Re: No more "kinder and gentler"?
As has been stated, the NCAA has no subpoena power and relies on the cooperation of institutions to enforce their rules. Some institutions cooperate and the NCAA doesn't seem to cut them any slack for doing the right thing. Other institutions just stonewall the NCAA and the NCAA is forced to find collaboration that is outside of the institution or drop their case. Thus, there is really no motivation to cooperate with the NCAA if an institution feels that they can sew up all the loose ends so that the NCAA can prove nothing against them.
From what I've heard, Alabama cooperated fully with the NCAA during the Means investigation and while the NCAA admitted that the actions of Logan Young as a "rogue" booster were outside the control of the institution and that there was really nothing that Alabama could have done to prevent the violations, the NCAA still hit us hard. Alabama was deemed a repeat offender, but cooperated fully as noted by the NCAA in their
sanctions report, and the NCAA "agreed with and adopted the actions taken by the university". The NCAA responded with a five-year probation, two-year post-season ban, and loss of 21 football scholarships.
The NCAA lauds the cooperation of the university officials:
In this case, by contrast, university officials cooperated fully with the enforcement staff, often at great personal criticism, in a diligent effort to develop complete information regarding the violations. Had this candor and cooperation been lacking, the death penalty (as well as substantial penalties in addition to those imposed in this case) would have been imposed.
Although the committee declined to impose penalties pursuant to Bylaw 19.6.2.3.2-(a), the committee concluded that, for the reasons set forth in detail at the outset of this report, additional penalties clearly were warranted.
Here are the "reasons set forth in detail at the outset of this report":
Of foremost concern to the committee is that this is the second time in two years that the university has appeared before the committee as a repeat major violator under NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.3, following a major infractions case in football in 1995 (1999 men's basketball and 2001 football). In each case, the violations involved the provision or offer of significant benefits to enrolled or prospective student-athletes or their high-school coaches by university coaches or representatives of the university's athletic interests. Moreover, the committee was troubled by the fact that the violations set forth in Finding II-A occurred shortly after the release of its 1995 major infractions case, which also involved the football program and which included violations committed by representatives of the institution’s athletics interests. The committee also noted that the 1999 case, which involved the men’s basketball program, contrasted sharply with the current case, which involved the football program. In the 1999 case, representatives of the institution’s athletics interests “blew the whistle” on an assistant basketball coach who was attempting to solicit $5,000 from boosters to provide to a high school basketball coach. The boosters’ actions resulted in the university avoiding any significant penalties. In the current case, athletics representatives actively engaged in egregious violations of recruiting and extra benefit legislation associated with the football program, yet there was no indication that these activities would have been reported in the same manner as the 1999 men’s basketball violation.
So, if the boosters hadn't cooperated with the NCAA in 1999, the repeat offender status would not have been used to enforce harsher penalties on Bama in the 2001 case. Two cases where university officials and even boosters cooperated with the NCAA in infractions cases (one that would have likely never been known if not for such cooperation), the cooperation is noted and praised by the NCAA, and then the NCAA lowers the boom anyway.
In the case of USC, the
sanctions report indicates that the institution was deemed a repeat offender, did sufficiently cooperate with the investigation (no glowing praise, however), and the self-imposed penalties and corrective actions were inadequate. The NCAA found 31 major violations in football, basketball, and women's tennis and also hit USC with the Lack of Institutional Control (LOIC) penalty as well. USC got four years probation, no postseason competition for football for two years and basketball for one year, vacation of all wins in which Reggie Bush played from December 2004 to January 2005, vacation of all wins in which Jerrod Mayo played during the 2007-08 regular season, vacation of all wins in which the female tennis player played between November 2006 and May 2009, loss of 30 football scholarships over 3 years, and other various recruiting limits.
Here is what the NCAA said about the cooperation of USC:
The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4.
I suppose the difference between commendable cooperation and cooperation that "met its obligation" is the inclusion of these terms, describing USC's response, in most of the NCAA committee findings:
- "denial"
- "challenged"
- "disputed"
- "disagreement"
- "substantial disagreement"
- "contested"
- "assistant football coach ... knowingly provided ... false and/or misleading information"
In the NCAA committee findings against Alabama, there are only a couple of disagreements and one assertion that a violation occurred outside the statute of limitations. Most of the remaining violations state that the institution and the committee either agreed or partially agreed. It seems that Bama just thought that cooperation was their best chance or perhaps they were just being honest... a trait of character that the NCAA apparently sees as an avenue for exploitation.
So, in reality there wasn't much difference between the penalties handed down to Alabama and USC (difference of 9 football scholarships lost, one additional year of probation for Alabama), but one institution had far fewer major violations and cooperated in a manner that was applauded by the NCAA and the other had more major violations and only gave obligatory cooperation. What's worse is that the rationale for penalizing Alabama so heavily was because Alabama's own enforcement staff performed an honorable action and self-reported a violation that probably could have been swept under the rug and never found by the NCAA and probably would have been swept under the rug by many other programs.
In the USC sanctions report, the NCAA references its bylaws 19.01.3 (Responsibility to Cooperate) and 32.1.4 (Cooperative Principle), both of which basically state that each institution has a responsibility to cooperate with NCAA investigations and the second bylaw states that this is an "affirmative obligation" which, along with some other language within the report, seems to infer that the NCAA will modify penalties according to the level of cooperation that they receive from an institution during an investigation. The relief offered Alabama definitely does not seem commensurate with the level of cooperation that the NCAA describes as having received from the institution.
It seems that cooperation is not rewarded by the NCAA. Several programs lately have taken the opposite course of action and that has produced more positive results. The NCAA ruling about Cam Newton was a crock. The NCAA sanctions report about Alabama states that Albert Means was not aware that his mother and coaches took money from boosters and he was allowed to transfer to another school and play, so it's not the eligibility of Cam Newton that is really the issue. The issue is that when a booster paid people associated with Albert Means, even without his knowledge, it was considered an infraction. Cam Newton's father admitted that he accepted money, so even without Cam Newton's knowledge, shouldn't that have still been an infraction? Why did the NCAA not pursue this further? They have an admission that a relative of a student athlete received money for his athletic services, yet they just stated that without Cam Newton's knowledge, it wasn't an infraction? Those two rulings are contradictory and just more justification for getting rid of the NCAA which seems to mete justice without regard for their bylaws or any semblance of fairness.
