The story is repeated over and over in college athletics. A program grossly violates NCAA rules, oftentimes with clear involvement by the program's coach, the NCAA investigates, finds several instances of rule violations, and then punishes the school by taking away wins, reducing scholarships, eliminating postseason play for a period, reducing games the program is permitted to play in one season, etc. And the coach? Well, he just quits and gets a new job someplace else.
Take Pete Carroll, for instance.
Is it conceivable that Carroll was unaware that USC boosters and prospective NFL agents were paying Reggie Bush in violation of NCAA rules? That's very difficult to believe. And yet, Carroll walked away from USC before the NCAA's investigation could be completed and took an even higher paying job with the Seattle Seahawks. Pete Carroll won't be punished at all for the NCAA violations which occurred under his watch. The players who committed to USC, however, will- even if they had absolutely nothing to do with the violations which may have occurred years before any of them ever accepted a scholarship at USC.
Pete Carroll isn't alone in leaving a troubled program in anticipation of the program receiving NCAA sanctions. His USC basketball counterpart, Tim Floyd, did the same thing and now coaches at UTEP. In a delightful twist of irony, USC's current coach, Lane Kiffin, left Tennessee amid questions of recruiting violations only to take charge of a program guilty of more egregious charges.
This doesn't only occur with coaches related to USC. This is, and has been, an ongoing problem. The individuals closest to the players and the recruits are effectively exempt from any real penalty when violations involving the recruits or the players are discovered. Coach incentives need to be better aligned with university incentives if things are to improve. But how?
Sanction the coaches. While the NCAA's ability to sanction a coach is limited, it isn't non-existent either. First, the NCAA could impose licensing requirements for coaches of all sports. Universities would only be permitted to hire coaches who hold an NCAA coaching license. Part of the licensure requirements could include attending a class on NCAA rule compliance. If a university hired a non-licensed coach, the university could lose athletic scholarships, post-season opportunities, and more. No university would be so foolish. With that first level of control imposed, the NCAA could then define levels of violations which would result in termination or suspension of a coach's license, and violations which would put the coach on probation. A "Tier 1" violation, for example, could result in immediate termination of a license, and could involve activities such as direct payment from a coach to a player or demonstrated knowledge of an improper payment being made to a player. A "Tier 4" violation, on the other hand, could result in probation (with no action taken against the coach unless another violation occurs during the probation period), and could involve activities such as sending a text message to a recruit during the NCAA mandated quiet periods.
There are, of course, legal complexities with such a system. Most universities are government owned, so actions taken against an employee of the government would be subject to constitutional protections afforded the coach. Universities would also need to ensure that their employment contracts with the coaches all included a termination provision "for cause," and the definition of "for cause" would need to include termination or suspension of their coaching license (they wouldn't want to be caught with a contract requirement to continue paying a coach which was prohibited from coaching). The NCAA would need a formal hearing process to satisfy due process concerns for coaches under investigation. All this would take some thought, but it would be doable.
Eliminating a coach's ability to coach at the college level isn't a perfect answer. For coaches like Carroll, for example, the NFL is an even higher paying alternative which would remain available. While that option would continue to exist for many coaches who lose their coaching license, the "punishment" I describe would impact even those coaches in at least two ways. First, the coach would have to change jobs. This may not sound like much, but it would be embarrassing and likely unpleasant. Second, if a coach loses his license to coach in college, it should impact his earning potential in professional leagues as well (because now he has fewer employment options available and, therefore, artificially lower demand for his services).
If the NCAA wanted to add some type of financial punishment, it could consider imposing a fine on all individuals who have to reapply for a license after having their license revoked.
This wouldn't eliminate corruption in college athletics. It could, however, improve the current system and better ensure coaches have a vested interest in monitoring their programs and avoiding violations.
Check us out at http://www.thefourthbranch.com