Permaban coaches who put kids in danger
This is obviously a reaction to the pieces of shit at Baylor.
But here is a question - can/does the NCAA permaban coaches and athletic personnel that knowingly put kids in harms way to advance their own agenda? To me, there are 17 year olds on college campuses. This is a child safety issue, at the very least.
What Briles did was enough for there to be some sort of decision that he will never work for an NCAA school again. Paterno would have fallen under the same category, had it not been for him dying like a coward before he faced the full force of the wrath that he deserved. Pitino... hookers... meh. Maybe? The NCAA could clean up a lot of crap by letting coaches know there are repercussions for looking the other way.
I've never heard of this being levied against a coach, but I don't follow this kind of stuff religiously. Is there something in place the NCAA can enact? If not, why is there nothing like this on the books yet? This guy has no business anywhere near a college campus. Same with anyone else who very obviously knew.
I guess the bigger question, if this stuff can be substantiated, aren't these guys headed to prison?
February 3rd, 2017 at 12:50 AM ^
maybe just sue the ncaa to get their asses in gear
February 3rd, 2017 at 1:03 AM ^
I dont know about a permaban but I'm not necessarily against it. The issue of dirty tactics will never go away though unless there are some repurcussions to the head coach AND to the institution. This way the coach just can't be scapegoated and fired only to land on his feet someplace else and the school can't just go on with its usual business as if nothing ever happened.
Penalties in general really need to be stiffened up. They are supposed to hurt. They are penalties. Vacating wins is 100% meaningless and should be banished from ever being uttered again as a punishment. There should just be more scholarship losses over more years and longer bowl bans. This is the only way you will disincentivize the institution from doing dirty stuff and eliminiate their political spin machines from shirking the blame onto someone else. The banning coaches idea makes sense since it probably the main logical way to disincentivize their complicity in all of it.
February 3rd, 2017 at 7:51 AM ^
Michigan fans still want those banners put back up for the Fab 5. It was a big deal to Penn State and Paterno fans. It will be a big deal to UNC or Louisville if they are forced to vacate national championships. I'm sure there are times when nobody cares, but there are also times when the school would have preferred being docked more scholarships.
While there is plenty of room to argue about the proper severity, NCA punishments follow some valid logic. They are meant to directly correspond to the offense. Use ineligible players, forfeit games. Cheat in recruiting, forfeit scholarships. Lack institutional compliance, post-season bans. They need not be the only penalties and vacating wins in past seasons never is afaik. In any case, schools that use ineligible players should always forfeit those games. There is no reason to stop doing so. The lack of this allegation is why the NCAA reversed their Paterno penalty on forfeited wins.
Long bans are almost always reduced for good behavior. It happened to Michigan after the Ed Martin scandal. That's unlikely to change, it's part of the American way, so no one should be surprised the next time it happens.
I'd like to see the NCAA use TV bans in the most serious cases. They've been reluctant to because it hurts the schools they play too. TV money has gotten more and more important in the Power 5 conferences. But it's the one penalty, short of death, that hurts the school's bottom line in a direct and significant way. It should apply to Baylor, since their administration was complicit in their violations. Having that in play will encourage conferences to do a better job of policing their own. It also drives home the point that some things are more important than the money football brings in. That's something the NCAA and too many of their schools seem to struggle with.
February 3rd, 2017 at 8:34 AM ^
I've been hearing all week on the radio how Jim Boeheim is going for win #1000 this weekend. Nobody mentions the 100+ wins Syracuse had to vacate for using inelgible players. Maybe in some dusty NCAA record book Boeheim will have fewer wins, but to every SU fan, he's at 999.
February 3rd, 2017 at 9:42 AM ^
What about Tom Izzo whitewashing the Wonders Hall Assault for Payne and Appling? He put the women on campus there in danger for four years and the players never even had their names in the media.
Start with Izzo.
February 3rd, 2017 at 1:01 AM ^
February 3rd, 2017 at 7:36 AM ^
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, Truth has a very anti-Joe Paterno bias.
Paterno died as he spent his last decades - as a coward and scoundrel. He had a chance to do the right thing over and over again, but instead chose what he thought was the easy way out.
So yeah, "dying like a coward" is harsh. It's also spot-on accurate.
February 3rd, 2017 at 1:12 AM ^
I don't think so. The NCAA is deathly afraid of lawsuits.
The coaches would need to have some criminal charges against them to deny them employment. Then it would be in the university's hands to deny them employment based on background checks and whatnot.
That is why even coaches that break the NCAA's own rules are given show-cause penalties. They take the blame away from themselves by allowing other universities to hire them with a penalty against the program but not the individual. Technically this isn't workplace discrimination, even though the coaches are blackballed.
February 3rd, 2017 at 1:24 AM ^
February 3rd, 2017 at 3:26 AM ^
I think the only way you're going to stop it is to ban visits from minors. Even banning the coaches for life won't be much a deterrent, since by the time they're busted and the investigation finished, if at all, they'll have made out like bandits. The whole point is to win top recruits and secure big $ contracts. Can't do that at Baylor without sex parties and protecting rapists it seems. So i guess the other fix is to limit coaching salary
The admins should be easier to deter, if they catch wind of it. They're in charge of the overall school. But as if we've seen at Pedo St as well, they fear the wraith of the coaches and AD and boosters. This tells me everything is totally out of whack now
February 3rd, 2017 at 12:54 PM ^
I think the only way you're going to stop it is to ban visits from minors.
...I would be fine with completely upending all CFB and returning it to how it began - true student-athletes... You get in by your academic merits only, financial support is completely separate from extra-curricular activities... - crg
The current process, which often amounts to hiring un(der)-qualified entertainers to pantomime as student-athletes, is inherently corrupting. You won't fix it by tinkering with recruiting regs.
February 3rd, 2017 at 4:45 AM ^
assert are minors. However, I do not believe the coach is "court recognized" or is subject to "legal guardian" status for those players who have not reached the age of majority. However, any adult who exposes minor to or engcourages said minor to participate in an activity recognized as illegal or what a reasonable person would deem as illegal, generally the burden of proof, when there is question as to the legality of such act, had committed and will be charged with child endagerment, a misdemeanor, at the least. If activity is of such a nature that the commision of such is recognized as a felony, said adult would face charges attached to the same charges of child endagerment, but if the gravity of the crime were sufficient to fall under the clearly spelled out difference between a misdemeanor offense and a felonious act, then, of course any adult found guilty of same would be subjected to the more severe penalties associated with the more significant charge.
I believe you are looking for a situation where a head coach, or any member of the recgnized coaching staff knowingly and without regard to the minor, exposes or encourages said minor to illegal activities, be they misdemeanors of felonies. I believe the extent of the crime, in such an unimaginable scenario, along with other factors such as frequency, recognized either through the length of time said crimes are committed or the number of student/athletes exposed and/or encougaged, either or both sufficient enough to establish a pattern, would all come under consdideration. If such were the case, immediate termination and lifelong ban would likely be automatic by the employing university. As to whether or not this ban would fall under the broad scope of sexual offender, normally applied to those who have, themselves been found guilty of criminal sexual conduct, which would not be the case in the examples above, but I would think, even without a legal decree, any employee of a university, recognized as staff, would merely by the amount of negative publicity and recognized as a perpetrator of crimes of a nature that are clearly at odds with accepted standards of moral conduct and common decency, basically the same standards common throughout all communities would be considered as "non-employable" for those very reasons.
I am sorry I can not categorically answer your questions, but without specific allegations and subsequent penalties for same, which would probably supply the answers that your are searching for, an educated guess is the best I can do.
February 3rd, 2017 at 6:57 AM ^
February 3rd, 2017 at 8:30 AM ^
The harshest penalty the NCAA has levied against an individual coach is a 12-year show-cause penalty, which effectively prevents the coach from working at an NCAA school for the duration. That was given to Willie Anderson, Oklahoma State's recruiting coordinator in the late 80s, after he was found paying players (after previously being caught doing the same at Clemson).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show-cause_penalty
That kind of penalty is basically a perma-ban, since it's virtually impossible to get back into coaching after that much time off. If they gave a penalty like that to Briles, who is 61, his career would be over. So they could perma-ban Briles without even exceeding previous punishments they've levied.
February 3rd, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^
Well now, slow down a bit. I don't think we need to get carried away. Briles helped to cover up rape and sexual assault, but he was never known to be complicit with paying anyone. I think you're being a little too tough on the guy.
February 3rd, 2017 at 10:15 AM ^
Nice thought, but the NCAA is a spineless organization with completely misguided priorities. It has no problems turning the other cheek with programs that undoubtedly pay players (Ole Miss), offer certain "benefits" to recruits while they're on visits (Louisville), offer fake classes or no classes at all (UNC) or even ones that try covering up rape allegations. But when Harbaugh has a spring practice in Florida and Saban throws a bitch fit about it, that's where the NCAA absolutely HAS to step in and lay down the law.
I don't mean to make this about Michigan, but the inconsistencies and arbitrary nature with which the NCAA dishes out punishments is quite similar to the way Goodell handles business in the NFL. There's no rhyme or reason to almost anything.
February 3rd, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^
UNC, Louisville and Ole Miss haven't escaped NCAA punishments. Investigations take time. When the misconduct takes places over years, it takes longer. The NCAA extended the investigations of Ole Miss and UNC by adding additional and more serious charges. The delay is not good news for those schools.
The Ole Miss verdict is due in the next couple of months. UNC's case is moving along. It's on schedule to end this year. Louisville just filed their response to the allegations. Let's see what actually happens. My predictions: Ole Miss and UNC fans are going to very unhappy, other school's fans will be unhappy about Louisville.
Rule changes can happen fast. Too fast, sometimes. We see they just involve schools and/or conferences voting for their own interests without working out the consequences.
February 3rd, 2017 at 12:41 PM ^