NCAA Enforcement Process Changes

L

LegendaryGT

Dodd-Like
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
62,557
https://www.sbnation.com/2018/8/8/17664644/ncaa-enforcement-rules-changes-2018

As a term of employment, school presidents and athletics staff must commit contractually to full cooperation in the investigations and infractions process.

Full cooperation means reporting violations in a timely manner; sharing all knowledge and documents requested in a timely manner; providing access to all electronic devices, social media and other technology; and maintaining confidentiality.

The chair of the Division I Committee on Infractions or the Independent College Sports Adjudication Panel can impose immediate penalties when schools or individuals do not cooperate (including loss of revenue or postseason opportunities).

These bodies can consider lack of cooperation as admission of a violation.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Am I reading this right? Seems like this now effectively says the NCAA can fire your school president or your AD, or even your coach.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
And if you violate the terms of your employment contract...?
Click to expand...
The presidents and athletic staff will have conditions in their contracts with their school that they will comply with all NCAA investigations. The NCAA wants this so their investigations will have teeth, otherwise, presidents and athletic staffs just ignore requests for documents and other info and the NCAA can't build a case.

The NCAA wants to be able to say, "Talk to us and give us all these documents we want or you'll be in violation of your contract and then your Board of Regents (or whoever) will fire you."

The NCAA won't be able to fire them, but they can use the contract language as leverage in their investigations.

Basically, the NCAA has found that coaches and presidents are no longer scared of the NCAA because they know their higher-ups have their back for any rule breaking and will be willing to overlook a coverup. I guess it used to not be this way. All of academia is now on board with cheating ad bad behavior it seems.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
And if you violate the terms of your employment contract...?
Click to expand...

You could be subjected to potential disciplinary action. Or you could receive no repercussions at all. You shouldn't read to much into this. This is just a way for the NCAA to require that their leaders cooperate, and if they don't, gives the NCAA the authority to impose penalties. Nothing more than that.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
The presidents and athletic staff will have conditions in their contracts with their school that they will comply with all NCAA investigations. The NCAA wants this so their investigations will have teeth, otherwise, presidents and athletic staffs just ignore requests for documents and other info and the NCAA can't build a case.

The NCAA wants to be able to say, "Talk to us and give us all these documents we want or you'll be in violation of your contract and then your Board of Regents (or whoever) will fire you."

The NCAA won't be able to fire them, but they can use the contract language as leverage in their investigations.
Click to expand...

NCAA pulls the trigger, you get fired. I think that's good enough for me to say the NCAA fired you. You wouldn't say your boss didn't fire you because technically all he did was get HR to do it. They wouldn't have done it unless he wanted them to.
 
coit said:
You could be subjected to potential disciplinary action. Or you could receive no repercussions at all. You shouldn't read to much into this. This is just a way for the NCAA to require that their leaders cooperate, and if they don't, gives the NCAA the authority to impose penalties. Nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

You could also... be fired...
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
NCAA pulls the trigger, you get fired. I think that's good enough for me to say the NCAA fired you. You wouldn't say your boss didn't fire you because technically all he did was get HR to do it. They wouldn't have done it unless he wanted them to.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure how that is different than what's already happening. If a coach violates current NCAA rules and faces an NCAA sanction, the school can fire him.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
I'm not really sure how that is different than what's already happening. If a coach violates current NCAA rules and faces an NCAA sanction, the school can fire him.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious. If someone, oh I don't know, like our super abrasive head football coach maybe, pisses off the NCAA investigator . . . where Stansbury might not care and just figure that's his personality - maybe the NCAA decides our coach should be fired.

You know, cause the NCAA is so consistent and fair and ethical in everything they do. Never vindictive, they wouldn't have a UNC grad/fan investigate GT, or hit us with penalties and probation just cause the investigator got his panties in a twist despite no one actually breaking any rules. That would never happen. So giving the NCAA more power is a great idea.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
I'm not really sure how that is different than what's already happening. If a coach violates current NCAA rules and faces an NCAA sanction, the school can fire him.
Click to expand...

