H*****r
发帖数: 764 | 1 INDIANAPOLIS -- The NCAA called it the "Enforcement Experience" like it was
an Epcot attraction.
First thought? It wouldn't be the first time the words "Mickey Mouse" were
attached to the association's mysterious investigative process.
But give the monolithic organization credit. It tried to be a little less
monolithic this week by inviting two dozen or so media members to Indy to
share how its (punitive) sausage is made.
Boise State's violations would appear to be minor, but Chris Petersen's
program was hit with major penalties. (Getty Images)
Boise State's violations would appear to be minor, but Chris Petersen's
program was hit with major penalties. (Getty Images)
We already know -- just like in the slaughterhouse -- the process can be
ugly and rank. If there is anything predictable about a real enforcement
experience, it has yet to be revealed. Southern California gets hammered,
but Jim Tressel continues to keep his job. Boise State gets slapped with
lack of institutional control, but the Buckeye Five gets to play in the
Sugar Bowl. Cam Newton doesn't miss a game, but Perry Jones misses the
postseason. In each case, there are layers of rules, nuance and policies to
be understood. We as a society largely don't have the attention span or
interest to follow along. Even if we did, a lot of it still doesn't make
practical, let alone moral, sense.
That's why we attended -- for a few answers. All the NCAA can do is try to
be more transparent, a mandate from president Mark Emmert. Tuesday was a
revealing look at that enforcement process, complete with enough potty
breaks to guard against lack of constitutional control. At the end of the
day, we sentenced a make-believe school to made-up penalties after a mock
infractions hearing based largely, it seemed, on hearsay. That was the most
realistic part of the process.
Our case had to do with "Coach Smith" at State U., who allegedly funneled
test answers to four of his football players. Smith eventually was
sanctioned by the infractions committee (us) after being fired by the school
, but without a smoking gun to tie it all together. There was an answer key
the players used to cheat that a former girlfriend of one of them told the
NCAA she had seen. We never saw it. What was left was only circumstantial
evidence. All four players achieved their highest semester grade in that
Sociology of Sports class. The testimony was basically split among the four.
How would you feel if your livelihood was ruined without evidence you could
hold in your hand? That's why our group of five mock enforcement officers (
real-life media hacks) voted 3-2 against making a formal allegation. The
majority of the other participants disagreed, meaning the "Experience" would
proceed beyond one potty break.
Enforcement's real world is a strange enough place. Former USC running backs
coach Todd McNair will never work again in college if an NCAA ruling isn't
overturned by some court. Convicted felon Lloyd Lake told the NCAA, "He [
McNair] knew" that the coach was aware Reggie Bush was taking money and
benefits from Lake and a partner. Asked how he knew, Lake told the NCAA, "'
Cause he was around a lot ..."
Read the record, and everything else -- similar to Coach Smith's case -- is
circumstantial. It resulted in McNair, like Smith, being slapped with an
unethical conduct charge by the NCAA. That's the association's scarlet
letter. The charge makes a respected eight-year NFL veteran essentially
unable to be hired at the college level. That's why McNair intends to sue
the association after losing his appeal.
The NCAA seemingly didn't need Lake to nail McNair to make its case against
USC. Lake has done jail time and reportedly is tied to numerous felonies.
Based on such thin evidence as well as credibility issues with the witness,
doesn't the NCAA need a higher standard if it is going to ruin someone's
career?
"The reality is ... some of the issues that we're investigating involved
people that don't have a pristine record, that are in a different world than
most of us," said Julie Roe Lach, the association's vice president for
enforcement. "For that reason we're going to deal with people who are doing
illegal activity. That's just the nature of the recruiting business right
now."
Unsavory characters (prisoners, felons, etc.) are also used in real-world
court cases. The difference there is a presumption of innocence for the
accused. There are cross-examinations, witnesses and either a judge or jury
to decide guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The NCAA standard for conviction
is much lower. Infractions hearings are more like civil cases --
administrative as opposed to criminal -- where only "clear and convincing
evidence" is needed. That's according to former infractions committee chair
Jo Potuto, a bulldog in the hearing room, judging by Tuesday, and a Nebraska
law professor outside of it.
