“Untouchables” Still a Bit Unobtainable

After Yahoo! Sports released its investigative report of the alleged extra benefits and recruiting scandal at Miami, former NFL agent Josh Luchs endorsed an idea that comes around every few years. Whether you house them in the athletic department or not, compliance officers are employees of the university, subject to the possibility of any number of ethical dilemmas. Luchs suggests the NCAA pay for and place compliance officers at schools. As employees of the NCAA, they cannot be fired by the school for doing their job, thus solving many of those ethical dilemmas.

Let’s assume the logistical issues could be solved. Working as an NCAA-employed compliance officer on campus would be like a State Department or FBI field office assignment. You move every couple of years until you made it to the national office in Indianapolis. Attracts a certain type of person, but that’s part of the goal here. There is still a Good, Bad, and Ugly to this type of system.

The Good

The biggest benefit would be a much simpler and more consistent major infractions process. Lack of institutional control and failure to monitor charges would not exist. The NCAA would now be in control and it would be the NCAA’s responsibility to monitor. Beyond the actual violations, the only questions would be how many people subverted the monitoring systems the on-campus staff had in place, and how severe should the show-cause orders be.

The Bad

The biggest drawback is that the majority of these NCAA positions would be new positions, not replacement or reassignment of existing staff. There are some compliance responsibilities an NCAA staff member on campus cannot perform. Decisions about whether to file a waiver, arguments for mitigation in student-athlete reinstatement cases, and how the Student Assistance Fund is managed should be made by university staff.

And if the NCAA is permanently represented on campus, expect schools to “lawyer up,” so to speak, by retaining or hiring their own compliance staff. That’s great if you’re in the compliance industry. But whether this is paid for with new or existing money, it means that money is earmarked for a larger administration rather than for a better student-athlete experience.

The Ugly

A system of permanent on-campus NCAA staff creates a more adversarial system. One big benefit of an adversarial system is that it sets very clear motives and roles. It’s my belief you get a better compromise when two people with clear and opposing motives are forced to come to an agreement. But we’re not talking about negotiation here. We’re talking about the enforcement of rules by the authorities.

In that case you get less compromise and more argument. If coming to a compromise takes a long time, winning an argument takes longer. And while that arguing is going on, innocent student-athletes and coaches will be caught in the middle. That means longer reinstatement cases and a slower secondary infractions process.

There’s a role for a long-term presence by the NCAA on an institution’s campus when something goes wrong. Probation and parole is overseen by a probation officer, not the judge. Failing an external audit should mean having to allow the NCAA to come in for a year or two to fix the issues. At the very least, that should be the pilot program before changing the relationship between the schools and the NCAA in a way that cannot be undone if it doesn’t work.

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.

RIP, Associate/Assistant AD for Compliance

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.

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·