Ivan Maisel has a piece about what the NCAA thinks it has up its sleeve in terms of rewriting the rule book. Some of the proposals are eye-opening – 50 percent scholarship reductions and penalties of up to 5 percent of a school’s athletic budget are pretty tough sounding, no doubt.
But there are those pesky practical considerations that get in the way every time.
It’s difficult to find anyone in intercollegiate athletics who does not want the NCAA to move beyond outdated, nitpicking regulations and to handle cases in a more timely matter. But the discussion of greater accountability is meeting resistance from those who would be held accountable. [Emphasis added.]
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, duh.
The coaches in particular are likely to have a mass apoplectic fit over this:
Under the current NCAA bylaw, a head coach is “presumed” to have knowledge of what is occurring in his program and “can be responsible” for the actions of his assistants.
The proposed change would do away with presumption. It would make the head coach responsible for his assistants’ actions regardless of his knowledge of them. The penalties would range from 5 to 100 percent of competition in a season.
You can’t take away plausible deniability! That’s… that’s… un-American!
“I guess they expect us to become compliance officers,” said Maryland football coach Randy Edsall…
Why, Randy, you say that as if it’s a bad thing.
The only way this goes anywhere if a scandal occurs so huge that a failure to act threatens to ruin the NCAA’s credibility beyond recovery (think 1919 Black Sox-like). We’re not even close to that. So I’ll be surprised if anything truly substantive results from this. Not that Mark Emmert won’t paint the results as anything other than that, regardless of what they produce.