You are here: Home / 2010 / Archives for December 2010

On Consistency

December 31, 2010 by

Consistency. It’s the current buzzword regarding how the NCAA regulates college athletics. All anyone wants is consistency in the NCAA’s decisions.

Let’s ignore for a moment that consistency can easily be used as a substitute for “do what I want you to do.” Someone takes two decisions with different outcomes, and demands consistency, but often suggesting one is right and the other is incorrect. If consistency was most important, either decision could be “correct” as long as both are the same.

But consistency can mean many things. A simple demand of the NCAA to be more consistent is no different then simply demanding that the NCAA “do better” with no other direction. So let’s refine our demands for consistency.

The most important consistency is consistency with the rules
Decisions should be based on rules and processes. If your options are to have two similar decisions or have two decisions that are based in the rules, the latter is always better. That means technicalities happen. That means that different rules produce different outcomes even from seemingly (but not quite) similar situations.

Take the recently announced Ohio State suspensions, derided as inconsistent. Say what you will about the decision, but the NCAA followed its own rules:

  • The student-athletes were given withholding conditions in line with the reinstatement guidelines;
  • Some student-athletes were given additional withholdings based on a published bylaw;
  • And the student-athletes met the requirements in a policies and procedures manual to have the withholdings delayed.

If you disagree with the process that produced that decision, that’s fair. But that doesn’t mean the process should be abandoned in a given case to reach the desired result.

The second most important consistency is consistency across facts
Assuming the processes are followed, we would like to know that similar situations produce similar results. The exact same situation should always produce the exact same result under the rule above. But the more similar two sets of facts are, the more similar the decisions should be.

Consider Enes Kanter and Josh Selby. The cases are similar because the two took impermissible benefits or compensation prior to enrolling in college. But there’s also two differences in the cases:

  • The source of the benefit; and
  • The amount of the benefit.

If you agree that the NCAA should follow their own rules, those rules state that those two differences matter. We can debate how much they should matter, if at all. But because the facts are different in some material way (according to the current rules), different decisions in the two cases would not necessarily be inconsistent.

The third most important consistency is consistency with morality
Which is worse behavior? A father attempting but failing to secure hundreds of thousands of dollars for his son to attend a specific school? Or a coach mistakenly providing money to someone with influence over a prospect? The NCAA regulations said the latter. Public opinion appears to be the former.

Prior to this year, that would have been a great theoretical debate. Now it’s two actual decisions that lead (or didn’t) to actual penalties.

Here’s where the greatest criticism of the NCAA regulations can be levied. Behavior that appears in some cases to not be “as bad” leads to more penalties than behavior that appears to be “worse”.

I’m not confirming some big conspiracy theory though. That’s a common result of trying to corral as many consituencies over as many years as the NCAA regulations have been growing. As someone who participates in the NCAA’s legislative process, I’m as frustrated as anyone else when we deregulate part of one area but not the entire concept. Or increase regulation in one area but deregulate in what appears to be a similar area.

But the NCAA membership cannot fix these problems by adopting this bylaw:

Bylaw 4.01.1.1 – No Conspiracies
The Association shall not operate in a manner that appears to be similar to a cartel, cabal, or other shadowy organization (Adopted: 12/30/10)

The idea of a sort of constitutional convention has merit. It would be a lot more productive but a lot less exciting than an inquisition.

Consistency doesn’t equal perfection
Any sort of system of regulation that seeks to produce decisions that are consistent with its rules and based on facts is going to get it wrong sometimes. If the attitude is “student-athlete friendly,” some wrongdoers are going to get off easy. If the goal is to clean up a sport or area of the rules, someone who just made a mistake might get caught on a technicality.

Whether the NCAA membership goes to one extreme or the other or somewhere in the middle, there’s a trade-off. We can’t have blanket rules without the blanket covering people it shouldn’t. And we can’t have a million exceptions without creating loopholes for ne’er-do-wells.

The charge is that far from being perfect, the NCAA is more often than not wrong. This year at least, that judgment is being made based on comparing the same set of five or six cases over and over against each other. But since August 1, 2010, the NCAA has issued over 1500 decisions in secondary violation and/or student-athlete reinstatement cases.

It’s a combination of small sample size and what’s available to be compared. The cases that get talked about are unusual or controversial decisions in two of the NCAA’s 30+ sports. Assuming the other 1490-odd cases are “right,” the attention and the difficulties are all focused on the same place: at the margins. This isn’t a fundamental failure of the NCAA model. It’s a debate about how to handle the most difficult and exceptional cases.

Say what you mean
The truest thing to say about consistency in the NCAA is that there’s more consistency in the decisions than people think and less consistency in the rules than anyone would say is ideal. But as long as the criticism is vague demands for “consistency” or “fairness”, it’s hard for any change to occur.

If your demand is for more consistency, narrow it down. Does the NCAA not follow its own rules? Are the rules focused on the wrong priorities? Is the enforcement/reinstatement process not good enough at determining relevant facts? Those are all things that can be improved, measures that can be used to determine success or failure. A simple demand for “consistency” isn’t likely to lead to anything.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

Six New Rules for the New Year

December 28, 2010 by

ESPN the Magazine’s “New Year, New Rules” piece is a great read for anyone interested in how sports are regulated, on or off the field. Amazingly there was not a single NCAA regulation in the list. Considering the goal of a magazine is to sell issues and nothing about rules in sports gathers eyeballs as fast as the NCAA, it seems like a bit of an oversight.

It’s not like big ideas weren’t part of the story, which included a proposal to play the World Cup every three years. And it’s not like minor tweaks were overlooked either, like the idea to literally draw a line in the sand on pickoff moves.

So to make up for it, here’s six tweaks that could have outsized impact on how college athletics are played. One each for Bylaws 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, and 17. Most are obscure, most are relatively minor tweaks, and none of these proposals are currently active in the legislative cycle.

Bylaw 11 (Athletics Personnel) – Give Basketball a Volunteer
Every sport except for men’s and women’s basketball can employ a volunteer coach. Volunteer coaches are just like regular coaches except they cannot recruit off-campus and cannot be paid by the athletic department. It was long thought that a volunteer coach would be a farce in basketball, since they could easily make a decent salary on camps alone.

But with expanding noncoaching staffs, it’s clear that keeping a volunteer away from basketball hasn’t contained costs at all. So instead of simply taking away the armies of not-quite coaches, replace them with someone who must be focused just on teaching and who doesn’t (directly at least) cost the university money.

Bylaw 12 (Amateurism) – Prize Money Year-Round
A rule change last year allows athletes in individual sports like tennis to accept prize money without jeopardizing their eligibility, provided the prize money was less than expenses. But there’s one additional caveat: it can only happen during the summer.

If accepting prize money less than expenses is ok, why is it ok during the summer only? Allow student-athletes to accept prize money to cover costs of outside competition year-round. There would still be all the normal limits on outside competition (vacation periods only, during the offseason, etc.).

Bylaw 13 (Recruiting) – Grades Before Money
Few people would argue that Division II is more highly regulated than Division I. But Division II requires at least one thing Division I doesn’t: a prospect has to provide a transcript before a grant-in-aid agreement or NLI can be sent.

Division I should require the same thing and up the ante by requiring a test score. It addresses directly what the oversigning limit in football (more on that below) takes an end around at: encouraging coaches to take academics into account in the recruiting process.

Bylaw 14 (Eligibility) – Get to the Heart of APR
The transfer exception for the APR has only been around since 2008, but it has caused the NCAA a heap of trouble. Supporters of the APR (myself include) point out how it much easier it is for a school to meet the minimums. Critics of the APR (i.e. basketball coaches) see it as a stepping stone to avoiding responsibility for retaining student-athletes altogether.

If the transfer exception is going to stick around, make sure it gets to the heart of what the retention point is focused on: losing credit due to transfer. Remove the 2.600 GPA requirement and replace it with one that requires the student-athlete to retain enough credit to be academically eligible at the new institution, remaining on the mandated five-year graduation track.

Bylaw 15 & 16 (Financial Aid & Benefits) – Requirements for Reductions/Nonrenewals

Oversigning and running off student-athletes are getting more and more attention. Oversigning limits have been the first response, but either haven’t gotten traction or aren’t real oversigning limits.

Instead of focusing on the recruits coming in, focus on the student-athletes going out. Right now, a grant-in-aid can be nonrenewed or reduced between academic years for any reason. Establish limits like the limits between terms or extend California’s financial aid disclosures to the entire country.

Bylaw 17 (Playing and Practice Seasons) – All the Skill Instruction You Can Eat
During the offseason, student-athletes are limited to eight hours of practice per week. But there’s a second limit: only two hours of skill instruction is allowed. That means only two hours with bats, balls, sticks, and goals. Not to mention that during the beginning and end of an academic year, only four student-athletes can be involved in skill instruction at once.

Let’s give coaches eight hours per week and let them slice it and dice it however they want. As long as they keep giving two days off as well.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With:

Week in review: Dec. 19-22

December 23, 2010 by

One of those “records that would never be broken” was broken this week, highlighting news for Dec. 19-22:

Hail to the Huskies: The Connecticut women’s basketball team won its 89th consecutive game Tuesday, breaking the major-college win streak set by the UCLA men’s team in the 1970s. The UConn accomplishment clearly ranks among the greatest achievements in college sports history, but the moment took an awkward turn when it morphed into a debate about whether women’s sports accomplishments can be appropriately compared to men’s.

Can we no longer simply enjoy something for what it is?

Apparently not.

UConn women own the longest streak (New York Times)

Celebrate milestones based on accomplishment, not gender (The Huffington Post)

UConn streak is telling, and not in a good way (Gregg Doyel, CBSSports.com)

Women’s basketball gets more coverage − and funding − than market warrants [David Jones, The Patriot-News (central Pennsylvania)]

Legends, Leaders … or maybe something else. After a prominent announcement that the divisions in the revamped Big Ten Conference would be known as the Legends and the Leaders, Commissioner Jim Delany acknowledged a public relations challenge and said he would revisit the choice in a few months.

Names of Big Ten’s new football divisions are criticized (New York Times)

FanHouse study: Institutional drug policies vary widely. FanHouse conducted a thorough study of the variances in institutional drug-testing policies at major college athletics programs. It also followed up on what lessons might be learned from a recent drug scandal at the University of Waterloo in Canada.

This point is treated in the stories, but NCAA drug testing differs from institutional drug testing. The penalties for failing NCAA in-season and championships tests are uniform. However, each school is free to determine how to deal with an athlete who fails an institutional test.

FanHouse Report: BCS football program drug policies revealed (FanHouse)

Canadian steroid scandal raises questions − Is it happening in the States? (FanHouse)

Crime and punishment in college ball (ESPN, Bruce Feldman)

Calipari courts the courts. Kentucky men’s basketball coach John Calipari went several steps beyond hinting that Enes Kanter should consider suing the NCAA over its November eligibility finding. The next night, Calipari distanced himself (a bit) from his own remarks.

John Calipari hints at Enes Kanter lawsuit (ESPN)

Cal distances himself from talk of Kanter suing NCAA (Lexington Herald-Leader)

The $15 million kick: The New York Times is producing a lot of quality sportswriting these days. This week, writer John Branch provided excellent insight in to the economics of postseason football – and the huge ramifications of one missed 26-yard field goal.

With $8 million on the line, it is more than just a game (New York Times)

Secondary violation, primary concern. The NCAA’s one-game suspension of Michigan State basketball coach Tom Izzo was big news.

First things first: Izzo himself didn’t like the decision.

Frustrated Izzo returns from suspension (The Associated Press)

Michigan State’s Tom Izzo ‘ticked off’ after suspension over secondary NCAA violation (Grand Rapids Press)

While writers generally defended Izzo and seemed to believe the NCAA made an example out of him, some of them held a broader sentiment that the tool of suspension might be a good idea, even if the application needs to be refined.

NCAA makes example out of Izzo (Seth Davis, Sports Illustrated)

Solomon: NCAA hopes suspending coaches will curb secondary violations (Jon Solomon, Birmingham News)

Izzo ban might be harsh, but such is life these days (Kyle Nagel, Dayton Daily News)

Pay for play? The answer is still no. Here’s one last interview from last week’s meeting between NCAA President Mark Emmert and several invited reporters.

Although Emmert has been peppered repeatedly with questions about compensating student-athletes in the wake of the Cam Newton matter, he has consistently stated that pay-for-play is not on his agenda. Here’s what he told Bryan Burwell of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Burwell: “Considering college sports has turned into a multi-billion-dollar industry, do you ever see a time where the student-athletes will receive some sort of legal pay for their services?”

Emmert: “We can never move to a place where we are paying players to play sports for us. … There are 14 schools in the U.S. that broke even in their athletic programs last year. Every other one of them put significant to dramatic amounts of money into their sports programs to support their student-athletes. That young man or woman you’re talking about was able to gain benefit from the best coaching staff, the best facilities, the best trainers, the best educational environment anybody can get anywhere in the world. OK, so the university generates some revenue to help support that effort. I don’t have a problem with that.”

NCAA president finds himself in boiling pot (Bryan Burwell, St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

Mandi Schwartz: My last item for 2010 is not happy news. Mandi Schwartz, the Yale ice hockey player who has been waging a heroic fight against cancer, recently received news that her condition has relapsed. She was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia two years ago and received a stem-cell transplant about three months ago in an effort to rebuild her immune system.

Schwartz is now undergoing chemotherapy at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle in an attempt to send the cancer back into remission. Later this month, she will return home to continue treatment at the Allan Blair Cancer Centre in Pasqua Hospital in Regina, Saskatchewan.

For Mandi and others who find themselves in life-threatening battles, here are a few holiday gift-of-life suggestions:

http://www.marrow.org/

http://www.marrow.org/HELP/Donate_Cord_Blood_Share_Life/index.html

https://www.dkmsamericas.org/bone-marrow-donors/become-marrow-donor

http://www.marrow.org/JOIN/Join_in_Person/Intl_Donor_Centers/intl_dc_list.pl

All the best to all of you for a happy and healthy 2011. See you next year.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

RIP, Associate/Assistant AD for Compliance

December 22, 2010 by

The title of associate athletic director for compliance and it’s little sibling the assistant athletic director for compliance are not dead yet, but they are certainly an endangered species. The biggest changes have not yet trickled down toward the FCS and non-football levels, but the trend is clear in the BCS equity conferences. Associate and assistant ADs for compliance are dying.

The latest school to stop calling its highest ranking compliance professional an associate AD is Michigan, who will be replacing Judy Van Horn in the new year. But rather than replacing the exact same position, the new head of Michigan’s compliance office will have the title of Chief Compliance Officer.

This is not just a semantic change. Adding the prefix of assistant/associate athletic director to your title has traditionally been a big deal in most athletic departments. It means a transition from being a cog to having input in larger decisions. It means a closer working relationship with the athletic director. It signifies the beginning of the transition from working for the athletic department to running it.

It also has meant additional duties outside of your normal job. In addition to the normal tasks of running a compliance office, a compliance professional with the associate or assistant AD tag might also have game management responsibilities or be required to supervise one of the department’s sport programs. An associate AD of compliance might be the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) or also be in charge of the academic support department.

It’s getting harder to argue that even broad oversight of a compliance office for an FBS department is not a full time job. To meet the demands placed on a compliance office in the current environment, either the additional duties or work/life balance are increasingly being forced to give way.

Work/life balance can only give so much. There are only 24 hours in a day and you can only do that for so many days before it becomes a work/sleep balance that always tips in the favor of sleep. It is inevitable that additional duties will have to give way.

In the short term, this will be a negative for the compliance industry. Currently, a lack of qualified entry-level candidates and consistent growth means compliance is attractive as a place for aspiring athletic directors to get a foot in the door. Remove that carrot and there is the potential for the quality of talent available at the entry level to plummet. (Only the potential though. This is still the sports industry after all.)

