How Would You 'Fix' the NCAA?

[Redwood Forrest]

We are all aware of the perception around the nation that the NCAA is either incompetent , biased, or both when it comes to handing down sanctions. The question is, “how would you correct the problem?”

There seems to be no way to stop nor enforce the “money handshake” if it is as widespread as we all believe. Obviously the NCAA cannot condone this, but what do they do about it? Everyone can’t be on probation or ruled ineligible, can they?

What about so-called agents and runners. Without banning any contact at all between them and athletic departments there seems no way to control agents. No payment for film or any other so-called recruit services. That would be my new rule. No contact (or contract) at all.

Or how about this option: Take the money the schools are already paying these ‘services” and put it in a pool. Everyone can use the same film database. Just an idea.

The same for the official NFL agents and scouts. A pool. Let the current players talk to them all they want about what their prospects are and what areas they need to improve in.

What to do about the ‘biased’ perception?

As long as $$$ is involved there will be cheating and we all know that. Something needs to be done. I would like to get your ideas. Pretend you are Mark Emmert (come on, get you head out of the sand) and smell the coffee. :conf2: All is not well in spite of the PR campaign to convince us otherwise.

 

[BamaGoose]

Blow it up and start over. Major Programs could pay the players. Players not good enough for the Major Programs would go to Mid Major like programs and they coud be recruited again after every season. This would create competition among the major programs which eventually would bankrupt *U because Bobby Lowder and Jimmy Rane will be removed from the program soon. :biggrin:

 

[gmart74]

i would give them a 2 yr probationary period to have a committee of outsiders rewrite every rule and make standard punishments for certain violations. at the end of the two years, every person in the ncaa would be banned from working for the ncaa for 10 yrs. they have become too interested in their own power and obscure rules and have lost any and all ability to manage fairly or competently.

 

[buzzincuzzin]

Mr. Emmert is the problem. Nothing will get better until somebody can serve as an unbiased commissioner capable of reading his own rulebook. The system is not all that bad but implementation er,,,ah,,, uh,,, well,, is not good.

 

[Ole Man Dan]

Jack it up and slide a 'New' one in under it...
OR...
Fire everyone who works there and rehire with people who will follow the rule book.
(No Politics)
Simplify the 'Rule Book', and throw it at any coach who doesn't follow it...
Ex. Jim Tressell- 5 year suspension from college football...(Aiding & Abetting)

 

[USCBAMA]

There is not aviable option under current laws (Title IX, etc.) that would allow universities to legally pay players and solve anything. To stop the madness you'd have to pay stars more than backups and "lesser" starters, otherwise there would still be under-the-table payments to the best players if the payment was just a stipend that was the same for everyone. To comply with Title IX and to be "fair" you'd have to pay all athletes, otherwise the number of lawsuits would make your head spin. It just cannot work.

Solutions:

1. If a university is hit for major violations - mandatory 2-year suspension of the HC coach regardless of what he may or may not have known, plus mandatory 2-year suspension of any assistant coach or administrator involved in the probation. Second time it happens, HC and any others involved receive lifetime ban.
2. Require universities to permanently disassociate from any booster associated with any major violations, period. No second chances, screw up and they are gone.
3. Make it so "X" number of secondary violations in a given period equates to a major violation (UT and auburn would have failed this test during past few seasons), then apply above rules to coaches.
3. Bring back TV ban as part of probation.
4. Start enforcing the death penalty. I imagine if they applied it just once or twice in the next year it would have an amazing ripple effect on the college football world. If not the death penalty, at least give scholarship limitiations with some teeth... heck, let the school stay, but don't allow it any scholarships the first year on probation, then 10 the second, then 15 the third. If it stays clean, after 3-years it can sign 25 again.

These items would work, so of course they are probably just as unlikely to happen as a legalized pay-for-play system. Mr. Emmert does seem to be a big part of the problem, so replacing him would also be a top priority.

 

[First Sergeant]

Start from scratch and be sure that an Alabama Alumni are in charge of each department

 

[EscaTider]

I would begin by removing *U from the NCAA, and require all of their athletic programs (including swimming and diving) to disband and be shut down- permanently. That would be a start.

On a serious note, I agree with most of USCBAMA's points.

 

[major tidefan]

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I don't know if it's still the case but we need people in the NCAA offices with NO ATTACHMENT, AFFILIATION, or LOYALTY to their own schools.

I don't know how much of this is true but I've read it a few places. Remember how Florida was in trouble so often in the 1980s? I've read several articles stating that part of that stemmed from Vince Dooley having a Georgia shill in the NCAA office. I've also heard that what "protected" Auburn in the 1980s was the same type thing. But when whoever that guy was left then the newbie took the Ramsey allegations seriously.

If any of that is true it should not be. Hire folks from Utah or Alaska or Hawaii if you must. The vigorousness in attempting to enforce allegations should never be determined by the whim of who happens to sit in the office.

Btw- I'm NOT saying that Florida was innocent of their 1984 and 1989 sanctions - they were clearly guilty. At the same time, Georgia got a free pass on the recruitment of Herschel Walker. I was even told by a reporter from Jackson, MS this past week (before the Auburn special aired on HBO) that there is a group of cheerleaders at MSU who, uh, do whatever it is young gals do to get signatures.

Their name? "The Dogcatchers"

(After all - how can you ever prove a sexual favor was given for a signature if both deny it?)

 

[GrayTide]

There is not aviable option under current laws (Title IX, etc.) that would allow universities to legally pay players and solve anything. To stop the madness you'd have to pay stars more than backups and "lesser" starters, otherwise there would still be under-the-table payments to the best players if the payment was just a stipend that was the same for everyone. To comply with Title IX and to be "fair" you'd have to pay all athletes, otherwise the number of lawsuits would make your head spin. It just cannot work.

Solutions:

1. If a university is hit for major violations - mandatory 2-year suspension of the HC coach regardless of what he may or may not have known, plus mandatory 2-year suspension of any assistant coach or administrator involved in the probation. Second time it happens, HC and any others involved receive lifetime ban.
2. Require universities to permanently disassociate from any booster associated with any major violations, period. No second chances, screw up and they are gone.
3. Make it so "X" number of secondary violations in a given period equates to a major violation (UT and auburn would have failed this test during past few seasons), then apply above rules to coaches.
3. Bring back TV ban as part of probation.
4. Start enforcing the death penalty. I imagine if they applied it just once or twice in the next year it would have an amazing ripple effect on the college football world. If not the death penalty, at least give scholarship limitiations with some teeth... heck, let the school stay, but don't allow it any scholarships the first year on probation, then 10 the second, then 15 the third. If it stays clean, after 3-years it can sign 25 again.

These items would work, so of course they are probably just as unlikely to happen as a legalized pay-for-play system. Mr. Emmert does seem to be a big part of the problem, so replacing him would also be a top priority.

I am in total agreement with the exception of extending the ban for a HC or an Assistant involved in a major violation (ie Jim Tressel) to 5 years and after the 5 year period a "show cause" to rehire those coaches. I am also in favor of 0 scholarships in year one of the probation. Folks, there has to be consequences for these coaches and boosters who knowingly and willfully cheat or coverup and IMO the best way is to hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook. Bowl ban and NO conference revenue sharing for a specified period of time. Best thing to do for agents and runners is to line them up and shoot them.

 

[Vinny]

Have Al Qaeda blow up it's headquarters with all of the dead weight inside it.

 

[BamaFossil]

The OP has posed an interesting topic. It has required that I think a bit more than usual. Indeed it’s much easier to throw stones at the NCAA Enforcement Arm than to propose real solutions. I’ve done my share of throwing stones and relish every one of ‘em. :cool2: So moving on…

If I had a free hand to craft the NCAA enforcement rules into whatever I want, I’d start with the rule book itself. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Get rid of the ticky-tack rules and focus on the big items. For example, if a school wants to simulate a game-day experience for the recruit (UGA & TN), let ‘em.

Toss out the “repeat offender” verbiage. Every offense should stand on its own. As things stand today, a school can fire a coach for offering money to a basketball player… but even if that player never comes to the school in question and the school did everything right in reporting the coach's actions and firing the coach, the school is still deemed guilty of a violation and the probation window opens. Then when the next violation occurs… presto! That school is a repeat offender! This leverage is abused by the NCAA. Begone with it!!

One of the biggest problems for the NCAA Enforcement Arm is the perception of unequal treatment amongst NCAA member institutions. It certainly seems that some schools get a pass while others get a proctoscope. Accordingly, I’d spell out the following and apply the resultant rules unfailingly to every NCAA institution:

- Rules of engagement. Exactly what type of event can trigger an inquiry.

- Level of “proof” or credibility necessary to result in a determination of guilt. Are secret witnesses OK? Are payments to elicit confessions OK? Is testimony from supporters of rival schools OK? Can a school cross-examine an accuser?

- Extent to which a school’s cooperation in an investigation – or lack thereof - mitigates or exacerbates the penalties, should the school be found to have committed major violations.

- Range of penalties for the given offenses. It would be unacceptable for one school to be hammered with loss of scholarships for a given offense, while another school commits a similar offense and receives nothing more than a stern lecture and probation.

This last one bears more discussion. The role of precedent should be significant. However, I’d start with a clean slate(!) as to how the NCAA hands out punishment. The “clean slate” may require a few apologies to institutions that have been harshly treated by the NCAA in the past, if that harsh treatment isn’t going to be used as precedent. The textbook situation is a case in point. I do not believe the NCAA wants to use their treatment of Alabama in that instance as precedent for how they will treat other institutions whose players are guilty of similar non-financial-gain-but-unallowed actions. Granted, a few apologies and restoration of vacated victories can’t undo what was done. However, it would set the tone for a new and hopefully more balanced and unbiased working relationship with schools.

If a coach is found guilty of being involved in unallowed activities, whatever sanctions are levied would apply to both the school and the coach. If the coach goes to another school, the receiving school takes on a carbon copy of whatever sanctions the original school has remaining.

If a booster is found to be involved in unallowed activites, sanctions are levied on the school. Unfortunately that’s the only way to temper the stupidity of those few boosters who have more money than brains… Hammer the program they love. Just do it equally for all schools. If a coach had knowledge of a rogue booster's actions but didn't report it, see above.

Finally, the extent to which a booster of one school can entrap players of a rival school should be addressed. Fishing trips, for example. But, gotta' preclude a quid pro quo arrangement amongst rival boosters. "Hey, I'll pay your guy if you pay my guy!"

Not much of a start, but I had fun writing it.
DT_old:

 

[Redwood Forrest]

The OP has posed an interesting topic. It has required that I think a bit more than usual. Indeed it’s much easier to throw stones at the NCAA Enforcement Arm than to propose real solutions. I’ve done my share of throwing stones and relish every one of ‘em. :cool2: So moving on…

If I had a free hand to craft the NCAA enforcement rules into whatever I want, I’d start with the rule book itself. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Get rid of the ticky-tack rules and focus on the big items. For example, if a school wants to simulate a game-day experience for the recruit (UGA & TN), let ‘em.

Toss out the “repeat offender” verbiage. Every offense should stand on its own. As things stand today, a school can fire a coach for offering money to a basketball player… but even if that player never comes to the school in question and the school did everything right in reporting the coach's actions and firing the coach, the school is still deemed guilty of a violation and the probation window opens. Then when the next violation occurs… presto! That school is a repeat offender! This leverage is abused by the NCAA. Begone with it!!

One of the biggest problems for the NCAA Enforcement Arm is the perception of unequal treatment amongst NCAA member institutions. It certainly seems that some schools get a pass while others get a proctoscope. Accordingly, I’d spell out the following and apply the resultant rules unfailingly to every NCAA institution:

- Rules of engagement. Exactly what type of event can trigger an inquiry.

- Level of “proof” or credibility necessary to result in a determination of guilt. Are secret witnesses OK? Are payments to elicit confessions OK? Is testimony from supporters of rival schools OK? Can a school cross-examine an accuser?

- Extent to which a school’s cooperation in an investigation – or lack thereof - mitigates or exacerbates the penalties, should the school be found to have committed major violations.

- Range of penalties for the given offenses. It would be unacceptable for one school to be hammered with loss of scholarships for a given offense, while another school commits a similar offense and receives nothing more than a stern lecture and probation.

This last one bears more discussion. The role of precedent should be significant. However, I’d start with a clean slate(!) as to how the NCAA hands out punishment. The “clean slate” may require a few apologies to institutions that have been harshly treated by the NCAA in the past, if that harsh treatment isn’t going to be used as precedent. The textbook situation is a case in point. I do not believe the NCAA wants to use their treatment of Alabama in that instance as precedent for how they will treat other institutions whose players are guilty of similar non-financial-gain-but-unallowed actions. Granted, a few apologies and restoration of vacated victories can’t undo what was done. However, it would set the tone for a new and hopefully more balanced and unbiased working relationship with schools.

If a coach is found guilty of being involved in unallowed activities, whatever sanctions are levied would apply to both the school and the coach. If the coach goes to another school, the receiving school takes on a carbon copy of whatever sanctions the original school has remaining.

If a booster is found to be involved in unallowed activites, sanctions are levied on the school. Unfortunately that’s the only way to temper the stupidity of those few boosters who have more money than brains… Hammer the program they love. Just do it equally for all schools. If a coach had knowledge of a rogue booster's actions but didn't report it, see above.

Finally, the extent to which a booster of one school can entrap players of a rival school should be addressed. Fishing trips, for example. But, gotta' preclude a quid pro quo arrangement amongst rival boosters. "Hey, I'll pay your guy if you pay my guy!"

Not much of a start, but I had fun writing it. DT_old:

Thanks. I was hoping for some serious ideas, and you have some.

To your idea - Extent to which a school’s cooperation in an investigation – or lack thereof - mitigates or exacerbates the penalties, should the school be found to have committed major violations. If all the major penalties had guidelines to that effect seems a great idea. example: Paying a player in any amount exceeding ten dollars. two year TV ban. Loss of six scollys. Try to cover up or fail to seriously internally investigate -- double the penalty.

I also like the idea of the coaches involved in cheating taking along the penalty to any school with ethics low enough to want to hire them. IOW, if they want to win at any cost then pay the cost up front.

 

[0LDSCH00L]

I would throw them in the pond!

 

[TommyMac]

You can no more "fix it" than you could an apple that is rotting from the inside out, it has to be replaced with honorable men with no agendas or favortism. One things for certain, the rule book has to be pared down and stgrictly adhered to by every member with no exceptions regardless of conference affiliation.

 

[UA2373]

Mr. Emmert is the problem. Nothing will get better until somebody can serve as an unbiased commissioner capable of reading his own rulebook. The system is not all that bad but implementation er,,,ah,,, uh,,, well,, is not good.

I totally disagree with this although I understand why you may feel this way. Give him time and think big picture, fixing the NCAA's shortcomings is what he's trying to do. He has had a couple of what appear to be gaffs but I'm not sure those were really gaffs now.

I would begin by removing *U from the NCAA, and require all of their athletic programs (including swimming and diving) to disband and be shut down- permanently. That would be a start.[/B]points.

I have no problem with this idea but with the way those idiots are boycotting things down there if they get whacked by the NCAA with anything more than a relative slap on the wrist they may boycott the NCAA.......or secede altogether!

 

[Redwood Forrest]

I totally disagree with this although I understand why you may feel this way. Give him time and think big picture, fixing the NCAA's shortcomings is what he's trying to do. He has had a couple of what appear to be gaffs but I'm not sure those were really gaffs now.

I have no problem with this idea but with the way those idiots are boycotting things down there if they get whacked by the NCAA with anything more than a relative slap on the wrist they may boycott the NCAA.......or secede altogether!

I assume you mean Camgate and Pryorgate? Why do you think it may not have been a gaff? Not trying to pick a fight, just curious. Were they giving them enough rope to hang themselves?

 

[crains]

:BigA: How do you fix a car that is completely totaled? You junk it and start over with a new one that has never been wrecked! That is how you fix it! Junk it and start over! Do not try to keep any of the scrap that is left!

 

[BamaFossil]

:BigA: How do you fix a car that is completely totaled? You junk it and start over with a new one that has never been wrecked! That is how you fix it! Junk it and start over! Do not try to keep any of the scrap that is left!

I understand this sentiment and have expressed it on more than one occasion. Trouble is, as I understand it, the schools ARE the NCAA! A whole lot of schools would have to agree before the NCAA in its present form is junked. Then there's the pesky "What next?" question after schools withdraw from the NCAA. There will of course still be rules to ensure a level playing field, so who makes 'em and who monitors 'em?

First let's consider the minimum numerical requirements for schools to withdraw from the NCAA and not be committing athletic suicide. I suppose a single school could unilaterally withdraw, but that's suicide. So perhaps a conference could withdraw if all schools agreed? Or maybe two conferences? Or four? IMO the best option with a chance of working would be if the BCS conferences decided to craft an NCAA structure that works for larger schools with a higher revenue potential in athletics.

Then assuming a critical-mass group of schools opt out of the NCAA and form their own athletic association, they will still need rules and a means of monitoring and enforcing those rules. Starts to sound like NCAA part deaux.

While I might be pleased with replacing the NCAA with another entity more aligned with the major conferences, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Unfortunately I believe the more achievable approach is to try to repair the present NCAA.

Gads... It hurt to write that last sentence. DT_fly: