NCAA Presidents: Standing Tough? : Integrity and Penalties Being Put to Vote at New Orleans

The time has come to learn just how serious the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. is on the issue of integrity. The time has come to put to a vote the new get-tough penalties for schools caught violating NCAA rules.

The mere proposal of what are being called “death penalties” struck fear in the heart of many a football coach and made headlines across the country. Consider that if the proposals pass:

--A school found guilty of repeating a major violation will have that sport suspended--meaning no games--for one or two years.

--The coaches involved will be suspended for two years.

--All recruiting will be eliminated for two years.

--All initial scholarships will be eliminated for two years.

No wonder they call them death penalties.

But will such drastic measures ever pass? It appears that they will.

The NCAA special convention being held at the Hyatt Regency this week is not a meeting of coaches and athletic directors. It’s a meeting of presidents and chancellors, and the questions being asked are loaded.

This gathering has become known as the special convention on integrity. The votes on the hardest-hitting issues will be roll-call votes, and computer printouts of the voting will be posted.

What university president or chancellor is going to stand up and vote against integrity?

In setting the scene for the two days of politicking, Dr. John Davis of Oregon State University, president of the NCAA, said Wednesday: “I think the presidents felt it was time to put the names on the line and see who was for integrity and who wanted to subvert it. . . . It is kind of a vote on motherhood, apple pie and the flag.”

The delegates gathering at the Hyatt in the shadow of the Superdome--nearly 1,000 are expected--seemed to be thinking that all measures that will be put to a vote Friday will pass.

The only question is whether amendments may water down proposal No. 3, the one outlining the distinction between major and secondary violations, the one outlining the harsh penalties for those violations and the harsh penalties for repeat violators.

Davis said that he expects any changes to be minor, adding that after No. 3, it should be “clear sailing from there.”

It is not likely that the delegates will back off after going to the trouble of scheduling only the fifth special convention in NCAA history to address the problems of integrity and economics.

Even the economic issues are issues of integrity. Proposal No. 6, for instance, requires that a school’s athletic budget be controlled by the school and its normal budgeting procedures. No. 7 requires that “all expenditures for or in behalf of an institution’s intercollegiate athletic programs, including those by any outside organization (booster group),” be audited every year.

Proposal No. 1 requires a self-study of athletic programs at least once every five years, and No. 2 requires extensive academic reports on student-athletes.

To remove the problem of hit-and-run cheaters, who leave sports programs in trouble with the succeeding, and presumably innocent, athletes and coaches paying the price, proposal No. 4 requires that penalties against a coach apply even if he goes to another school. No. 5 requires that an athlete who is illegally recruited be considered permanently ineligible unless circumstances clearly indicate otherwise.

Davis said: “Something simply had to be done in terms of prevention as well as enforcement. We want the enforcement, the intelligence and the resolve to be at the institutional level.”

There certainly is a prevalent feeling of resolve among the delegates. What it apparently comes down to is that the university presidents are taking control. Athletic departments are losing their autonomy.

Citing what he called “the real blights on intercollegiate athletics--drugs and gambling as well as cheating,” Davis said it was just time to draw the line.

The question of drug-testing at NCAA national championship events and bowl games will be considered separately at a meeting of the NCAA Special Committee for National Drug-Testing Policy in Boston Aug. 14-16.

Instead of denying, ducking and dodging issues, the delegates here have apparently decided to stand and fight.

Davis said: “I think we all recognize that the risks for cheating just have not been great enough.

“The good coaches--and I think, by far, most coaches are good, honest coaches--are saying that we need a system where they can be sure the other guy isn’t cheating. They’re coming to us and saying, let’s tighten it up.”

No. 3 certainly would tighten it up. That proposal defines a secondary violation as one that provides only a limited recruiting or competitive advantage and which is isolated or inadvertent. It defines a major violation as all other violations, specifically including those that provide an extensive recruiting or competitive edge. It also specifies that repeated secondary violations could be considered a major violation.

A secondary violation would lead to ending the recruitment of that athlete for that school or, if the athlete has already enrolled, permanent ineligibility for the athlete to play for that school; suspension of the head coach or other staff member in the sport involved from off-campus recruiting for one year, and fines ranging from $500 to $5,000 and a loss of scholarships.

The minimum penalty for a major violation would be a two-year probationary period for that sport, the elimination of expense-paid recruiting visits to the school for one recruiting year for that sport; suspension of all coaches of that sport from off-campus recruiting for one recruiting year; a requirement that all staff members who knowingly engaged in or condoned the violation to be either dismissed, suspended without pay for at least one year or reassigned duties that do not include contact with athletes; one year of sanctions precluding postseason competition, and one year of television sanctions.

But the really tough penalties are reserved for the college or university that commits a second major violation within five years of the first major violation.

For instance, if a school’s golf team was found guilty of a major violation, and four years later the school’s football team was found guilty of a major violation, it would be the football team that suffered the repeat penalties.

The catch there is that the death penalty for the football team at most schools would be the same as sentencing the entire athletic program. Taking that a step farther, because of the way conferences divide game and television revenue, a death penalty against a major football power would cause all sports at all conference schools to suffer.

That’s the way that rule should be interpreted, Davis said. “I would think that a school that had its golf team in trouble would have everyone helping to watch their football team like hawks.”

Asked if the NCAA was concerned about being hit with lawsuits over such penalties, Davis answered: “Very much concerned.”