In the medium to long term though it will be beneficial—if not critical—for compliance offices to make this transition to a more separate entity. It will not be without growing pains. Dealing with coaches at arms length and ending the culture of “get out there”, where compliance officers are forced to watch practices or travel with teams in the name of doing their job will be painful. But it will help establish compliance as a destination job with the stature, clout, and of course pay that destination jobs carry.

Until compliance is a destination job, the refinement of what it means to do compliance right will be hindered. Qualifications will continue to be inconsistent. Best practices will continue to be difficult to spread. And compliance will struggle to keep up (sub. req’d) with the rest of the athletic department.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: ,

Week in review: Dec. 13-17

December 18, 2010 by

The public got perhaps its closest look yet at new NCAA President Mark Emmert when he met this week with college basketball writers in Indianapolis.

Emmert meets the press: The question of compensation for student-athletes was on the minds of basketball writers when they met early in the week with NCAA President Mark Emmert, who was quite clear in his opposition to pay-for-play.

The sessions with the basketball writers generated a cluster of stories that better revealed Emmert’s views of college sports and what might be expected during his tenure:

Emmert won’t duck Newton backlash (Jeff Goodman, FOXSports.com)

NCAA chief: Newton ruling is complex (Andy Katz, ESPN)

NCAA boss: Closing Cam Newton loophole is ‘complex’ (Steve Wieberg, USA Today)

New NCAA prez wants equal penalties for coaches, players (Gary Parrish, CBSSports.com)

NCAA chief: Hold coaches to higher standards (Mike DeCourcy, Sporting News)

Want my advice? NCAA, put the hammer down (Gary Parrish, CBSSports.com)

NCAA president: Stiff penalties needed for coaches who commit violations (Marlen Garcia and Steve Wieberg, USA Today)

NCAA president: ‘We can never’ get to place where athletes are paid (Marlen Garcia, USA Today)

The moral of the story. One curious aspect of coverage on the Cam Newton matter and other related topics is the extent to which writers cite morality. Whenever the M word appears, the NCAA most often is framed as being morally deficient or morally exploitive.

Newton situation exposes NCAA – again (Jason Whitlock, FOXSports.com)

A new look at Newton, dad (Dan Wetzel, Yahoo Sports)

Heisman hypocrisy (Buzz Bissinger, Bleacher Report)

Cam Newton’s Heisman saga intensifies question: Can amateurs exist within modern college sports? (Rachel Bachman, The Oregonian)

Whitlock has little use for the NCAA and can scarcely type those four letters without putting “morally corrupt” or “morally bankrupt” in front. His rhetoric pushes the red line so often that it’s hard to take him seriously. The other commentaries, however, are more thoughtful.

The Oregonian article quotes Ramogi Huma, head of the National College Players Association.

“Amateurism has been used as a tool by the NCAA to monopolize all the revenue,” Huma said. “It’s done a great job framing it as a moral issue.”

Maybe it feels that way to Huma, but is it true? In my mind, NCAA leadership has been consistent in stating that amateur and professional sports are both honorable enterprises. There’s nothing inherently moral about amateur competition or immoral about competing as a pro. However, those who oversee amateur competition do have an obligation to ensure that the participants are competing under the same standards. Maybe there’s a moral element to that, but it seems more like common sense.

The genuine moral question is whether institutions are truly committed to fulfilling their end of the bargain by educating their participants. Prominent writers often claim that they are not. Something to that effect showed up this week in The Huffington Post.

“End the pretense that all college athletes are also students,” wrote Robert E. Murphy. “If the system demands that universities be feeding-grounds for professional sports leagues, let them continue to be, but end the silly requirement that athletes must earn college credits in order to become professional, as if they were preparing for law school or an engineering job.”

As it happens, the cover of the Fall 2010 issue of NCAA Champion magazine featured Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin, who is planning on a career in law. The Winter 2011 issue will highlight Cal Tech’s Theresa Juarez, who is pursuing an engineering career.

The moral: Be careful about stereotypes.

Conference realignment, the aftermath: After several weeks of activity, the 2010 Division I conference shuffle finally quieted. Still, there was continued analysis about the effect of the changes and about what might happen down the line.

UH accepts pricey move (Honolulu Star-Advertiser)

Mountain West still may grow beyond Hawaii (San Diego Tribune)

And in one piece of unfinished business from the shake-up from earlier this year, the Big Ten unveiled a new logo and renamed its two divisions.

Big Ten reveals fresh logo, new names for divisions (NCAA.org)

Patriot League delays financial aid for football. The Patriot League, a member of Division I’s Football Championship Subdivision, traditionally has offered only need-based financial aid in football. The league gave serious consideration to changing the model at meetings this week but eventually delayed a decision for two years.

Patriot League set to vote on football scholarships (New York Times)

Patriot League puts off question on football scholarships (New York Times)

Education first. Richard Whitmire of Education Week wrote an excellent column for Education Week about the effects of over-emphasized sports in District of Columbia schools.

A controversy flashed when the school district banned a school from participating in the Turkey Bowl championship game after it was determined to have used an academically ineligible athlete.

Emphasizing sports over academics sets up black boys to lose (Education Week)

Whitmire’s article is a strong challenge to the empty notion that sports alone necessarily engender character or education.

Whitmire wrote: “First, (sports) encourage boys to shun academics in hopes of making it in the pros − an extreme long shot. According to the NCAA, only one in every 1,250 high school football players is drafted by the NFL, and fewer than one in every 3,300 boys who play high school basketball makes it to the NBA.

“Second, even the goal of playing college ball might be out of reach. Many talented athletes recruited by colleges arrive on campus to find they can’t play because they fall short on academic qualifications.

“Everybody loves a winning team. But if we don’t make sure our black boys are succeeding not just on the playing fields but in the classroom, we are setting them up to lose.”

Conference networking. The Pac-10 Conference announced this week that it will launch its own cable channel in 2012.

Pac-10 targets 2012 for launch of cable channel [Sports Business Journal (registration required)]

The announcement raises the question about where this all might end, although media experts said the real question instead may be how much can get started. Although conferences and high-profile institutions are attracted to the success of the Big Ten Network, executives said that many challenges await the network hopefuls.

“People forget the severe discomfort the Big Ten went through to get up and running,” ESPN’s Burke Magnus said. “I’m not suggesting that (conference channels) can’t succeed, but there are a lot of factors involved. The Big Ten Channel’s timing was immaculate.”

Said Fox Sports Net President Randy Freer: “The two easiest things to do in media are to announce that you’re launching a channel and to put together a spreadsheet showing why it makes sense. The hard part is to execute it.”

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

Caught Being Good: Sage women’s basketball team

December 17, 2010 by

Editor’s note: Jacob Mooney lost his battle with cancer on Feb. 11, 2011. The Sage women’s basketball team was scheduled to have a second Jumpers for Jacob game, but instead had a moment of silence in his honor.

The Sage women’s basketball student-athletes put on wings earlier this month. The Gators hosted the Mount Saint Vincent Dolphins in a game that also served as a fund raiser for Jacob’s Angels. The organization benefits the family of Jacob Mooney, a third-grader from Watervliet, New York, who has non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The ‘Jumpers for Jacob’ initiative by Sage raised about $1,300 for Jacob’s Angels. The Troy Record’s Andrew Sanillo wrote a great story about the event, with quotes from Jacob’s mother, Danielle Hamrick, and his sister Kayleana. Check out more photos here and a recap of the game here.

Senior forward Jessica Byerwalters said in a release from the school that the team is happy to do what it can to help the youngster.

“Working with Jacob is very important not just to him, but to me as well because he needs to have positive influences and people who care for him,” she said. “Being a part of his life, whether it be a big or small part is more than what he had before. I, as well as my teammates didn’t have to think twice when asked if we wanted to do something for Jacob and his family.”

Many NCAA teams are giving back to their communities during the holiday season, such as the University of Puget Sound softball team’s involvement with the Salvation Army’s Adopt-A-Family program. The student-athletes wrapped up warm clothing, food and toys so one family could have presents under the tree.

Here’s a sampling of other holiday initiatives:

University of Texas, Arlington student-athletes donate to Salvation Army: UT Arlington student-athletes dressed as Santa Claus and took pictures with local children and donated the proceeds to the Salvation Army Angel Tree program. Read more.

Pepperdine women’s soccer shows support for Toys for Tots: Head coach Tim Ward and student-athletes buy and wrap gifts for children in need. Read more.

Sam Houston State donates school supplies to local elementary: For the third consecutive year, student-athletes from all 17 sports teams and the athletic training staff at Sam Houston State University are working to see that more than 60 under-privileged children at Sam Houston Elementary School will have school supplies for the coming year. Read more.

Stephen F. Austin student-athletes purchase toys for empty stocking fund: Members from all Stephen F. Austin varsity sports gathered at the William R. Johnson Coliseum Sunday evening to deliver toys for Nacogdoches Welfare. Read more.

McNeese State athletics takes part in Toys for Tots competition: McNeese State’s soccer team won the Toys for Tots competition among the university athletic teams in a recent Southland Conference “Twelve Days of Christmas” contest to see who could bring in the most toys for the local program. Read more.

Christopher Newport Wins “Cans Across the Conference”: The members of the USA South Athletic Conference Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) realized that not everyone is as fortunate as they are and wanted to do something to help make it a happier holiday in their communities. Read more.

Alverno SAAC collects over 7,000 items in annual food drive competition: Alverno collected the most items in the community service competition amongst the 13 institutions in the NAC, setting a new record in the annual service initiative. Read more.

About Kristen Porter

Filed Under: Caught Being Good, Feature Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

The Big Problem is Process, Not the Penalty

December 15, 2010 by

In NCAA President Mark Emmert’s comments to reporters at the famed St. Elmo’s Steakhouse in Indianapolis, there was much about the infractions process. Specifically as Gary Parrish of CBSSports.com notes, the need to ensure that student-athletes are not being punished more severely than coaches:

“I certainly believe [the same guidelines] should apply, of course,” Emmert said. “[They should apply] at least as much [as they apply to student-athletes].” (parentheticals in original)

The article also points out that the NCAA has the power to suspend coaches from coaching in any game, including the NCAA tournament. That was highlighted 13 months ago when the Board of Directors endorsed increased use of coaching suspensions. In the interpretation issued, coaching suspensions are to be used specifically to combat a variety of ways coaches could funnel money to individuals that could influence a prospect’s decision of where to play basketball.

One problem though is timing. If a coach gives a student-athlete a envelope of cash, some of the institutional responsibility is clear. The student-athlete must be declared ineligible and then reinstated, potentially with some penalty. As America recently discovered, the student-athlete uses the reinstatement process. While that process is much quicker and more focused, the student-athlete in effect guilty until proven innocent (or at least how guilty).

A coach, as an institutional staff member, is part of the enforcement case. That process takes much longer, and whether an institution needs to self-impose a coaching suspension immediately is unclear. The best anyone can say is that it might impact the penalties handed down by the enforcement staff or Committee on Infractions as an element of cooperation in the case and whether the self-imposed penalties show the institution understands the seriousness of the infractions.

The answer then seems both incredibly obvious and amazingly complex: a reinstatement process for coaches. It would be a procedure where the coach’s personal responsibility for the violation would be determined and then penalties imposed in the form of suspensions and recruiting restrictions, and possibly more creative penalties like educational requirements and fines.

Many coaching eligibility rules already exist. Coaches must pass an exam every year to recruit off-campus. Coaches must sign a declaration every year that they have reported any violation they are aware of to their compliance office. Some coaching positions, like undergraduate and graduate assistants must be enrolled full-time in school. And football graduate assistants even have a seven-year clock to hold that position, akin to the five-year clock for student-athletes.

Any additional enforcement/eligibility procedure for coaches would have major issues to be worked out. It slows down the violation process. It gives an additional incentive for coaches to lie. And how would it operate in a post-O’Brien world where schools are reluctant to fire coaches until the entire violation process is complete?

It also wouldn’t address one of the chief complaints about penalties for coaches vs. penalties for student-athletes: that coaches always seem to have a way out by jumping to a professional team. But maybe that perception will change now that it appears there is a growing trend of student-athletes leaving the NCAA for the professional ranks as soon as they decide intercollegiate athletics is no longer for them (I’ll have much more on that at a later date).

The cost of operating such a system seem greater than the benefits in this case. Most of that cost comes from what is lost by attempting to determine a coach’s culpability outside of the process that has more important questions about how that culpability affects the culpability of other institutional personal and ultimately the institution itself.

Whatever the solution that the NCAA membership comes up with, and it sounds from President Emmert’s comments that we’ll be asked to look at this issue soon, the problem of punishing coaches vs. student-athletes illustrates something greater. Many of these great debates or scathing criticisms are actually just debates about technicalities and details.

The problem in this case is not that the NCAA has draconian punishments for student-athletes and lets coaches get away with murder. It’s that the NCAA membership needs to reexamine how we use tools we already have and ensure these two processes are operating as fairly as possible, keeping in mind that fair doesn’t always mean identical.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

Week in review: Dec. 6-10

December 11, 2010 by

For the week of Dec. 6, sports sections and websites were filled with news and analysis of the Cam Newton episode, along with the holiday tradition of complaints about the football postseason.

Cam Newton episode, continued: By now, everybody who’s interested should understand the prevailing (although not universal) sentiment, which is that the NCAA created a potentially large loophole in its legislation by reinstating the Auburn quarterback’s eligibility.

Opinions abound and have been freely shared:

Big 12’s Beebe ‘troubled’ by Newton ruling

ACC’s John Swofford critiques NCAA ruling

Big Ten’s Jim Delany upset at NCAA’s Cam Newton decision

SEC’s  Slive: NCAA’s Newton ruling fair based on evidence

For a more dispassionate discussion of the matter, readers might turn to John Infante’s Bylaw Blog, which is available on NCAA.org.

Closing the Cam Newton loophole

Infante’s blog appears on an NCAA platform, but he’s far from an NCAA apologist; his observations about NCAA legislation are widely respected among people in the field. Infante’s conclusion is that the doom and gloom surrounding the Newton case is overstated and that the NCAA is correct in evaluating this problem over the long term.

“The idea of a student-athlete being shopped to colleges by parents, coaches, or anyone else is certainly outrageous, to use (NCAA President Mark) Emmert’s words,” Infante wrote. “And the notion of significant punishment for even attempted violations of the recruiting and amateurism legislation has merit. But just like the July recruiting period in men’s basketball, there are too many moving parts in this area to use a blunt object. Another year-long study with legislation to be voted on over a year from now won’t please many commentators. But it’s the best way to close a loophole without opening another.”

Emmert sounded a similar note Wednesday when he spoke at the IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York City.

NCAA president on Cam Newton ruling: ‘I’m very comfortable and confident’

Newspaper and website writers, of course, are not burdened with having to live with the consequences of their proposed solutions. Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post spent much of a recent column ridiculing the NCAA and Auburn by mixing dollar signs with fake bylaw citations. The gist was that all parties had a financial stake in assuring that Newton remained eligible.

When it comes to dollars, the NCAA makes no sense

“So the NCAA can thus say with conviction it has no evidence Cam Newton received any tangible benefit for going to Auburn,” Jenkins wrote. “He wound up there for free. Sure, his father asked for $180,000 from Mississippi State in exchange for his son’s services, but that doesn’t mean he charged Auburn anything. Presumably, Newton went there out of sheer love for the red soil.”

Ugh. You expect more than that from the Washington Post.

The difficulty surrounding the Newton situation clearly involves what is not known or proved. Fortunately, the NCAA is not able to act on assumptions.

Again, Infante provides the cooler perspective: “Case precedent, NCAA or otherwise, extends only as far as its facts. And here, the facts are that no money changed hands, the student-athlete did not know about the activity, and the student-athlete did not enroll at the institution where the solicitation occurred.”

Facts didn’t get in the way of the Wall Street Journal’s analysis.

