October 31, 2008

The Return of "Tough Love"

USA Today's Steve Weiberg brings an enlightening report that the NCAA infraction's committee is prepping to intensify penalties on rulebreakers in order quell grumblings that "it has been too soft" in recent years. With revenue purses reaching dizzying heights, coaching salaries larger than third world country GNPs and the enormous pressures which come with winning in the BCS era; the NCAA has continually invited grumblings of dubiety and mistrust from outside and within the organization that the time for the crime hasn't been strong enough to keep chicanery in check. The Division I Board of Directors chose to postpone immediate action on the recommendations brought forth by the Infractions Committee wanting more in depth discussion on the subject before making a decision.

Josephine Potuto, a Nebraska law professor who is the immediate past chairman of the infractions committee, will lay out the recommendations Thursday to the association's Division I Board of Directors, which meets in Indianapolis. Though NCAA rules already provide for many of the measures, Potuto said the panel is looking for a go-ahead to move more aggressively than it has in recent years.

"Increasingly, there were people on campus saying, 'There's no teeth here. Did they lose any scholarships? Were they taken out of the postseason? Were wins vacated? And if not, it couldn't have been a big case.' Ö Only certain penalties really signal seriousness to anybody."

Weiberg goes on to point out that "even in serious cases involving illicit extra benefits, recruiting and other competitive-edge violations, the punishment sometimes don't measure up to sanctions now in place for teams' academic deficiencies. Those start with scholarship cuts and escalate to recruiting and practice restrictions and ultimately postseason bans."

The framework of the NCAA's penalty levying process has morphed little in the last 23 years and has actually seen a trend of moving away from revenue and media exposure sanctioning in the BCS era.

Potuto is proposing a return to such punishments and is requesting a reprise of the more fire and brimstone actions brought against violators pre-BCS:

The prospective crackdown would subject offenders to:

- More bans on postseason appearances. Among other things, that would become a "presumptive" penalty in cases involving academic fraud and repeat violations.

Deservedly missing from the proposed disciplinary increases is a request for more consideration of the ever dreadful "Death Penalty" with it's stoppage of competition and practice sessions famously hammered to Southern Methodist football; the lone historical recipient in NCAA D1 athletics.

Potuto's comments leave no doubt that it is to be reserved for extreme situations of dire violations and institutional coverup:

"I know that, often, the media talk about the fact that the committee is not imposing it in cases that have been extremely egregious...But the thing that set SMU apart was the institutional effort by high-level administrators to hide the fact that they were committing violations and repeatedly hide it. In the cases at least over the time I've sat on the committee, we have not had that circumstance...It's still in there for the kind of case where there's not only a failure of institutional control but an unethical-conduct approach...But in other cases where there are really serious violations particularly if we ramp up the penalties now there are other ways to get at those violations without effectively shutting down a program."

Clearly, the SMU situation has encouraged schools to be more forthcoming and open when conducting their own internal investigations when accusations and/or incidents of impropriety have surfaced.

However, Weiberg points out that Potuto and her folks are seeking to put an end to lessening penalties simply because of cooperative measures made by institutions seeking to reduce their punishment by pointing to the fact that it is an "obligation of membership" in the NCAA.

"Schools have learned to come clean and cooperate in investigations, most anticipating it will help their case and ultimately minimize sanctions. Notably, Potuto's committee also is asking the NCAA board to eliminate that tack as a damage-control strategy.

A proposed rules change would stipulate: "Full and complete cooperation in investigations and in disclosure of violations is an obligation of membership and does not mitigate sanctions imposed on either institutions or their staff members." Failure to cooperate would represent an "independent violation."

Given that they shelved it for "in depth" discussion, it's obvious that it's going to be pretty tough to get the presidents and chancellors of BCS schools to ever okay bringing back a media ban of any type. The BCS money machine is simply to lucrative and the national exposure afforded by regular season television appearances is much to important for swinging votes from the human pollsters that make up two thirds of the BCS formula. Couple that with the chance at sending two conference teams to BCS bowl games and agreement for wider use of post season sanctioning appears it could be a stretch as well. Like wise for removing the easement of sanctions for cooperative measures due to obligation and priveledge of NCAA membership.

It's tough to slam the lid on the kid stealing cookies from the cookie jar when you've got your hand in there too.

However, I commend Potuto and her crew for bringing it to the table and getting into the open that there is a movement from within the NCAA to toughen up and begin handing out stiffer penalties that were used in the past but haven't been handed out in over ten years.

Posted by gatorhippy

Comments:

The Return of "Tough Love"
USA Today's Steve Weiberg brings an enlightening report that the NCAA infraction's committee is prepping to intensify penalties on rulebreakers in order quell grumblings that "it has been too soft" in recent years. With revenue purses reaching dizzying heights, coaching salaries larger than third world country GNPs and the enormous pressures which come with winning in the BCS era; the NCAA has continually invited grumblings of dubiety and mistrust from outside and within the organization that the time for the crime hasn't been strong enough to keep chicanery in check. The Division I Board of Directors chose to postpone immediate action on the recommendations brought forth by the Infractions Committee wanting more in depth discussion on the subject before making a decision. Josephine Potuto, a Nebraska law professor who is the immediate past chairman of the infractions committee, will lay out the recommendations Thursday to the association's Division I Board of Directors, which meets in Indianapolis. Though NCAA rules already provide for many of the measures, Potuto said the panel is looking for a go-ahead to move more aggressively than it has in recent years. "The committee feels that, over the years, the penalties really have gotten out of synch with the magnitude of violations," Potuto said Wednesday. "Increasingly, there were people on campus saying, 'There's no teeth here. Did they lose any scholarships? Were they taken out of the postseason? Were wins vacated? And if not, it couldn't have been a big case.' Ö Only certain penalties really signal seriousness to anybody." Weiberg goes on to point out that "even in serious cases involving illicit extra benefits, recruiting and other competitive-edge violations, the punishment sometimes don't measure up to sanctions now in place for teams' academic deficiencies. Those start with scholarship cuts and escalate to recruiting and practice restrictions and ultimately postseason bans." The framework of the NCAA's penalty levying process has morphed little in the last 23 years and has actually seen a trend of moving away from revenue and media exposure sanctioning in the BCS era. Potuto is proposing a return to such punishments and is requesting a reprise of the more fire and brimstone actions brought against violators pre-BCS: The prospective crackdown would subject offenders to: - The first bans on TV appearances in Division I since 1996. The restriction would extend to "all modes of video transmission," including video streaming and other internet appearances. - More scholarship cuts. Now limited to cases involving financial-aid violations, they would become "the norm" in all serious cases. - Fines, which the committee would assess sparingly but across a wider array of sports. They currently affect only basketball and programs forced to return shares of NCAA tournament revenue. - More bans on postseason appearances. Among other things, that would become a "presumptive" penalty in cases involving academic fraud and repeat violations. Deservedly missing from the proposed disciplinary increases is a request for more consideration of the ever dreadful "Death Penalty" with it's stoppage of competition and practice sessions famously hammered to Southern Methodist football; the lone historical recipient in NCAA D1 athletics. Potuto's comments leave no doubt that it is to be reserved for extreme situations of dire violations and institutional coverup: "I know that, often, the media talk about the fact that the committee is not imposing it in cases that have been extremely egregious...But the thing that set SMU apart was the institutional effort by high-level administrators to hide the fact that they were committing violations and repeatedly hide it. In the cases at least over the time I've sat on the committee, we have not had that circumstance...It's still in there for the kind of case where there's not only a failure of institutional control but an unethical-conduct approach...But in other cases where there are really serious violations particularly if we ramp up the penalties now there are other ways to get at those violations without effectively shutting down a program." Clearly, the SMU situation has encouraged schools to be more forthcoming and open when conducting their own internal investigations when accusations and/or incidents of impropriety have surfaced. However, Weiberg points out that Potuto and her folks are seeking to put an end to lessening penalties simply because of cooperative measures made by institutions seeking to reduce their punishment by pointing to the fact that it is an "obligation of membership" in the NCAA. "Schools have learned to come clean and cooperate in investigations, most anticipating it will help their case and ultimately minimize sanctions. Notably, Potuto's committee also is asking the NCAA board to eliminate that tack as a damage-control strategy. A proposed rules change would stipulate: "Full and complete cooperation in investigations and in disclosure of violations is an obligation of membership and does not mitigate sanctions imposed on either institutions or their staff members." Failure to cooperate would represent an "independent violation." Given that they shelved it for "in depth" discussion, it's obvious that it's going to be pretty tough to get the presidents and chancellors of BCS schools to ever okay bringing back a media ban of any type. The BCS money machine is simply to lucrative and the national exposure afforded by regular season television appearances is much to important for swinging votes from the human pollsters that make up two thirds of the BCS formula. Couple that with the chance at sending two conference teams to BCS bowl games and agreement for wider use of post season sanctioning appears it could be a stretch as well. Like wise for removing the easement of sanctions for cooperative measures due to obligation and priveledge of NCAA membership. It's tough to slam the lid on the kid stealing cookies from the cookie jar when you've got your hand in there too. However, I commend Potuto and her crew for bringing it to the table and getting into the open that there is a movement from within the NCAA to toughen up and begin handing out stiffer penalties that were used in the past but haven't been handed out in over ten years.