Is the NCAA actually growing a set?

[DeToxRox]

Community - CBSSports.com

Scandals, scholarships and rules changes were among the topics of frequent conversation at last week's NCAA Convention and while not everything president Mark Emmert wanted - the $2,000 cost of attendance stipend for example - was passed by the Legislative Council and Board of Directors, it's safe to say what happened in Indianapolis laid the ground work for significant changes that will impact schools for decades to come.

While details on most proposals from Presidential Working Groups finally emerged in some areas, the one place where there was plenty of talk but little substance was the new enforcement model that some in the organization have been tasked with reforming. After a year that included news about major infractions at Tennessee, Miami, Ohio State, North Carolina and others, it's no surprise that this would be one area of emphasis.

"We were damn mad and not going to take it anymore," Ed Ray, Oregon State president and chair of the Enforcement Working Group, said.

The Enforcement Working Group that came out of August's presidential retreat was tasked with creating a tiered violation structure, new penalty procedures, a reformed process for adjudication and a reformed process that is fair while supporting the collegiate model the organization is looking to uphold.

"In terms of what is our charge, we heard President Emmert talk about this risk-reward analysis and the fact that there seems to be a general loss of integrity and upholding the rules," Vice President for Enforcement Julie Roe Lach said. "This isn't purely a reactive move, we're not just doing this because of the scandals or if there is a crisis. We're doing this because it's the right thing to do. This is a time to redefine what are our principles and what do we stand for."

In addition to following the principles of fairness, accountability and process integrity, flexibility is one of the key things the new model is designed to address as there are currently only two categories of violations: major and secondary. The new model would have four levels (most egregious, serious, secondary, minor) with the Committee on Infractions taking into account various mitigating or aggravating factors that would then help determine penalties. While many believe the enforcement side just makes it up as they go along (and they can because they don't follow past precedent), the model should help move cases along in the system quicker and result in more consistency among penalties given out to schools.

"The working group recognizes the wide-spread perception that the current penalty model leads to inconsistent and insufficient penalties and does not adequately deter other institutions and individuals from engaging in conduct contrary to the rules," the working group's report stated. "The working group believes that the severity of the penalty imposed must correspond with the significance of the rule violation(s)."

If it all seems a bit dense and hard to understand, it is. That's why the NCAA created this proposed penalty matrix that gives you a better visual idea of what future programs will have to get used to if they break rules. For example, if you commit a serious Level I offense and there were no mitigating factors, you can expect a 2-3 year postseason ban.

"We haven't had a lot of pushback on this," Roe Lach said of the new multi-level structure. "If there's anything in the package that is a no-brainer, it seems like this may be it.

"An issue we've heard is we need to be more consistent and allow for more predictability. I think if we are more consistent, it would afford more predictability. The idea is to move toward a penalty guidelines model."

So how does it really work? Well, take the infamous USC case involving Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo among others: violations of NCAA bylaws governing amateurism; failure to report knowledge of violations; unethical conduct; violations of coaching staff limitations; impermissible recruiting contacts by a representative of the institution's athletics interests; impermissible inducements and extra benefits; and lack of institutional control.

According to the new model, this would be classified as multiple Level I violations with four significant aggravating factors. Here's a comparison of penalties with what the Trojans got and what they would have received under the new model:

So yes, USC would have been punished even worse under the new proposed enforcement model coming from the NCAA. That's interesting because athletic director Pat Haden is on the enforcement working group and has made it a point to say that the Trojans were unfairly punished. In other examples provided by the NCAA, Baylor's basketball program would have seen the number of scholarships available slashed in half following the school's 2005 infractions case. Instead of fewer practice hours for Rich Rodriguez and Michigan in their case, the Wolverines could have lost up to four scholarships per year. Florida State's 2009 case could have seen football scholarship losses of 10-21 per year for three years instead of the six they received.

Given the new model, expect the hammer from Indianapolis to come down harder on cheaters in the future.

@slmandel Stewart Mandel
RT “@BryanDFischer: USC, for example, would be looking at 32-42 scholarships cut PER YEAR under new enforcement model: bit.ly/xDBFa4

[DeToxRox]

I really can't see this happening but if it does, good night sweet Miami.

[DaddyTorgo]

Nope. Not growing a pair. Just trying to look like they are.

[bhlloy]

Yeah right they are going to kill a program like USC or Miami FB by cutting their scholarships in half. It looks impressive until you read that the infractions committee can take into account mitigating factors and decide the severity of the case at a whim. I don't see anything changing for the big money making programs but those D1A programs better watch their back now

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

the infractions committee can take into account mitigating factors and decide the severity of the case at a whim.

Mitigating, such a flexible, open ended word. Expect to hear that a lot as they deal with some of these schools in trouble. I hope I am wrong, but history says otherwise.

[lcjjdnh]

Yay! NCAA doing more to help schools enforce a labor cartel. Anything to make sure unprivileged black teenagers can subsidize middle-age white men and their rich kids.

[tarcone]

A Bureaucracy gets together after one of its worst years ever. The question was probably "What can we do to save ourselves?"

They will make a couple examples of the East Carolinas and Florida Internationals and let the big boys slide.

[bhlloy]

Well, we are about to find out whether they have the balls to effectively put a 5-10 year death penalty on Miami. Should be fun. Anything less than 60 scholarships total means absolute disaster for a D1 program and even 70 means you are probably going to be bad for a while. Based on that chart above, Miami would be incredibly lucky to stay above 60. Let's see if they are serious or not

[molson]

They're not going to be tougher on violators unless they stand to benefit somehow. I don't know if all the outrage expressed by the media (and fans I guess) has impacted business at all or not. Either way though, the more efficient solution to any problem is simply to investigate less, rather than punish harsher (it would help if that darn Yahoo Sports would go away, but I had already forgotten about Miami until I read this article, and I still don't even know - are we waiting for a day in the near future where the NCAA is expected to drop the hammer down on them?)

[bronconick]

They're still limited by having no investigative powers, so you end up with Ohio State losing 9 scholarships and Auburn and Cam Newton getting nothing despite the stench wafting from both.

Miami might be farked if Shapiro's trial left a paper trail for the NCAA, but it won't be because of some meaningless crap they say at a meeting.

[Young Drachma]

No.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, Miami will be the barometer. Is there a date on when they will announce the findings and penalties? I'd love to do a thread a week before to see what people think they will get

SI

[King of New York]

Large revenue-generating sport at school in major conference = automatic mitigating factor

Small non-revenue-generating sport at school in minor conference = the full wrath of the NCAA

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, Miami will be the barometer. Is there a date on when they will announce the findings and penalties? I'd love to do a thread a week before to see what people think they will get

SI

Am I the only one seeing the words future and proposed here? Much as we'd all like for their football team to go down in flames, why would their infractions be judged under a penalty standard that was agreed upon after their violations were reported, let alone happened?

[Ksyrup]

This is all relative, IMO. Meaning, they will decide the punishment first and fit it to the criteria later. So with the USC example, you can't compare the sanctions under both models. The sanctions would likely be the same, they'd just have to change the rationale for the penalties they have under the new system. Color me skeptical that this changes anything. Assuming it's even agreed upon.

[Blackadar]

Tell me a bit about reducing scholarships.

From what I understand, players are given scholarships one year at a time. So if they reduce the number of scholarships from 50 to 30, doesn't that just punish 20 players who no longer can attend the school? Or am I missing something?

[Ksyrup]

Technically, that's possible. But I don't see a school signing a full class and then jettisoning 20 current players (upperclassmen) to make room for the new players. Now, where you're talking about a small reduction in scholarships, like at Ohio State - and particularly with a new coaching staff - my guess is Meyer takes a full class and they either pull a couple of scholies or give a couple kids the hint that they won't be playing, to get them to leave and free up a few scholarships. But I can't imagine that happening on a widespread basis. It would mostly affect the number of new students they could bring in, as opposed to current players.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Technically, that's possible. But I don't see a school signing a full class and then jettisoning 20 current players (upperclassmen) to make room for the new players. Now, where you're talking about a small reduction in scholarships, like at Ohio State - and particularly with a new coaching staff - my guess is Meyer takes a full class and they either pull a couple of scholies or give a couple kids the hint that they won't be playing, to get them to leave and free up a few scholarships. But I can't imagine that happening on a widespread basis. It would mostly affect the number of new students they could bring in, as opposed to current players.

I was looking over those penalties and they were talking about reducing scholarships from 85 to about 50. Now with that kind of reduction, it seems that there's no way for the team not to pull scholarships from existing players. College football programs don't allocate 35 scholarships for new players generally.

So if I'm interpreting this correctly, the scholarships go from 85 to 50. Now there will be fewer guys willing to come, but that still leaves 15-20 scholarships with existing players that are going to have to get pulled. If that's the case, who is really getting penalized?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I was looking over those penalties and they were talking about reducing scholarships from 85 to about 50. Now with that kind of reduction, it seems that there's no way for the team not to pull scholarships from existing players. College football programs don't allocate 35 scholarships for new players generally.

So if I'm interpreting this correctly, the scholarships go from 85 to 50. Now there will be fewer guys willing to come, but that still leaves 15-20 scholarships with existing players that are going to have to get pulled. If that's the case, who is really getting penalized?

Southwest Missouri State.

My guess is that in the event something that drastic does take place, it turns into some kind of sliding scale/average scholarships over a 4 year period type thing.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I was looking over those penalties and they were talking about reducing scholarships from 85 to about 50. Now with that kind of reduction, it seems that there's no way for the team not to pull scholarships from existing players. College football programs don't allocate 35 scholarships for new players generally.

So if I'm interpreting this correctly, the scholarships go from 85 to 50. Now there will be fewer guys willing to come, but that still leaves 15-20 scholarships with existing players that are going to have to get pulled. If that's the case, who is really getting penalized?

In that case, my guess is the school would also get a post-season ban and probation, and even now, they allow guys to transfer if they will never get a chance to play in a bowl (i.e., at USC, they let juniors and seniors transfer if they wanted to, without having to sit a year).

[MrBug708]

Stiff NCAA penalties on the way with new model - CBSSports.com

So yes, USC would have been punished even worse under the new proposed enforcement model coming from the NCAA. That's interesting because athletic director Pat Haden is on the enforcement working group and has made it a point to say that the Trojans were unfairly punished.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Yay! NCAA doing more to help schools enforce a labor cartel. Anything to make sure unprivileged black teenagers can subsidize middle-age white men and their rich kids.

+1

[CU Tiger]

And apparently the fall out begins. As SC strength and conditioning coach Fitzgrald unexpectedly "resigns" to take a role at PSU for roughly half the coin.

Not sure if this has more to do with the complaince director and Spurrier's recent fling starting to leak out or with the pending NCAA disciplinary action commitee decision which has asked for all players to take a manated simultaneous drug test prior to ruling...

Silly gamecocks, back where you belong. (With Vandy at the bottom)