Skip to main content

View Diary: How to hold college coaches accountable for NCAA rule violations (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Coaches should be held accountable . . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    burrow owl, walkshills, Tx LIberal

    but it will be hard to do.  You gave an example of a "Tier 1" violation as a direct payment from a coach to a player.  Those direct payments ended a long time ago.  The difficulty will be proving (beyond a resonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence) that the coach knew what was going on.  That can be next to impossible to do.

    •  Not easy, but better than status quo. (0+ / 0-)

      And direct payments haven't ended- at least according to reports Floyd paid OJ Mayo directly.

      http://www.thefourthbranch.com

      by thefourthbranch on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:12:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reports or evidence? (0+ / 0-)

         Was there any hard evidence Floyd paid the player?  Or is it just anonymous reports?  If he really paid the player, then he was an absolute idiot.  But then, that's one way criminals/cheaters get caught - they're not as smart as they think.

        •  You may have your doubts... (0+ / 0-)

          ...if you assume that Mr. Mayo (whose long-term goal was a career in professional basketball) would out of the goodness of his heart agree to play college basketball for the NBA's WORST COACH - EVER!

          •  That's still speculation . . . (0+ / 0-)

            I asked about PROOF that the coach actually gave money to the player, which is what you said there were reports of.  "Reports" could mean that people say it happened.  "Proof" would be receipts, recordings, confessions, etc.

            To argue, "Why else would he play for that coach?" could be answered in many ways other than "The coach himself handed him money."

      •  Problem is unequal enforcement (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nargel, Randall Sherman

        IMO, the NCAA is not even-handed when it comes to enforcement.  There are some schools that get heavy penalties and sanctions when others get only warnings because they've never been sanctioned before.  Thus there are some schools never get anything but a slap on the hand.
        The same can be said for coaches.  In the past, the NCAA has "gotten a hard on" for a particular coach and then they pursue him where ever he goes.  Any school he is at is subject to rumor and allegations that never seem to be proven.  Unless there is real proof of wrong-doing that kind of activity has to stop period.

        •  You are so right. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tx LIberal

          Case in point, the Tarkanian chase that started as a personal vendetta by an NCAA official long before Tark ever started at UNLV.  I guess that the fact that UNLV was an independent, non-aligned university at the time simply made them an easier target.  Seeing the whole process happen up close for years certainly dropped any scales, or tendencies towards them, from my eyes.  

          Torture is for the weak. After all, it is just extended wheedling.

          by nargel on Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 05:20:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with Augustine here. (3+ / 0-)

      Just as in modern corporate and political structures, there are layers of insulation that serve as barriers to proving any direct knowledge by the head coach.

      There is a type of probation I am aware of, one where an assistant coach who actually was the one directly breaking the rule to give players fake or set-up grades in cheezy courses: he was put on probation for a couple of years at the college level, having to report to NCAA every six months and barred from certain activities and player contacts (like recruiting).

      The school itself was charged with "loss of institutional control" which is a way of saying the head coach was responsible but somehow didn't directly know or was not directly linked to the infraction. This phrasing is common.

      The assistant coach in question dropped down to the high school ranks where there was no such required probationary period.

      Perhaps the licensing might work, but state regs vary a great deal, too. And the other catch is that the member schools are largely self-regulating; the NCAA has very few investigators to go after situations like this (six the last I heard but there may be more now) and just open investigations when problems are reported, usually long after the acts themselves. The situation with Bush was known in 2005, so it has taken five years to get to a point of decision.

      I agree that punishing incoming athletes is not fair or equitable...the idea is to punish the school for not enforcing the rules, for in the long run the institutions can benefit as much as the coach.

      If you sanctioned the college presidents it might be much more embarrassing.  

      The truth is we are tortured by the truth.

      by walkshills on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 11:16:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site