IBJNews

NCAA committee endorses new penalty structure

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nearly a year after promising to impose harsher sanctions on the most egregious rule-breakers, NCAA leaders endorsed a proposal Thursday that would make schools subject to the same crippling penalties handed to Penn State.

The measure includes postseason bans of up to four years, fines that could stretch into the millions and suspensions for head coaches. A final vote on the sweeping overhaul won't occur before the board of directors' October meeting.

"Coaches come to me and say, 'I feel like a chump. I'm trying to do things the right way and I have peers who laugh at me because I don't play the game and bend the rules the way they do,'" board chairman Ed Ray said in a statement released by the Indianapolis-based NCAA. "That's got to stop ... Most coaches are terrific people who love their student-athletes, try to do it the right way, try to have the right values and succeed. They're very frustrated. This has got to stop. I think most coaches are saying it's about time. We want a level playing field."

The plan calls for changing the current two-tiered penalty structure of major and secondary violations to a four-tiered concept, increasing the size of the infractions committee from 10 up to 24 in an effort to speed up the enforcement process and holding coaches individually accountable for any violations that occur in their program.

But it's the penalties that will make school leaders take notice.

A program found to have made a "serious breach of conduct" with aggravating circumstances could face postseason bans of two to four years. In addition, the program may have to return money from specific events or a series of events or the amount of gross revenue generated by the sport during the years in which sanctions occurred — fines that could cost a school millions of dollars.

If this sounds familiar, it should. After the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal at Penn State, the NCAA barred the university from playing in a bowl game or the college football playoff until after the 2016 season and levied a $60 million fine — the rough equivalent to a year of gross revenue from the football program.

Coaches, too, would face new guidelines. They would be presumed responsible for any violations committed by their staffs. If they cannot prove they were unaware, the head coach could be suspended from 10 percent of the season to the full season.

Some think it's about time.

"I do think tying the infraction much more closely to the punishment in terms of time and who is involved is big and hammering things on fair play is important, too," Indiana athletic director Fred Glass said. "Without knowing the specifics, I do think it's a positive."

The board also approved a provision that would publicly identify individuals responsible for the violations if there is a finding of lack of institutional control or failure to monitor.

The changes are the next step for university leaders nearly a year after they met with NCAA President Mark Emmert at a two-day retreat in Indianapolis. Afterward, presidents said they unanimously supported stronger sanctions and promised to make significant changes over the next 12 to 18 months.

Ray, the Oregon State president, and former Penn State President Graham Spanier were two of the leaders who spoke after the meeting. Also in attendance was University of Miami President Donna Shalala, whose football and basketball programs were accused of major violations just a few weeks later. The Miami investigation is ongoing.

With so many major scandals over the past 20 months, NCAA leaders not only wanted to put teeth in the sanctions — they want them in place before the end of this year.

"Our intention is to make this real in October," Ray said. "We want the membership to have a final review. We will listen to compelling arguments for additional changes, but this is the recommendation with all the feedback we've gathered since our first report in January and second detailed report in April."

Ray's committee also approved a measure that will allow BCS officials to expand the bowl limit so they can create a four-team playoff. That measure was expected to be a formality after the BCS voted to expand the playoff system.

And the board approved a new selection process for bowl games if conferences with bowl tie-ins do not have enough bowl-eligible teams to fill all the spots.

Under the new measure, if a bowl cannot be filled by the conference affiliations, the open spots would be filled through a six-tier tiebreaking process that will consider wins versus Football Championship Subdivision teams, teams with seven losses, teams making the move to the FBS that go 6-6 and any 5-7 team with a top-five score on the Academic Progress Rate.

Some think it will give teams more to play for.

Others aren't so sure.

"For me, personally, I'd be disappointed with that," Indiana center Will Matte said. "I think teams earn the right to go to bowl game, and I think that (getting in at 5-7) cheapens that a little bit."

The board also reiterated its support to provide athletes an annual stipend of up to $2,000 to cover the so-called full cost of attendance but did not vote on the measure. The stipend originally was approved last fall, but was halted in December because too many schools were opposed to it.

In other actions, the board:

—Chose Wake Forest President Nathan Hatch as chairman of the board and Michigan State President Lou Anna Simon chairwoman of the Executive Committee.

—Voted to support a change in constitutional language that would allow schools from outside the U.S. to join the NCAA. The move virtually assures that Simon Fraser University of Burnaby, British Columbia, will become the first non-U.S. member when the Division II Presidents Council votes next week.

—Heard a proposal to rewrite the massive rulebook manual. No vote will occur until at least January.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Rules Within Reason
    Although most people would agree, that college sports has gotten out of hand, in some areas.. come on! You're not only talking about individual players and coaches' conducts, those kind of decisions can impact the entire student and faculty. Many students, feel proud, with hightened school spirit, if they have a competitive sports team. It is not the fault of the students or the players that this incident happened, yet they are going to be the ones who suffer. When is this country going to realize, that change and disciplinary action can occur, with complete and total overkill. In this case, it was the Administration and ONE coach, who was responsible for the deviant behavior. I would be more concerned about betting, intentional game losses, etc, than I would one sick and twisted coach. This was not the student body or 99% of the faculty's, fault. Penn State, having gone to Indiana University, I have sympathy for you, as a school, and still think you have a great reputation. If we held political parties completely responsible, for the acts of a few crooked politician, this country would be more polarized, than it already is.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT