Obvious political wankery is obvious.

Gee, who could have expected that a former Ole Miss football player who’s now a state legislator is introducing a bill aimed at NCAA investigations?

Rep. Trey Lamar, R-Senatobia, introduced the potential legislation (House Bill 1040), which would force under the threat of financial penalty for the NCAA “to complete its investigation, present findings to the NCAA Committee on Infractions and to render its final decision either imposing penalties for the violations proven in the investigation process or dismissal of the allegations” within nine months of a member institution’s response to a letter of inquiry.

“Financial penalty”?  Do tell us more, Trey.

Should the NCAA fail to meet these time frames, the bill proposes it would be fined $10,000 each day it goes past the window of time and said fine should be “payable to the member institution subject to the investigation and actionable through the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi.”

Only in Mississippi would somebody think it a good idea to incentivize schools to drag out violation investigations.  At least I hope only in Mississippi.

Though Rep. Lamar can rest comfortably with the thought that the NCAA’s head of enforcement is sensitive to time issues.


Filed under Political Wankery, The NCAA

7 responses to “Obvious political wankery is obvious.

  1. Judgedawg

    if he wants to speed up investigations sponsor a billion allowing the NCAA to obtain a subpoena and make it a crime to make a false statement to an NCAA investigator.

    That would speed up investigations immeasurably.


  2. Macallanlover

    Not to support Ole Miss, or this legislation but something needs to be done, perhaps a Statute of Limitations of “X” days/months before the NCAA loses any right to sanction the school. After the USC, Miami, UNC, fiascoes, something needs to light a fire under the bureaucrats’ asses.


    • Gaskilldawg

      I understand your position, but the problem is that the NCAA does not have the tools needed to investigate quickly. It has no subpoena power, so a former player, or a coach who no longer wishes to coach, or a booster can blow the investigators off.

      If the NCAA members want an enforcement arm, and want that enforcement arm to not have subpoena power then they have to accept delay as the consequence of getting what they want.


      • Macallanlover

        Understand the lack of subpoena power, but the power they have to level punishment if the university doesn’t cooperate and present their case could be very strong to me. For example, you can refuse to take a breath test ot blood test if asked as a driver but that lack of cooperation can result in a DUI based on the information the authorities have. Why not tell them we have evidence indication a violation, submit your case and we will make a decision. The USC case was about eight years after the first allegations, why let someone hold up the process until all the parties involved have left the scene, whether it be coaches, ADs, or players.

        Realize it isn’t just this simple but it seems they need to make decisions while it is relevant.


        • Gaskilldawg

          Sure, the NCAA has leverage over current players and coaches, but what leverage does it have over laremy Tunsil? It cannot make him ineligible.


  3. Uglydawg

    “Only in Mississippi”? .I think it could happen in most SEC states. In fact, the Georgia State Legislature is often heralded as the antipathy of the way a functional governing body should function.
    But the 10K a day thing is kind of over the top.
    It’s counter-productive for O’MS. because it is such a glaring admission that there’s a lot of heat under the pot and that there’s something unsavory stewing in it.
    Interesting that this came up AFTER the recruiting pitches have been made..It would be pretty good fodder for other schools.
    I’d suspect that the more this is publicized, the more Rebel recruits will be scratching their heads and wondering if they’ve made a wise choice.


  4. Napoleon BonerFart

    Couple that bill with a 6-month window for answering FOIA requests, and I think he’s really on to something.