NCAA Levels Another 'Death Penalty', But Not Like You Think!

[MrMustang1965]

Asked to predict which institution would join Southern Methodist University in the pantheon of worst rules violators in the history of college sports — becoming only the second recipient of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s so-called death penalty — most observers would have guessed highly visible repeat wrongdoers like Auburn University or the University of Kentucky.

In fact, though, the NCAA has passed up several opportunities since 1987, when it barred SMU’s football team from playing for a year, to inflict that ultimate punishment on other major sports powers. Skeptics have assumed that the NCAA might never go there again. Wednesday it did, but not in a predictable way.

The NCAA’s Division III Committee on Infractions dropped the hammer Wednesday on MacMurray College, barring the men’s tennis team at the Illinois private college from intercollegiate competition for the next two years and from postseason play in 2007-8 and 2008-9.

The panel concluded that by giving more than $160,000 in athletic scholarship money to 10 foreign tennis players over four years, MacMurray’s former coach (which, as is standard NCAA practice, it did not identify) had so knowingly and blatantly violated the golden rule of Division III — a prohibition on athletically rewarded financial aid — that a ban on competition, as unusual as it is, was entirely appropriate.

“These penalties are justified,” said Gerald Young, acting chair of the Division III infractions panel and associate athletics director at Carleton College. The coach “disregarded one of Division III’s most fundamental and best known rules.”

According to the infractions panel, the coach — who began working at MacMurray as a mathematics professor in 1999 before being asked to take on the coaching duties — established a scholarship fund for international students with financial backing from his father in 2000. Between that year and 2004, the fund gave out $162,000 in aid to 10 tennis players, mostly from Argentina and Kenya, violating NCAA rules against improper financial aid and improper benefits.

Young described the coach as a “big hearted man who felt he was doing what was best for students in general.” But he also knew he was violating the rules, Young said, and proceeded nonetheless. The infractions panel charged him with violating its rules on ethical behavior.

The NCAA credited MacMurray officials with reporting the violations themselves in 2004 and with cooperating with NCAA investigators to figure out what had happened. But the NCAA found the college to have lacked “institutional control” over the sports program because it “should have had a compliance system in place that would have prevented,” or at least uncovered, the violations.

The report by the Committee on Infractions also noted that MacMurray’s former athletics director had retired six weeks before the college had its hearing before the panel. “Evidence at the hearing indicated he claimed to be unaware of the violations, though it is hard to understand how he could not have known. The institution is small, enrolling less than 700 students. Of those, only eight to 10 are international students... For there to suddenly be a large influx of international student-atheltes on the tennis team could not have gone unnoticed by the former director of athletics.”

“How it went on so long is obviously part of the lack of institutional control,” said Young.

The former coach, who is still a professor at MacMurray, could not be reached for comment, and the college’s spokesman did not return messages seeking comment.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/05/05/ncaa

[LakeHighlandsPony]

The NCAA is such a joke! Nevermind the rape allegations at U of Colorado. Big schools can do whatever they want.

[giacfsp]

You mean the NCAA used a small school to try to appease skeptics who question its use of disciplinary power? Jeez, that's hard to imagine.

[EastStang]

The scholarship issue is a big one in Division III. They can't award them, so MacMurry really was flaunting the rules for that Division. That would be akin to UT awarding 1000 football scholarships. But I agree in general with the sentiment. The NCAA doesn't have the cojones to take on Auburn, Georgia, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Kentucky, Alabama, Baylor, A&M....

[Hoop Fan]

love the subjectivity of institutional control. They say MacMurry crossed the line because the admin "should have known". Its funny how nothing ever crosses that imaginary line at a power school.

[jtstang]

love the subjectivity of institutional control. They say MacMurry crossed the line because the admin "should have known". Its funny how nothing ever crosses that imaginary line at a power school.

Actually what it says is this:

But the NCAA found the college to have lacked “institutional control” over the sports program because it “should have had a compliance system in place that would have prevented,” or at least uncovered, the violations.

Now, contrast that with SMU in the '80's, which had a system in place which actively participated and encouraged the continuing violations after repeated lesser sanctions had been imposed. Now, don't get me wrong, those of you who think the NCAA has been inconsistent in its enforcement are right on the money. But those of you who think that is evidence that SMU did not deserve what it got are nuts.

[Hoop Fan]

I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest SMU shouldnt have gotten appropriate and severe punishment. Severe crimes should get severe punishment. Thing is you cant have a penalty that only one situation receives in 20 years, despite others having qualified for it in meantime. If the Death Penalty is never going to be used again, it should have never been used in the first place. That smacks of example setting. Now if they use the DP for other serious offenses, which everyone knows there are, then fine, SMU deserved what it got.

Truth is misery loves company and the stigma probably wont ever diminish much until someone else in D-1 gets the DP. Gosh, what idiot at the NCAA thinks MacMurry is masterminding schemes to win in D-3 while nothing DP worthy is going on in the SEC.

[jtstang]

I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest SMU shouldnt have gotten appropriate and severe punishment. Severe crimes should get severe punishment. Thing is you cant have a penalty that only one situation receives in 20 years, despite others having qualified for it in meantime. If the Death Penalty is never going to be used again, it should have never been used in the first place. That smacks of example setting. Now if they use the DP for other serious offenses, which everyone knows there are, then fine, SMU deserved what it got.

Truth is misery loves company and the stigma probably wont ever diminish much until someone else in D-1 gets the DP. Gosh, what idiot at the NCAA thinks MacMurry is masterminding schemes to win in D-3 while nothing DP worthy is going on in the SEC.

Well I disagree, because SMU deserved what it got already. Of course it was to set an example, that's what is was supposed to do.

I think the truth of the matter is no other "deserving" program has had the same egregious facts supporting the imposition of the death penalty that the '80s Mustangs did. Can you point to one other program where there has been actual, proven, active participation in the violations by the administration of the school, during a period of existing probation, like there was in our case? If you can, then the penalty arguably should have been imposed based on precedent, and you've got a point. If not, there's nothing to argue about.

[Rayburn]

Screw the NCAA.

The point is that it selectively enforces its own rules.

I wish SMU would take the NCAA to court and sue the NCAA's arse for selective enforcement.

[EastStang]

When you say Administration of the school I am assuming you are referring to the renegade (and now disbanded) Board of Governors who had no authority to run the school in the first place, just acted like they did. I don't think that Presidents Tate or Zumberge were involved in it or really knew what what was going on. So, the Administration the Board of Trustees and the President, Provost, etc., had no involvement. There have been programs like Alabama, like Georgia, like Minnesota where athletic department personnel were involved and in the Alabama situation where a member of the board of trustees was involved. And then there's St. Bonaventure where the President of the University was directly involved. So, yes, there are parallels to our situation. In addition to the NCAA issue, ours included what amounted to a hostile takeover attempt by a few monied benefactors which created the excesses which the school stopped. Now no other school refused to cooperate to the extent we refused (until Clements was re-elected).

[jtstang]

Yes I am referring to the Board of Governors--they were acting as adminsitrators whether or not they were entitled to do so. And yes I do think that is worse than athltic department personnel acting alone. Hell, we couldn't even keep track of Steve Malin in recent years.

I wasn't aware of the St. Bonaventure situation, sounds like it might be similar. Please give more details. What were the violations? How was the president involved? Was the state's governor involved? Were they already on probation at the time for similar infractions at the time? What sanctions did they get?

[Hoop Fan]

[Well I disagree, because SMU deserved what it got already. Of course it was to set an example, that's what is was supposed to do.

I think the truth of the matter is no other "deserving" program has had the same egregious facts supporting the imposition of the death penalty that the '80s Mustangs did. Can you point to one other program where there has been actual, proven, active participation in the violations by the administration of the school, during a period of existing probation, like there was in our case? If you can, then the penalty arguably should have been imposed based on precedent, and you've got a point. If not, there's nothing to argue about.

I dont see this as an arguement that can be won, more just a different perspective. No fact pattern is ever going to be the same. Egregious should be about materiality and substance. I think most reasonable people would say $600,000 being paid to Chris Webber by booster at Michigan is about as egregious as a rich politictian like Bill Clements throwing $10,000 around while he sits on the Board. Nevermind that it takes an investigation to turn up a violation. Thats the real reason there will never be another DP of any consequence. See no evil, hear no evil...

[jtstang]

Nevermind that it takes an investigation to turn up a violation. Thats the real reason there will never be another DP of any consequence. See no evil, hear no evil...

Well, that may be the most inarguable point of all. Of course, there really wasn't all that much investigation of SMU--it wasn't necessary when Dave Stanley handed it to them on a silver platter.

[Hoop Fan]

Yes I am referring to the Board of Governors--they were acting as adminsitrators whether or not they were entitled to do so. And yes I do think that is worse than athltic department personnel acting alone. Hell, we couldn't even keep track of Steve Malin in recent years.

I wasn't aware of the St. Bonaventure situation, sounds like it might be similar. Please give more details. What were the violations? How was the president involved? Was the state's governor involved? Were they already on probation at the time for similar infractions at the time? What sanctions did they get?

The fact that Clements was the governor is nothing more than sensationalism. So what? Being a public official has exactly nothing to do with making private "donations" Was he using public money or private? The NCAA works in a vacuum as cop, judge and jury, so why should Bill Clements day job be any of their concern?

[Hoop Fan]

Nevermind that it takes an investigation to turn up a violation. Thats the real reason there will never be another DP of any consequence. See no evil, hear no evil...

Well, that may be the most inarguable point of all. Of course, there really wasn't all that much investigation of SMU--it wasn't necessary when Dave Stanley handed it to them on a silver platter.

good point. Remind me why he did that again, I really cant remember. Did SMU stop paying him? Did someone else pay him to talk?

Maurice Clarett made alot of allegations about Ohio State. I wonder if the NCAA is bulldoging those. Something tells me they're not.