That lack of true due process paints the NCAA into a PR corner. We already
know the public doesn't understand the process. It really doesn't understand
when the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power to compel witnesses to testify.
The public relations battle can't be won with one seven-hour session. Maybe
the simple takeaway is that the enforcement staff is made up of decent,
honest -- maybe a bit geeky -- folks who do their extremely complicated jobs
well.
More on College Football
Column
Dennis Dodd Dennis Dodd
Given what's in the clause that allowed the suspended Buckeyes to play in
the Sugar Bowl, the committee got it wrong. Read >>
Related links
* Calif. Senate panel explores ways to stop agents
* Veteran Ohio State spokeswoman reassigned
* Nightclub tries to get OSU in more trouble
* Ex-OSU star Spielman says 'more stuff coming'
* Eye on College Football: NCAA investigations
* NCAA.org: Enforcement | Investigation process
"I usually get all tingly inside when I talk about the NCAA interview
requirements," said Chris Strobel, a director of enforcement, "but I'll try
to control myself."
Who knew these people had a sense of humor? There was campy humor in video
presentations. One witness was coerced into talking because of obnoxious
accordion music played by an investigator. One interview was conducted in a
bathroom stall. They told us that in the real world, interviews really have
gone down in a nursing home, a prison, even a Burger King. They call them "
Captain Kirks," boldly going where no one has gone before.
Ameen Najjar, a 49-year-old director of enforcement, was convincing as an
indignant Coach Smith in front of the committee. Ignore his baldness and it
was easy to squint and imagine Tressel in the same position on Aug. 12, when
Ohio State gets its day in front of the infractions committee.
Team Enforcement can't help it if they're caught up in one of the worst-
perceived aspects of college sports. To change that perception, the NCAA is
in the early stages of admitting there is a problem with how it is viewed.
Early in the day we were reminded there is not selective enforcement. (The
old line: The NCAA was so mad at Kentucky, it hammered Cleveland State.)
Perhaps not, but there is a financial difference in the way schools are able
to defend themselves. Ohio State, with a huge compliance department,
probably has an advantage over, say, Boise State.
One school might eventually keep its coach despite a coverup that resulted
in six players competing while ineligible. The other already has been
charged with lack of institutional control, in part because incoming
freshmen were allowed to sleep on teammates' floors.
"The more we can pull back the veil and let people see the inner workings,
the better people feel about it," Emmert said. "When something is reported
inaccurately because we haven't communicated it well, it's another mess we
have to clean up."
The length of cases is getting shorter, about 10 months on average. In 2000,
the average case lasted more than four years. There are more folks working
on them, about 50 in the enforcement department. Entering his seventh month
in office, Emmert reiterated his get-tough stance that was, to be fair,
similar to those made by his predecessors when they came into office.
"We need to make sure that our penalty structure and our enforcement process
impose a thoughtful level of concern, and even fear, that the cost of
violating rules exceeds the benefit," he said.
It is the ultimate open-ended question: When is risk going to outweigh
reward? The same organization that hammered USC last year continually
reminds us that every infractions committee is different, that it's not fair
to compare penalties. In theory, that means the next major violator could
get off lightly.
Emmert had to be proud of our little group of faux committee members. We
slammed Smith and State U.: three years' probation, the loss of 10
scholarships total over two years, two years of vacated wins and a two-year
postseason ban. Smith got a three-year show-cause order, meaning it would be
hard for anyone to hire him, which was kind of meaningless. Like McNair,
the unethical conduct charge will follow him around for the rest of his
career.
Then in a Q&A session, Yahoo! Sports columnist Dan Wetzel reminded the room
that two years ago the (real) committee asked the (real) NCAA board of
directors to allow for stronger penalties. Potuto said the committee never
got an official answer.
That would qualify as one hell of an incongruous ride at Epcot. Sometimes it
's educational to watch the sausage being made. Sometimes it's as ugly as
you imagine.
It was fitting that on the way out the door, we were all given a copy of the
434-page NCAA Manual. All that was missing was a pat on the back
accompanied by a hearty: "Any other questions you have, it's all in there." | s****y
发帖数: 958 | |
|
