Tough talk emerges from the NCAA Presidents Retreat and people like Pat Forde and Dennis Dodd get all swoon-y over it. (Dodd actually goes there with this line: “In the last two days Mark Emmert has proved there is a new sheriff in town.” Down, boy.)
Don’t get me wrong. We’re hearing plenty of decent ideas and good intentions. That’s not unusual. But it’s the implementation that’s always a shaky proposition. Put it this way: can anyone really, truly see the NCAA imposing a TV ban on Ohio State? Dodd’s sheriff couldn’t even muster up the backbone to keep the Buckeyes out of the Sugar Bowl.
And those familiar with the havoc Congress has wrought imposing guidelines on how judges must hand out criminal sentences will be shaking their heads over this:
That’s why it was heartening to hear Emmert say that the NCAA membership will explore something akin to “sentencing guidelines.” In other words: If you’re guilty of X crime, you can expect X penalty; if you’re guilty of Y crime, you can expect Y penalty.
Black and white sound great, except we don’t live in a two-toned world.
The farther these guys try to reach, the harder it’ll be to come up with any changes that will improve things.
Get The Picture 
Are we coming up to our debt ceiling vote only it’s in the NCAA?
Senator, check your e-mail and let me know if that’s of any interest.
LikeLike
Sentencing guidelines are one thing. Having no idea at all what the punishment for a crime is supposed to be is quite another. The NCAA is just as likely to give a serious punishment for a relatively minor offense to one school and give a much lighter penalty to another for committing the same violation just because the second school is one of the favored few or because the NCAA is just pissed off at the first school. The disparity in punishment meted out by the NCAA under the current system is astounding. I support the concept of stated punishments for stated violations because at least it may put an end to the disparity. That said, what does the NCAA propose to do in the way of reform for flagrant violations that it simply chooses to ignore (cough….Auburn)?
LikeLike