contest. How would you answer the following:

1. Would Mbakwe have pled no contest if there was a chance he would have been convicted?

2. If the court thought that Mbakwe had indeed committed the felony, would they have withheld adjudication?
 


scher215 said:
Didn't see this posted anywhere else and I know it isn't exactly Gophers related.

However, it did make me wonder how Mbakwe got one and Tim didn't? I am thrilled Trev is back and absolutley think he deserved it, but not sure how Tim then doesn't get one?

Tim sat out one redshirt year and then tore his ACL his senior year.

Mbakwe sat out one year due to legal issues (red shirt year) then tore his ACL his senior year.

Other than the fact Mbakwe had legal issues cause his red shirt vs. coaches/player decision there isn't much difference.

The NCAA must have been of the opinion that Mbakwe's legal issues were enough out of his control that he deserved another year and that Abromaitis' red shirt year was not out of his control so he did not deserve the 6th year. Just found it interesting that his was denied.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._tim-abromaitis-irish-hope-cameron-biedscheid
Click to expand...

You're asking about an NCAA decision?

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
 

Look, the point is that I believe if the Committee knew he had been found guilty, it would have been very unlikely that an additional year would have been granted. That may have happened, but it seems unlikely. That’s all.

Gold Vision said:
He was found guilty because Mbakwe entered a plea of no contest. How would you answer the following:

1. Would Mbakwe have pled no contest if there was a chance he would have been convicted?

2. If the court thought that Mbakwe had indeed committed the felony, would they have withheld adjudication?
Click to expand...

No, he was found guilty because there was probable cause for his arrest, there was reason enough to make the County bring forth charges in court, the judge found probable cause to support the criminal charges, etc. Being found guilty was the culmination of many events.

1) I don’t know.
2) Certainly. Withholds of adjudication are a normal practice in Florida. Are you suggesting that in all of these cases the courts believe that their very own finding of guilt is wrong?
 

GW, dude, give it up, at this point there's nothing more to say. He was found guilty, he got a 6th year, those are the historical facts, let's talk some hoops dude.

Everyone - please stop poking the bear on this one. Let's instead find some junior high kids to find which ones we should offer ASAP.
 

Juicer said:
GW, dude, give it up, at this point there's nothing more to say. He was found guilty, he got a 6th year, those are the historical facts, let's talk some hoops dude.
Click to expand...

Amen! Conclusion: Often can't tell WTH the NCAA is thinking, but Gophers are better on the court w/Mbakwe out there. Bummer for ND.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Look, the point is that I believe if the Committee knew he had been found guilty, it would have been very unlikely that an additional year would have been granted. That may have happened, but it seems unlikely. That’s all.

No, he was found guilty because there was probable cause for his arrest, there was reason enough to make the County bring forth charges in court, the judge found probable cause to support the criminal charges, etc. Being found guilty was the culmination of many events.

1) I don’t know.
2) Certainly. Withholds of adjudication are a normal practice in Florida. Are you suggesting that in all of these cases the courts believe that their very own finding of guilt is wrong?
Click to expand...

IMO, I think the committee knew he was found "guilty" (I only put it into quotes because it wasn't by a jury and he saw no major punishment) but they (right or wrong) don't view him as guilty. They saw it a case dragged on for years, was a shaky case to begin with, he'd already entered the "not admitting guilt" program, and they viewed it more as him saying, "eff it, call me what u want to Miami Dade County I am just done with this" as opposed to Trevor saying, "I am finally coming clean that i did it and want to plea no contest"

I think they sympathized with him and that he was "forced" to be guilty as opposed to him actually admitting guilt and saying he did it.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Look, the point is that I believe if the Committee knew he had been found guilty, it would have been very unlikely that an additional year would have been granted. That may have happened, but it seems unlikely. That’s all.



No, he was found guilty because there was probable cause for his arrest, there was reason enough to make the County bring forth charges in court, the judge found probable cause to support the criminal charges, etc. Being found guilty was the culmination of many events.

1) I don’t know.
2) Certainly. Withholds of adjudication are a normal practice in Florida. Are you suggesting that in all of these cases the courts believe that their very own finding of guilt is wrong?
Click to expand...

That's complete BS. A not guilty verdict by the court would have the same events leading up to that decision (i.e. the arrest and charges). In fact, they did not originally bring charges and placed Mbakwe in the pre-trial intervention program. Had he not been a dumb ass and violate the restraining order, there would have been no trial.

1. There is a 2% chance that he would have pled no contest knowing that he would be convicted.
2. Withholds of adjudication are not common in cut and dry felony aggravated battery cases.

The point is the you have no idea what was presented to the NCAA committee, they could vary well been aware that the court found him guilty. I can understand how a rational committee could come to the decision to grant a 6th year despite Mbakwe being found guilty. They would be able to look at the situations preceding being found guilty, and the resolution. I can see how someone like you gets caught up in those type of details though. I don't envy that.
 


Gopher Warrior said:
Look, the point is that I believe if the Committee knew he had been found guilty, it would have been very unlikely that an additional year would have been granted. That may have happened, but it seems unlikely. That’s all.
Click to expand...

I find it implausible that the university would submit their application to the NCAA without providing every detail of what happened in Florida and the disposition of the case in court. They're simply expected to tell the whole truth. Equally unlikely that the NCAA wouldn't check it out.


Gopher Warrior said:
No, he was found guilty because there was probable cause for his arrest, there was reason enough to make the County bring forth charges in court, the judge found probable cause to support the criminal charges, etc. Being found guilty was the culmination of many events.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that Trevor worked out an agreement with the prosecution that Trevor would plead "no contest" in return for a lessened sentence. I don't know anything about the law in Florida, but in the state where I live there are good and valid reasons why an INNOCENT person would plead "no contest." Typically it may have to do with the high cost of presenting a good defense as compared to the cost of the lessened sentence.

The defendant is then almost invariably found guilty by the judge simply because the prosecution has presented a case and the defense has not.

One other benefit accruing to the defendant who pleads no contest is that if the plaintiff chooses to file suit for damages in civil court, he/she cannot claim the defendant was guilty of committing a crime. In this case the plaintiff would have to prove Trevor assaulted her.

I would presume the attorneys at the U of M and at the NCAA would all know about the ramifications of a "no contest" plea and the real possibility that the accused was innocent all along.
 

BOX!

Calgoph said:
I find it implausible that the university would submit their application to the NCAA without providing every detail of what happened in Florida and the disposition of the case in court. They're simply expected to tell the whole truth. Equally unlikely that the NCAA wouldn't check it out.

It is my understanding that Trevor worked out an agreement with the prosecution that Trevor would plead "no contest" in return for a lessened sentence. I don't know anything about the law in Florida, but in the state where I live there are good and valid reasons why an INNOCENT person would plead "no contest." Typically it may have to do with the high cost of presenting a good defense as compared to the cost of the lessened sentence.

The defendant is then almost invariably found guilty by the judge simply because the prosecution has presented a case and the defense has not.

One other benefit accruing to the defendant who pleads no contest is that if the plaintiff chooses to file suit for damages in civil court, he/she cannot claim the defendant was guilty of committing a crime. In this case the plaintiff would have to prove Trevor assaulted her.

I would presume the attorneys at the U of M and at the NCAA would all know about the ramifications of a "no contest" plea and the real possibility that the accused was innocent all along.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 

Does anyone really believe that the NCAA didn't know about how the case in Florida was resolved? His legal issues were the only reason he missed a year. Kind of a big reason for his appeal. Maybe they didn't know he tore his ACL last year. Maybe they just flipped a coin to decide on his 6th year. Maybe the NCAA committee likes the name Trevor and they dont like the name Tim.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Look, the point is that I believe if the Committee knew he had been found guilty, it would have been very unlikely that an additional year would have been granted. That may have happened, but it seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

Why does it seem unlikely? You honestly think the NCAA committee looking into this and ruling on this had no idea what the end result of Trevor's case in Florida was? Seriously? You think they would just rule on it without knowing all of the details? The chances of them not knowing he was "guilty" are near zero. The simple thing you can't seem to grasp is the NCAA ruling committee is not a court of law. They are able to look at the circumstances and rule independently. I'm not sure why you are so caught up in the "guilty" aspect of this. You realize it was a simple defense attorney's strategy, right? Trevor never admitted guilt and was never convicted. That, to me, is a key aspect that the NCAA almost certainly heard. That is why it isn't far fetched to think they knew about the outcome of the case and still granted Trevor the additional year.

