An Interview With Compliance Guy Comment Count

Brian February 24th, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Bylaw Blog is the "Unofficial Blog of NCAA Compliance," which just goes to show that you can find anything on the internet. Its author is an anonymous employee in the compliance department of a Division I school who pegged Michigan's findings in a totally speculative post that some people got upset about but turned out to be accurate. He goes by Compliance Guy. I flagged him down and asked him a number of questions about where we are now and what's likely to happen in the future.

1. What is the process that Michigan has gone through to reach this point? I might be a little bit fuzzy on the details, but this is what I think has gone on so far:
- Article.
- Notice of Inquiry
- Michigan internal investigation undertaken with assistance/cooperation from NCAA.
- Michigan files report with NCAA
- NCAA responds with Notice of Allegations.
Is this an accurate picture of how the process works?

Flop the notice of inquiry and Michigan's investigation starting and you have the basic order. Michigan would have started the investigation the moment the story broke. At a certain point, either because of what Michigan was telling the NCAA or what the NCAA was hearing from somewhere else, the enforcement staff got involved and issued the Notice of Inquiry.

2. Past this point there are a couple more steps. Michigan will respond. They may or may not issue self-imposed sanctions. And then they'll go in front of the committee. How often do accusations of major violations get degraded to secondary violations in practice? Is the NCAA-issued NOA going to closely resemble the final findings at the committee or is it likely to get walked back? If so, how much?

A major violation case, once it gets to this point, rarely is argued back down to a secondary infraction. To get to a Notice of Allegations, especially in this case, the enforcement staff and Committee on Infractions would have worked very closely to decide if there were major violations, ultimately the COI's decision.

Individual major violations are sometimes downgraded to secondary violations during the response and hearing. In the Kelvin Sampson case at IU, one of the original five major violations--that Sampson and assistant coach Jeff Meyer gave Derek Elston a backpack and t-shirt and recruited him during a camp--was found to be only a secondary violation. Of course, the COI can add too, like the failure to monitor charge that came after the committee hearing.

The final report is going to look very similar. The most likely charge to be downgraded is actually the excessive practice, since it was never grossly beyond the limits like originally alleged by the ex-players. But the lack of documentation at the time makes it difficult for Michigan to prove that the violations were "isolated or inadvertent" and did not result in a "significant competitive advantage."

3. The five accusations:

1) Michigan quality control staffers "monitored and conducted skill development activities," assisted with "warm up and flexibility," watched film with players, and occasionally attended coaching meetings.
2) Similar in nature in points a) and b). c) consists of disciplinary measures after missing class in summer. d) consists of varying but relatively small amounts of excessive mandatory activity.
3) A graduate assistant lied during the process.
4) Rich Rodriguez "failure to monitor."
5) Athletic department "failure to monitor."

Are my characterizations of all these charges correct? If so, how serious are each of them?

#2 is, very generally, excessive practice. Michigan allowed excessive practice in one of three ways:

1) Did not count stretching and warm-up, thus requiring too much CARA (countable athletically related activity);

2) Disciplined players for missing class over the summer, when no required physical activity is permitted for any reason; and

3) Allowing excessive voluntary activity during the summer.

The third type is likely the most bewildering to fans. The NCAA tightly regulates even voluntary activity during the summer in football. The large team peer pressure and culture of discipline in football can cause it to get out of hand, so the NCAA limits how long you can work out with strength coaches in the summer, even voluntarily and sets periods of time where strength coaches cannot work out with football student-athletes at all.

The most serious charge is the failure to monitor charge for the university. It does allow for a wider variety of penalties. The "failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance" charge for Rodriguez means his continued employment at Michigan might change things. The ethical conduct charge is serious, but only really affects Herron. The other two violations are normally secondary in isolated incidents, but went on long enough to be considered major. Of the two, exceeding the coaching limits by a significant amount (11 is the limit with a total of five extra) is more serious.

There's also a sixth violation floating around, as an element of other violations but should be considered almost like a separate violation: the failure to submit practice logs for over a year and a half. Why that happened is going to be one of the COI's burning questions and the lack of the logs makes raising a defense to the charges that much more difficult.

4. On your blog you've recently documented a gradual broadening of "major violations" from serious dolla-dolla-bill ya'll type charges to considerably less severe violations, using the recent Arizona basketball issues as an example. Would these charges have gotten the same amount of scrutiny five, ten, fifteen years ago?

15 years ago, we wouldn't have the 24-hour news cycle that caused the violations to come to light in the first place. In addition, neither the NCAA nor Michigan would have had the resources to devote to discovering just how serious the violations were. Even now, we only know that limits were exceeded "some weeks."

But with larger compliance offices, bigger NCAA staffs, and a Committee on Infractions getting sick of the idea that secondary infractions don't matter, there is increased scrutiny. 15 years ago Michigan might have just reported a vague secondary violation and negotiated how much to reduce the practice time by. Now, just the fact that neither Michigan nor the NCAA has been able to completely quantify how big the violation was is not helping Michigan.

5. During the press conference new Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon downplayed a number of the charges, particularly the hours exceeded. Those were declared a misunderstanding about how stretching and other prep time was classified. It sounded like he was preparing a defense. If the NCAA and Michigan worked together on this, how could they be unfamiliar with this point of view? What is the probability that arguments like "it was a misunderstanding" will have any effect?

Brandon is preparing a defense, but at this point reducing the penalty is the more likely goal rather than winning an acquittal. Secondary violations need to meet two requirements: isolated or inadvertent AND did not produce a significant competitive advantage. Convince the NCAA of both and you have a secondary violation. Convince them of one, and you still have a major violation, but a lesser one.

Trouble is that the NCAA looks at what coaches and administrators "should" have known rather than what they did know. If the NCAA changes a rule, issues an interpretation, or releases an Educational Column (non-binding, technical discussions of the rules), a compliance officer is virtually presumed to have read it. And if the coaches were never educated about the rule, not only does it not save them, but it also becomes an element of bigger institutional charges like failure to monitor and lack of institutional control.

6. Michigan's handling of the situation has been fairly controversial on the internet because Michigan fans, rightly or wrongly, feel that the university's relative openness was detrimental in the Ed Martin case. Michigan has apparently been as accommodating as possible with the NCAA. Is inviting NCAA investigators in asking for trouble or a way to mitigate any potential sanctions? If you were in Michigan's position, what would you have done?

That's a tricky question because as a public institution, Michigan can only be so secretive. A great deal of the investigation can be open to the public via open records laws and the Freedom of Information Act. Look at the fervor caused by one informational meeting with the trustees that Michigan attempted to keep quiet.

What is the measure against which Michigan's openness is being judged? I'm sure most fans are pointing at USC and how the Reggie Bush investigation took five years and it seems like USC is in front of the COI almost out of the blue. But USC is a private institution, and doesn't have to worry about bitter rivals, wronged alumni, and nosy reporters demanding every scrap of paper. Michigan probably hasn't made public anything that wouldn't be made public before.

Looking back to the Ed Martin scandal, Michigan's willingness to cooperate was likely a key consideration in getting the second year of postseason ban overturned on appeal. Cooperating with the NCAA is wrongly portrayed as "going above and beyond vs. defending yourself." It's an obligation of being a member of the NCAA.

Michigan fans like to talk about the integrity and class in the program. If that means anything, it means acknowledging your mistakes, taking your medicine, and working to improve. It doesn't mean being difficult just because it seems USC is.

I think Michigan's handling of the case has been a model of how to deal with a major infractions case so far. And the result will likely be fairer penalties and a case that is disposed of quickly rather than casting a shadow on the program for a number of years.

7. Would one GA lying to the NCAA seriously hurt the university as a whole, assuming that he is then fired?

It's highly unlikely. A single, isolated unethical conduct violation generally hits the person who committed it rather than the institution. The primary tool the COI uses for this is the show-cause penalty, which states that any institution who hires the person must appear before the committee and "show cause" why they should not be punished the same way the previous school was.

As a counterexample, Dave Bliss' unethical conduct, in instructing players and coaches to lie in the Baylor case, is much more serious on an institutional level. When high level administrators (ADs, presidents, etc.), head coaches, or people who should know better (compliance staff) commit unethical conduct, it speaks to institutional control.

8. Is there any possibility Michigan escapes a major infraction at this point? What do you think Michigan's penalties will be? If you think some of the accusations are walked back, what would they be in that case?

It's almost a certainty that come October or November, Michigan will be back on probation. The Committee on Infractions generally doesn't start flimsy cases. Look again at USC. Since the original Yahoo! Sports report about Reggie Bush, the COI could have sent a Notice of Allegations as a fishing expedition. But given the fact that they were dealing with a major football program, they couldn't afford to have the case blow up in their face. So they continued investigating, interview, asking for documentation, and working with USC to develop the case until they had a slam dunk.

I'm also confident the same five charges in the Notice of Allegations will be in the final report. Like I said earlier, the excessive practice is the most likely candidate to be reduced, but Michigan lacks the best tool for doing so: detailed logging of practice time during that period. Consistent and timely logs, though mistaken, would have been the best evidence that the violations were all an honest mistake.

I expect a lengthy list of penalties, but none of which are too severe. Despite Michigan's status as a repeat violator due to the Ed Martin case, the death penalty is clearly not in the cards. [Editor's note: I think this is meant to be reassuring.] Neither are more severe penalties like a postseason or TV ban. In fact, Michigan doesn't even need to vacate wins (unless it self-imposes) because these violations do not affect eligibility. I think you'll see a list like this:

  • A reduction in countable coaches (one coach will have to be reassigned to a noncoaching position);
  • A reduction in practice with a shorter spring season in 2011 and/or reduced hour limits;
  • Possibly recruiting restrictions, including limiting the number of coaches off-campus at any one time;
  • Possibly a reduction of around three scholarships for a year or two;
  • 3-4 years probation (longer due to repeat violator status)

Combined I think they are a setback (which they're intended to be), but they aren't program crushing penalties that will take years to crawl out from like the Ed Martin penalties were.

[Ed: Many thanks to Compliance Guy. Again: Bylaw Blog is his internet home.]



February 24th, 2010 at 11:44 AM ^

I still think it's ridiculous that an incident that occurred in the early '90's that didn't result in penalties until the early '00's can result in repeat offender violations for incidents that occurred towards the tail end of the probation period over15 years after the incident took place. If the Fed investigation into Ed Martin (note NOT the NCAA investigation) happened sooner, we're not even discussing repeat offender problems.

Bando Calrissian

February 24th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^

The Ed Martin scandal officially ended when Lou Bullock graduated in 1999. It officially started the week of the 1992 Final Four (even if Webber and Martin were linked as early as the late '80s), and continued on and off until 1999. Thus, it's not like it took them 10 years to levy a penalty. The self-imposed sanctions took place in November 2002, and the NCAA chimed in in May 2003. That's 3-4 years, not 15.

Given the sheer amount of material for both parties to wade through, and the extent of the investigation (the Ed Martin scandal was the largest financial scandal in NCAA history), it's not surprising it took a few years for it to filter out. And that's why 2003 is the magic date here.


February 24th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^

Not going to lie, if they start teaching that the use of anonymous people on the internet are good sources, then the Bleacher Report will become America's leading newspaper. This isn't great journalism, this is just loosely pertinent information that should be regarded as "it sounds like the guy knows what he's talking about." Because of that, not everything he says can or will be what happens. It's just a good place to start.


February 24th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^

If Martin isn't a major donor/booster would he be getting skewered right now by MSC and Brandon? Maybe Brathwaite was promoted to be demoted later on.

MI Expat NY

February 24th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^

My only point was, often when you hear a reduction in scholarships, they totaled to give a higher number that sounds worse. Maybe he really means that he expects UM to be docked 3-6 scholarships, or maybe he means he expects UM to be docked 3 scholarships with the potential that it be spread out.


February 24th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

Two things.

1. It's just maddening to me that all D1 football programs are doing the same thing yet only Michigan has to deal with The Torch & Pitchfork Press. Without them tricking kids into making statements coupled with the lack of attention to detail by our compliance department none of this is happening.

2. "...and did not result in a 'significant competitive advantage.'" Is this not the most ironic part of this whole issue? Basically our worst 2 years ever and we were deemed to have some type of mythical competitive advantage or said period of time. That is rich.


February 24th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^

I agree that all schools put in more hours, but that's such a tiny piece of the current allegation. Do you think that "all schools":

-Have mandatory physical training as punishment during a time of the year that no mandatory training is allowed?

-Had coaches attend 7-7 on pratices, where they're not allowed?


February 24th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^

I don't know that Lloyd Carr did it over the summer with Arrington.

Regardless, Arrington's case had nothing to do with missing classes, IIRC. He got in trouble off campus and had to do morning conditioning to prove his dedication to maturing. Those kinds of things happen all the time and don't really fall under this category. Remember when JoePa had his team clean up the stadium after games because of all the fights his players got into? That's virtually the same thing, and PSU isn't getting sanctioned for it.


February 24th, 2010 at 1:40 PM ^

They should be the same thing. I don't see how the hell that they are different.

So honest question why aren't we getting in trouble for RR talking to Feagin last year about the drug thing? That wasn't during the school year and there can be ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CONTACT BETWEEN THE COACH AND THE PLAYERS!

It's a slippery slope that the NCAA is establishing precedent for here. Seems a bit excessive no?

I feel like this. THIS IS OUTRAGE!!!


February 24th, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^

bouje - you're smart enough to know that "BUT SOMEBODY ELSE DID IT" isn't an excuse for breaking a rule. The simple fact is that if Michigan was doing everything right, NONE of this would be a fucking issue.

The FREEP stuff - sure, they were wrong about a lot, and Rosenberg has a vendetta. That's sideshow point.

Because the simple fact is that if we HAD filled out our CARA forms, submitted our practice logs, made sure the right people were at the right events, and, you know, FOLLOWED THE RULES, none of this would be an issue. Period. It seems we broke rules. When you break rules, you get punished.



February 24th, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^

as thoroughly as they looked through us they'd find something. I'd honestly like to know when the NCAA has been told by a "contact" that "hey shady shit is happening here check it out" and they came back and said "nah nothing they are clean". It's never happened because they will always find something.


February 24th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^

We all know Rich isn't one for proper semantics. I am guessing this is what it comes down to: how it was couched.

Damn it Anonymous, you broke team rules skipping class without an excused absence. Report to Barwis on the double.

- vs -

Damn it Anonymous, you broke team rules skipping class without an excused absence. If you want to stay on the team you will voluntarily participate in remedial activities. Mike Barwis will be available if you so choose ....


February 24th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^

The issue isn't punishments for missing class during the season, it's what happened during the summer. PSU didn't necessarily violate any rules by having players clean up the stadium. I can't imagine how Lloyd punishing Arrington for off-campus trouble would be allowed if checking up on class attendance isn't.

Although as many have pointed out here the past few days receiving a violation for that particular issue isn't exactly a badge of shame.


February 24th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^

I believe the difference between the Carr/Arrington issue and this is that those morning runs were "voluntary." Arrington "chose" to attend those as a way to earn his way back on the team. But, with Penn State, I feel like them cleaning up the stadium after games was mandatory, and therefore that time should have been counted against their allowable practice time (which it doesn't seem like it was).


February 24th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^

I think it was during the summer (it was at least off season, but pretty sure during the summer).

The key difference is, Carr kicked Arrington off the team, and the condition for rejoining was running the steps every morning (among other conditions I assume).

So technically speaking, if you are off the team, are you no longer subject to NCAA restrictions?

FWIW, the rule is misguided. It gives coaches even less disciplinary options when a player screws up.


February 24th, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^

-Have mandatory physical training as punishment during a time of the year that no mandatory training is allowed?

Someone said it on another thread and it's worth repeating. The fact that the staff was punishing its players for missing class, while technically a violation, is totally awesome. I'm sure that the NCAA will disagree and we'll be penalized for it, but if this constitutes wrongdoing by the U of M, I couldn't be more proud.

(Yes, the "coaches at 7 on 7 practices" is far more problematic.)


February 24th, 2010 at 12:13 PM ^

Nope, not all schools do items 1 and 2. However the majority of schools do items 3, 4, and 5. The only difference is, again, they do not have some fishwrap turning over every stone with an agenda to get their local football coach fired.

My statement stands, without the paper asking leading questions to unsuspecting 18 year olds none of this happens. And until the NCAA checks the compliance of every other program this whole thing in my mind is a fucking witch hunt that was successful and a few million Michigan football fans will be penalized.


February 24th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^

I'm pretty sure that, by now, every other program HAS visited this issue and have found ways in which to show compliance. Memos from administration had to have been sent out as soon as this story broke last fall. The story in itself was a great deterrent. And the NCAA knows this.

EDIT: But I agree with everything you are saying. This is all just shitty.


February 24th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^

What's really maddening about all of this is that allegations 3,4,5 are the most damning aspects of our case. Like compliance guy said, without failures to monitor or fraudulent reporting, allegations 1,2 could be talked down to secondary violations.

And yet, the systematic shunning of compliance is part and parcel of running a major athletic program. EVERY top program bends the rules to their liking and habitually ignores the rule-book people trying to put the kibosh on everything under the sun that is good and holy. They begrudgingly follow along when shit seems like a big deal but, so it seems, allegations 1,2 did not (and do not) seem like a big deal to any rational person (even compliance guy!)

We suffer only because of the hateful, bitter trash-generators at the Freep.


February 24th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^

Great minds think alike:

Stare into the face of bureaucracy, Michigan, and quiver at its awesome power.

Know also that every program in the country -- and I'm pretty confident when I say every program -- would run afoul of at least one of those infractions (or similar ones; it's a big manual) on a somewhat regular basis, as the minimum cost of employing fallible human being while continuing to dead-lift with the Joneses. Other programs, however, weren't the target of an investigation by a major metropolitan newspaper that left no stone unturned in its efforts to make a splash against a high-profile program. Michigan was, which is why it was Michigan's coach, president and new athletic director (not even officially on the job for two more weeks) in front of the cameras today feigning contrition over barely spilt milk.


February 24th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^

Weak sauce. (1) It was graduate assistant Alex Herron at the 7-on-7 sessions. (GA's are coaches per NCAA standards, but your insinuation seems worse to me.) (2) Punishments were issued based on academic motivations (which does not excuse them, but does paint them in a different light than your post implies).

And, I disagree with your overall premise. It's not about these specific activities. The real question is: "Do all schools commit infractions on the same level as those Michigan is accused?"

And to that, I don't really know, but I'd guess: "Yeah, and probably worse."