The difference is that it seems like the NCAA can now trigger that process without determining any sanctions need to be applied. Just the act of "not cooperating" or even just not doing so "in a timely manner", even if no sanctions are even proposed at the time, can be enough to render you in violation of your terms of employment, at the "immediate" discretion of the chair of the infractions committee. That seems like more than a minor change, to me.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
The difference is that it seems like the NCAA can now trigger that process without determining any sanctions need to be applied. Just the act of "not cooperating" or even just not doing so "in a timely manner", even if no sanctions are even proposed at the time, can be enough to render you in violation of your terms of employment, at the "immediate" discretion of the chair of the infractions committee. That seems like more than a minor change, to me.
Click to expand...
Failure to cooperate has always been subject to sanctions from the NCAA. See NCAA Rule 19.1.1(c). In fact, it's considered a "severe breach of conduct" on par with lack of institutional control and cash payments to recruits.

So I don't think anything changes from the NCAA's end with this change. They can issue sanctions for failure to cooperate like they always have. What they now have, however, is a stick in the negotiating process that says "you can fail to cooperate, but instead of sanctions from the NCAA, you'll also be in breach of your contract with the university." The NCAA is hoping that universities are not going to overlook broken employment contracts like they have overlooked "mere" NCAA sanctions.
 
I do think the "immediate" discretion to implement sanctions because of non-cooperation is different though, like you said. This will likely stop some of the stonewalling universities do in the hope the NCAA just goes away.
 
it wouldn't have come to this if the ncaa actually attempted to practice "equal justice under the law". see UNCheat.....

making others jump though hoops to cover their own ineptness not to mention creating an whole new level of bureaucracy....
 
This seems like a change in emphasis rather than substance. Violating NCAA rules has been grounds for termination in every coach’s contract I’ve ever seen. I don’t know about Presidents’, but I’m sure they contain generalized clauses about their duties vis-a-vis athletics supervision that would allow for termination if the Board wanted.

That’s the key issue, though — it’s still up to the employers to decide whether a violation should result in termination. The NCAA is a cooperative body and continues to rely upon member institutions’ willpower to enforce the rules.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
The difference is that it seems like the NCAA can now trigger that process without determining any sanctions need to be applied. Just the act of "not cooperating" or even just not doing so "in a timely manner", even if no sanctions are even proposed at the time, can be enough to render you in violation of your terms of employment, at the "immediate" discretion of the chair of the infractions committee. That seems like more than a minor change, to me.
Click to expand...

Are you strawmanning or do you really think that the NCAA can have any influence over a contract between a school and it's president? That isn't how contracts work.
 
coit said:
Are you strawmanning or do you really think that the NCAA can have any influence over a contract between a school and it's president? That isn't how contracts work.
Click to expand...

Maybe you want to be more specific here, because it's absolutely legal for an employer to offer you a contract of employment that requires you to maintain good standing with a third party, unions being the most common example. If you don't pay your dues or you are otherwise removed from good standing with a union when you hold a job covered by a union security contract, you absolutely lose your job. Security clearances work this way, too, in defense contracting. I have personally signed several contracts with a private employer that the USG could have effectively unilaterally terminated by removing my clearance. I've also personally signed more than one contract with a private employer requiring me to maintain professional certifications, which another private company could have effectively unilaterally terminated by refusing to recertify me for a particular skill set.

There's absolutely nothing special about contract law in general that forbids this, so maybe I'm missing something about this specific scenario.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
Maybe you want to be more specific here, because it's absolutely legal for an employer to offer you a contract of employment that requires you to maintain good standing with a third party, unions being the most common example. If you don't pay your dues or you are otherwise removed from good standing with a union when you hold a job covered by a union security contract, you absolutely lose your job. Security clearances work this way, too, in defense contracting. I have personally signed several contracts with a private employer that the USG could have effectively unilaterally terminated by removing my clearance. I've also personally signed more than one contract with a private employer requiring me to maintain professional certifications, which another private company could have effectively unilaterally terminated by refusing to recertify me for a particular skill set.

There's absolutely nothing special about contract law in general that forbids this, so maybe I'm missing something about this specific scenario.
Click to expand...

Well you seem to be implying that a president could reasonably refuse to fully cooperate with an NCAA investigation involving his or her school and remain in good standing with his/her superiors. Obviously, this is not going to be the case.

I get what you are saying that it seems on the face of it unusual for the NCAA to make demands like that in a contract with a president, but the fact is that the NCAA already imposes many requirements on member institutions that are equal to this at least in spirit. This way, a president can't use an "I didn't know" defense when they get their school into trouble by not cooperating!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top