Breaking: Major NCAA Violations by MIZZOU

[Stallion]

that's too broad a statement-it matters if there is evidence of a lack of oversight and compliance. Purely separate example-Larry Brown wouldn't be responsible for a purely rouge booster but he might be if he allowed the booster close access to the program or failed to monitor say a summer job arranged through a booster. In SMU's case, the NCAA was saying that Larry Brown wasn't in control and wasn't monitoring his staff sufficiently

[JasonB]

I believe the rules are strictly that if it happens under the coaches watch, the head coach is in control of the program and culpable. The coaches can't just claim ignorance. They actually noted that the SMU compliance program was exemplary. That didn't matter. If anything rogue happens, and the head coach doesn't find out about it first and report it immediately, the HC is guilty.

[Hoop Fan]

Made his name at Texas. Oh yeah nothing ever happens in Austin. Somebody should tweet that self righteous Tulsa math prof who was hating on LB last week to Fran.

[RGV Pony]

Someone should but we shamed her into deleting her acct

[2ndandlong]

I believe the rules are strictly that if it happens under the coaches watch, the head coach is in control of the program and culpable. The coaches can't just claim ignorance. They actually noted that the SMU compliance program was exemplary. That didn't matter. If anything rogue happens, and the head coach doesn't find out about it first and report it immediately, the HC is guilty.

Are you saying that's just your belief, or that's what you believe the NCAA enforces? That is not how the NCAA enforces it. The coach can have taken mitigating factors but still have alumni circumvent the program.

And in the SMU case, it really did matter. First, that was one of the mitigating factors cited which reduced our penalty from aggravated to standard which carries a postseason ban of 2-4 seasons versus 1-2 seasons for standard. Second, they cited the compliance program as a reason for it not being a lack of institutional control.

In our case, secretary and player told coach. Coach did not inform athletic director, compliance, and university president as required. Instead, he instructed player and secretary to inform the NCAA investigators in their upcoming interviews. The interviews occurred one month later. That is the primary violation that Larry Brown committed making it head coach control. He was aware, and he did not report it to university administration as required by NCAA. Instructing player and secretary to honestly report to NCAA does not mitigate him not reporting the violation to compliance, etc.