One man, one (quick) vote: the NCAA and due process

We’ve certainly had a lively debate on the subject of the NCAA’s punishment of Penn State.  It’s obvious I’m not changing any minds with my position and it’s probably time to move on, but before I do, there are just a couple of final bits worth mentioning.

First, Tony Barnhart weighs in with this:

But in our haste to make things right, we cannot forget about due process. Emmert’s position is that the Freeh Report established the facts of this case. And once Penn State signed off on the report and answered a few additional questions, the NCAA had everything it needed to act.

“There was no compelling reason to delay the process,” Emmert said.

How about this? The Freeh Report is just that, a report. It is going to be challenged in a court of law. What if that court finds the report is flawed? I tend to believe that the former director of the FBI probably got it right. But wouldn’t it have made more sense to let the NCAA investigators do their work, let the legal process play out, and then determine if such sanctions were warranted?

I understand the counter argument to that. This case was too important, too tragic, too raw to be left to the normal, flawed, NCAA enforcement process. Emmert needed to assert this authority, like NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, to address a clear case of wrongdoing with swift and certain punishment. In doing so he would put everybody else on notice in a culture that occasionally needs to get taken to the woodshed. That’s a good thing, right?

But that’s the issue. Mark Emmert is not Roger Goodell. Goodell is the commissioner of a professional league, hired by owners, and given virtually unlimited powers to police that league.

Emmert, a very smart man for whom I have a great deal of respect, is the president of a voluntary association of universities. Yes, the idea that these are still amateur sports is a horse that left the barn a long time ago. Feel free to insert your joke here.

Still, the powers of the president are limited by the governance structure of the NCAA. And that can be frustrating as hell. Emmert felt he was operating within that governance structure when he acted in the Penn State case. I’m not comfortable that he did.

When you’ve lost Mr. Conventional Wisdom, you’ve lost, period.  And Barnhart’s not the only one who’s uncomfortable about Emmert’s exercise of power.  The NCAA itself isn’t comfortable.  Look at what’s being cooked up in reaction to his move:

To help allay those concerns, the NCAA plans to examine when and under what circumstances its senior leaders might take future disciplinary action outside of the traditional enforcement and infractions processes, Bob Williams, an NCAA spokesman, told The Chronicle on Wednesday.

The move follows the extraordinary steps taken this week by top NCAA leaders in punishing Penn State for its reported role in covering up child sex abuse by a former football coach. On Monday, Emmert announced stiff penalties against the university, including a $60-million fine, deep scholarship cuts, and a four-year bowl ban.

While many people praised the toughness of the NCAA’s penalties, some athletics officials raised questions about the association’s process, in which Emmert and members of the NCAA’s Executive Committee and Division I Board of Directors sidestepped the normal judicial system.

“When I got started in this business, it used to be one school, one vote,” said a longtime compliance director at a BCS university. “Now it’s one man, one vote.”

Although he stepped in this time, Emmert would be required to receive the board’s and the Executive Committee’s permission to issue sanctions in any future disciplinary case, Williams said.

Again, I understand why this happened.  It was a human response to a grave tragedy.  But it was a dangerous one, too.  I hope nobody has cause for regret about it down the road.  And I’m glad to see the discomfort set in.

*************************************************************************************************************

UPDATE:  It’s being reported that Penn State was threatened with a four-year death penalty.