“Why Mr. Newton was allowed to play against South Carolina and will no doubt be allowed to play in the national championship game is obvious,” wrote Allen Barra. “He is worth millions to the NCAA and to Auburn, and the NCAA isn’t going to kill a cash cow while it can still be milked. But one thing is absolutely certain: Whatever the NCAA finally decides, it isn’t going to refund any of the money generated while Cam Newton was an ‘amateur.’ ”

For what it’s worth, the NCAA does not generate any revenue from Division I FBS television, either regular season or postseason.

It’s good that NCAA policy and philosophy is subject to constant review and criticism; it’s bad when the criticism is ill-informed.

NCAA, BCS and the football postseason: Ray Ratto of CBSSports.com got worked up Tuesday about the state of Division I Football Bowl Subdivision postseason play.

You say you hate BCS, but you don’t because you can’t

“(T)he NCAA does not give a damn about you,” Ratto wrote, addressing Bowl Championship Series critics. “Never has, never will. It doesn’t even try to shut you up, that’s how much they don’t notice. Two, the NCAA is only about the money, and it always has been. It isn’t about students or education — it uses school names the way the NFL uses team names, for marketing and delineation purposes only. It is as laughable to complain to it that it only cares about money as it is to complain to a bear that it just wrecked your campsite.”

Ratto’s lack of NCAA love is clear enough, but his logic is hard to understand. If the NCAA is all about the money, then why isn’t it clamoring to conduct its own championship? As noted in the previous section, the NCAA does not realize a single penny from the current bowl structure.

It’s been said many times before, but it bears repeating: The NCAA cannot establish any championship without the consent of its membership.

Boise State President Bob Kustra recently suggested that the NCAA should become more involved. After a BCS rankings computation error was revealed, Kustra e-mailed the following message to university presidents and FBS conference commissioners: “How many times have we heard calls for transparency on our campuses and how many times have we shared our governance and communicated with our faculties and other constituencies in transparent fashion? Yet, in intercollegiate athletics, with the NCAA standing silently on the sidelines, we allow the BCS to work its magic with no idea of how accurate its rankings are on a week to week basis.”

Commercial influences in high schools: Whether it’s good or bad is in the eyes of the beholder, but last week brought more confirmation of the increasing commercialization of high school athletics.

High schools cash in on logos, avoid clashes with colleges

Some colleges protecting their logos from use by high schools

Are you sure about that? ESPN’s Gregg Easterbook delivered an extended commentary about what he considers the financial and personnel excesses of major college athletics departments.

The bloating of athletic departments

Reasonable people can agree or disagree with his observations, but on one point, he staked out some unprovable ground:

“Booster funds not only fail to make collegiate sports self-sustaining,” he wrote, “they may harm the colleges overall − since many alumni and boosters who might donate to the general endowment or the scholarship campaign of Maryland or Miami or Wisconsin donate instead to the booster organizations.”

The belief that donations to college athletics programs necessarily lessen overall institutional donations been postulated before and treated as gospel, but (at least as far as I know) it has never been proven.

Speaking of data….: A couple of important periodic NCAA studies were released this week.

Among other things, the 2009-10 NCAA Student-Athlete Race and Ethnicity Report revealed that, for the first time, African-Americans make up most of the participants in Division I football.

Also, the 2009-10 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report showed participation in NCAA championship sports for 2009-10 to be a little more than 430,000 – a record.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

Closing the Cam Newton Loophole

December 7, 2010 by

The decision of the NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement Staff to reinstate Cam Newton’s eligibility with no penalty produced a response that was loud and clear. Not one, not two, but four commissioners of major conferences have spoken out. All disagreed with the decision itself and/or expressed worry about the potential impact of the decision going forward. That has prompted a response from NCAA President Mark Emmert stating that the NCAA membership will review the recruiting rules.

I don’t share some of the doom and gloom regarding the impact of the decision going forward. Case precedent, NCAA or otherwise, extends only as far as its facts. And here, the facts are that no money changed hands, the student-athlete did not know about the activity, and the student-athlete did not enroll at the institution where the solicitation occurred. Case precedent can always be extended to logically similar cases, but that takes additional decisions, each of which is a chance to stop a trip down the slippery slope.

There appears to be an unstoppable momentum behind some change though. That change could take one of three forms.

New Reinstatement Guidelines
It’s important to note that a violation was committed and it did impact Newton’s eligibility. It just did not impact his eligibility as much as some wanted. The Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement (which oversees the NCAA staff that made the decision) could establish stricter penalties, which would likely include a requirement that the student-athlete be withheld from at least some competition.

Slight Legislative Change
Legislation could be proposed that would address the exact situation in the case. Specifically, Bylaw 12.3.3, the bylaw cited by the SAR staff, could be editted to read something like this:

12.3.3 – Athletics Scholarship Agent.
Any individual, agency or organization that represents a prospective student-athlete or his or her parent(s), guardian(s), or immediate family for compensation in placing the prospective student-athlete in a collegiate institution as a recipient of institutional financial aid shall be considered an agent or organization marketing the individual’s athletics ability or reputation. (additions in bold)

Major Legislative Change
An alternate new version of Bylaw 12.3.3 may read very similarly, but would have a much greater impact:

12.3.3 – Athletics Scholarship Agent.
Any individual, agency or organization that represents a prospective student-athlete or an individual associated with a prospective student-athlete for compensation in placing the prospective student-athlete in a collegiate institution as a recipient of institutional financial aid shall be considered an agent or organization marketing the individual’s athletics ability or reputation.(additions in bold)

The phrase “individual associated with a prospective student-athlete” has a defined meaning, in men’s basketball at least, from the interpretations issued by the Division I Board of Directors in November 2009. It includes parents, guardians, family members, coaches and anyone who is associated with the prospect as a result of their athletics ability or reputation, or participation in men’s basketball.