Almost certainly, the committee was presented with all of the circumstantial and procedural things that went along with this case that make it far from a typical "found guilty in the court of law" situation. They certainly were informed that the case was flimsy enough to never be tried inside of a court room. That the case dragged on for nearly three years, one of which Trevor was suspended waiting through the process to proceed. They likely heard that the prosecution lacked enough confidence in the case that it allowed for it to essentially be dropped at one point and would have been eventually dropped if not for the Facebook mistake. They likely were informed that the judge went against the prosecution's request for a straight up guilty plea and chose a no contest plea instead, which resulted in no admission of guilt and no conviction on his record. And, yes, they almost certainly knew the fact that he was technically found guilty. The committee then likely concluded that the year Trevor lost while on suspension for all of this was a situation that was out of his control. Basically, it came down to this: Does a guy who missed one certified year with injury, a second uncertified year for injury, and a third year of eligibility while serving a suspension for a crime he was never convicted of and only found guilty of in a technical sense as a legal defense tactic have a hardship case? Basically, the NCAA said yes.

Frankly, I never thought Trevor's case was as bleak as you always made it out to be and thought there was a chance he would get the year based on all of those things (all the while knowing he was found "guilty.") You missed the boat on it. But, then again, you're a Marquette fan who has a clear bias against Mbakwe, so no one should be surprised by that.
 

tjgopher said:
Why does it seem unlikely? You honestly think the NCAA committee looking into this and ruling on this had no idea what the end result of Trevor's case in Florida was? Seriously? You think they would just rule on it without knowing all of the details? The chances of them not knowing he was "guilty" are near zero. The simple thing you can't seem to grasp is the NCAA ruling committee is not a court of law. They are able to look at the circumstances and rule independently. I'm not sure why you are so caught up in the "guilty" aspect of this. You realize it was a simple defense attorney's strategy, right? Trevor never admitted guilt and was never convicted. That, to me, is a key aspect that the NCAA almost certainly heard. That is why it isn't far fetched to think they knew about the outcome of the case and still granted Trevor the additional year.

Almost certainly, the committee was presented with all of the circumstantial and procedural things that went along with this case that make it far from a typical "found guilty in the court of law" situation. They certainly were informed that the case was flimsy enough to never be tried inside of a court room. That the case dragged on for nearly three years, one of which Trevor was suspended waiting through the process to proceed. They likely heard that the prosecution lacked enough confidence in the case that it allowed for it to essentially be dropped at one point and would have been eventually dropped if not for the Facebook mistake. They likely were informed that the judge went against the prosecution's request for a straight up guilty plea and chose a no contest plea instead, which resulted in no admission of guilt and no conviction on his record. And, yes, they almost certainly knew the fact that he was technically found guilty. The committee then likely concluded that the year Trevor lost while on suspension for all of this was a situation that was out of his control. Basically, it came down to this: Does a guy who missed one certified year with injury, a second uncertified year for injury, and a third year of eligibility while serving a suspension for a crime he was never convicted of and only found guilty of in a technical sense as a legal defense tactic have a hardship case? Basically, the NCAA said yes.

Frankly, I never thought Trevor's case was as bleak as you always made it out to be and thought there was a chance he would get the year based on all of those things (all the while knowing he was found "guilty.") You missed the boat on it. But, then again, you're a Marquette fan who has a clear bias against Mbakwe, so no one should be surprised by that.
Click to expand...

Rectum? Damn near killed him!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom