The world of NCAA recruiting

[Adam]

You make great points about which I don't care.

In practice, the UTEP players wouldn't pay the penalty because the UTEP AD wouldn't have hired Floyd, and Kentucky wouldn't have hired whatshisass. There is a certain level of institutional control that should fall on the coach. If you'd like, we could limit the coach sanctions to situations where the coach was directly involved.

Would that make you feel warm, fuzzy, and in a party mood?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You make great points about which I don't care.

In practice, the UTEP players wouldn't pay the penalty because the UTEP AD wouldn't have hired Floyd, and Kentucky wouldn't have hired whatshisass. There is a certain level of institutional control that should fall on the coach. If you'd like, we could limit the coach sanctions to situations where the coach was directly involved.

Would that make you feel warm, fuzzy, and in a party mood?

Warm? Maybe. Fuzzy? In some places. Party mood? Ask me again in an hour and a half, when I get off work...

In practice, health care reform sould only involve a couple of paragraphs. But instead we're left with a bill the approximate size of the NCAA Compliance Manual. And both are equally understandable, with similar unintended consequences.

Well, crap, there goes my semi-warm and fuzzy feeling.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Warm? Maybe. Fuzzy? In some places. Party mood? Ask me again in an hour and a half, when I get off work...

In practice, health care reform sould only involve a couple of paragraphs. But instead we're left with a bill the approximate size of the NCAA Compliance Manual. And both are equally understandable, with similar unintended consequences.

Well, crap, there goes my semi-warm and fuzzy feeling.

You had to go and ruin my perfectly mediocre day.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You had to go and ruin my perfectly mediocre day.

Yeah thanks for that.

[grunewar]

If said coach agrees not to coach for X years based on the severity of the incident then a school can hire him after that time with no penalty.

Old school gets fine or whatever penalty. Coach gets his punishment. Hiring school is on notice as they know what they are getting. Current players don't suffer.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

If said coach agrees not to coach for X years based on the severity of the incident then a school can hire him after that time with no penalty.

Old school gets fine or whatever penalty. Coach gets his punishment. Hiring school is on notice as they know what they are getting. Current players don't suffer.

Agreed. That's why I suggested the coach's penalty would only follow him for as long as the guilty school suffered its penalty.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by grunewar

If said coach agrees not to coach for X years based on the severity of the incident then a school can hire him after that time with no penalty.

Old school gets fine or whatever penalty. Coach gets his punishment. Hiring school is on notice as they know what they are getting. Current players don't suffer.

Ok, so what specific number of years goes with what specific action? What level of proof is needed to justify a penalty? Iow, do you use a "civil suit" level of proof, or a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level? Who gets to decide? Are there different levels of penalties for different levels of proof? Do you assign a penalty based on the ever-popular NCAA "lack of institutional control"? Can a coach be released from his penalty earlier, much like an early release from prison, for good behavior? Since we are now talking about the ability of denying a coach the right to employment in their chosen profession, there may be civil rights issues that need to be addressed in these regulations.

So many questions, so many trees to kill in preparing the actual regulations...

Ok, I'm back in full "party-pooper" mood.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, so what specific number of years goes with what specific action? What level of proof is needed to justify a penalty? Iow, do you use a "civil suit" level of proof, or a "beyond a reasonable doubt" level? Who gets to decide? Are there different levels of penalties for different levels of proof? Do you assign a penalty based on the ever-popular NCAA "lack of institutional control"? Can a coach be released from his penalty earlier, much like an early release from prison, for good behavior? Since we are now talking about the ability of denying a coach the right to employment in their chosen profession, there may be civil rights issues that need to be addressed in these regulations.

So many questions, so many trees to kill in preparing the actual regulations...

All good points. As in any "crime" each case would be decided on the evidence. No two cases exactly alike. Think of how some of our favorite multiple offenders would get handled.....

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, I'm back in full "party-pooper" mood.

Oh, and you're welcome!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

In practice, the UTEP players wouldn't pay the penalty because the UTEP AD wouldn't have hired Floyd, and Kentucky wouldn't have hired whatshisass.

You seem to suggest a coach be punished when they may not have had anything to do with an infraction...but are connected by association. Are you saying that guessing that they were involved is adequate? Or that they were an acquaintance of someone who was?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There is a certain level of institutional control that should fall on the coach. If you'd like, we could limit the coach sanctions to situations where the coach was directly involved.

Exactly...only if they were directly involved as shown by actual evidence....not guessing that the must have had something to do with becasue they knew someone who was.

Are you an official who guesses that a foul must have been committed or charges it to all players within 5 feet or do you actually have to see it?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you an official who guesses that a foul must have been committed or charges it to all players within 5 feet or do you actually have to see it?

Now, in Snaq's defense, the NCAA actually does use this standard vs. what we do as officials during a game. This was demonstrated quite clearly back when there was an investigation started against IL back when Bruce Pearl was an assistant coach at IA under Tom Davis. He used an illegal wiretap to tape a conversation with Deon Thomas, who was being recruited by both schools, but ended up choosing IL. The investigation ended up finding no official major violations by IL, but the NCAA still invoked major sanctions because the lead investigator, Mike Slive, said even though there were no major infractions that could be proven, there was enough circumstantial evidence that "something" had to have happened.

Hmm, maybe this is a way to get around killing a bunch of trees by writing out all the rules, but rather we can write them as we go along. I'm starting to feel warm and fuzzy again...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You seem to suggest a coach be punished when they may not have had anything to do with an infraction...but are connected by association. Are you saying that guessing that they were involved is adequate? Or that they were an acquaintance of someone who was?

I operate under the assumption here, that just as the school takes responsibility for the boosters in these situations, so do the coaches. The NCAA has no problem sanctioning a school for something that happened even if they didn't know about it. As head of the program, the coach should be held accountable, too.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly...only if they were directly involved as shown by actual evidence....not guessing that the must have had something to do with becasue they knew someone who was.

I'd be willing to accept this compromise; under which it appears Mr. Floyd would be liable.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you an official who guesses that a foul must have been committed or charges it to all players within 5 feet or do you actually have to see it?

Seriously? No, but I am one who will tack on an indirect TF to a head coach whose bench spouts off and earns a T.

[mbyron]

If the penalty stuck to the coach as well as the violating program, we might see two things:

1. coaches becoming more closely involved in preventing violations, and

2. coaches not getting hired so quickly after they left a disgraced program.

Now: what would the unintended consequences be?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If the penalty stuck to the coach as well as the violating program, we might see two things:

1. coaches becoming more closely involved in preventing violations, and

2. coaches not getting hired so quickly after they left a disgraced program.

Now: what would the unintended consequences be?

Calipari won't get another job at all after the NCAA takes away all of this year's Kentucky wins?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Calipari won't get another job at all after the NCAA takes away all of this year's Kentucky wins?

Now I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy; that would be like Christmas.

[DadofTwins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Calipari won't get another job at all after the NCAA takes away all of this year's Kentucky wins?

Only if willingness to cheat weren't considered a job qualification at quite so many big-time NCAA schools.

In Calipari, Kentucky knew exactly what they were getting, and got exactly what they wanted.