Along with the amendment to the bylaw, that portion of the interpretation could be removed and placed in a separate interpretation (or incorporated into an actual bylaw) applicable to all sports. It would not however expand the new men’s basketball recruiting regulations to all sports, since they still mention men’s basketball in the interpretation and the relevant legislation.

None of these are mutually exclusive, and all three exist on a continuum with many other options in between. I have no idea what the Legislative Council, Board of Directors, or Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement will do. What I do know is that it would be foolish to act hastily.

The Board of Directors is empowered to propose and adopt legislation that is of an “emergency” or “noncontroversial” nature. An emergency exists when:

  • Significant values or harm are at stake; and
  • The use of the regular legislative cycle is likely to cause undue hardship to the Association or the Division I membership because of the delay in its effective date.

While preventing pay-for-play is a significant value in the NCAA rules, it’s hard to see the undue hardship that is suffered between now and January 2012, the next opportunity to pass brand new legislation if it travels through the regular legislative cycle. Especially if we’re talking only about the limited issue of not suspending student-athletes who didn’t know that an institution they didn’t go to did not give their parents any money.

Legislation is noncontroversial if it meets the following criteria:

  • Broader consultation and debate are unlikely to improve the proposal in any substantial way.
  • Significant disagreement or alternative points of view will not be generated.
  • Such proposals do not have a significant impact (unanticipated consequences, undesirable precedent) on existing legislation or proposed legislation.

Considering the options for dealing with this issue, there’s strong evidence that more debate will lead to a better decision and there are more alternatives than even the ones above. And considering the proposal is designed to strength penalties in cases where a prospect or student-athlete might not even know a violation is occurring, it seems unlikely that all consequences will be anticipated in such a short time.

For instance, imagine if a high school coach could harm a student-athlete’s eligibility at every institution just by discussing a pay-for-pay plan with a booster at one school, regardless of whether the prospect knows about it. Third parties gain a valuable tool to dictate where prospects enroll, and gain allies in boosters who have control of a stick, in addition to the existing carrots, to entice prospects to enroll at their favorite institution.

The idea of a student-athlete being shopped to colleges by parents, coaches, or anyone else is certainly outrageous, to use President Emmert’s words. And the notion of significant punishment for even attempted violations of the recruiting and amateurism legislation has merit. But just like the July recruiting period in men’s basketball, there are too many moving parts in this area to use a blunt object. Another year-long study with legislation to be voted on over a year from now won’t please many commentators. But it’s the best way to close a loophole without opening another.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , , ,

Caught Being Good: Hayley Harrell

December 4, 2010 by

Hayley Harrell could be a lifesaver. Literally. And for someone she might never meet.

The College of Charleston volleyball student-athlete will undergo outpatient surgery on Dec. 10 to donate marrow. Harrell was a match to a 6-year-old girl with a rare genetic disorder that leads to bone marrow failure called Fancomi anemia.

“I get kind of emotional if I think about it too much,” said Harrell, a junior defensive specialist. “She would die if I didn’t match up with her. It’s an amazing opportunity to be able to help someone else.”

Harrell described the procedure as “making three or four incisions and drilling into my bone and sucking the bone marrow out of my hip.”

She became involved in this life-saving process almost by happenstance. As a freshman, Harrell was walking by a bone marrow drive on her way to a biology lab on campus when her roommate urged her to stop and sign up for the bone marrow registry. The registry is part of the National Marrow Donor Program.

“I was talking to the person there giving me information about it and she was like, ‘Yeah, there’s a 1-in-150,000 chance that you’ll ever be a match for someone, but the odds are you’ll never be called,’” Harrell said.

The recipient is anonymous. She lives outside the United States, but that’s all Harrell knows. Allowed to send a letter to the recipient, Harrell isn’t sure what to say in this situation.

Outreach has helped shape Harrell’s academic experience. Inspired by the efforts of a South Carolina missionary who heads up the LAMB Institute in Honduras, the biology and psychology major is a part of regular medical mission trips to the Central American country.

“It gives me exposure to the type of thing I want to do, I want to be able to help people,” said Harrell, who hopes to attend medical school as her mother and grandfather did. “I love medicine and I love science. Just being around that is really helpful.”

Heavily invested in the cause is her mother Laurie Harrell, a radiation oncologist. Harrell’s sister Jamie, a freshman and tennis student-athlete at College of Charleston, is involved. They created a Service4Honduras Facebook page about their group, which also supports LAMB.

The group asks for donations from doctors and dentists and takes trunks of supplies with them to Honduras. (Harrell’s fundraising efforts helped raise $20,000.)

In Feb. 2011, Harrell will make her sixth trip to Honduras. She said the medical mission team usually stops at LAMB’s elementary school and residential children’s home before heading to rural villages.

“At first, they’re kind of stunned that a bunch of American doctors are just walking around in scrubs in their little villages,” she said. “But they’re so nice and friendly after you just smile at them and say hi…They’re just really happy to have any help they can get.”

Learn more about Harrell’s philanthropic side from this video posted by the Southern Conference.

About Kristen Porter

Filed Under: Caught Being Good, Feature Tagged With: , ,
«Older Posts

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·