Reading the NCAA Report: Part I- Introduction

Lots of reporting on the NCAA report...lots of people digging through the dirt. I've decided to break up my efforts in reading the report into smaller chunks. Here are my (very biased) comments on some of the lines from the NCAA's 2-page introduction.

P1 “THE PANEL CONCLUDED VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION OCCURRED AND PRESCRIBED APPROPRIATE PENALTIES IN THIS CASE UNDER FORMER NCAA BYLAW 19.5.2, THE MORE LENIENT PENALTY STRUCTURE.”

It took me 8 years to track down NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2. That’s longer than the Watergate Hearings, which is a pertinent comparison! Ha, just kidding. But it was surprisingly difficult to figure out what this meant. You’re not going to believe this, but the NCAA’s website is a real mess – difficult to search and navigate. The top Google search result for “NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2” is a division II rule on infraction punishments. Also, there are a bunch of universities that pop up when you punch in that search, including Baylor, St. Francis, and Wichita St. So don’t be fooled by the language of the report in thinking that Syracuse got some sort of special treatment; the penalties were lenient just because the penalties straddled the period when the old rules were in effect (according to page 2).

Anyway, I actually gave up on looking for the exact wording of former Bylaw 19.5.2. As I understand it, the bylaw provides a list of ranges of potential penalties the committee could have assessed. The newer penalties list is harsher than the old list. So, for example, the range extends to a greater number of scholarships that could be taken away for the same level of violation. It’s not a crazily substantial difference, but the punishments could have been marginally worse. The bylaws also give the committee a lot of leeway in using their own judgment to assess these penalties, which makes sense given the variety of ways a college could violate rules.

P1-2 “IN TOTAL, THE SELF-REPORTED AND AGREED-UPON VIOLATIONS MADE UP 10 OF THE 14 ALLEGATIONS IN THIS CASE. THE OTHER FOUR VIOLATIONS INCLUDED ACADEMIC EXTRA BENEFITS, THE INSTITUTION'S FAILURE TO FOLLOW ITS WRITTEN DRUG TESTING POLICY, THE HEAD BASKETBALL COACH'S FAILURE TO PROMOTE AN ATMOSPHERE OF COMPLIANCE AND MONITOR HIS STAFF AND AND THE INSTITUTION'S LACK OF CONTROL OVER ITS ATHLETICS PROGRAM.”

“and and”? Who’s your proofreader, NCAA? A former North Carolina basketball player? Ha! Ten of 14 is an interesting number, as well as the four specifics that SU contests. The “Academic Extra Benefits” have to do with the treatment three other players may have received, which was uncovered during the Fab Melo investigation. SU says no violation was found, citing a lack of evidence of wrongdoing. The NCAA says the inquiry was not impartial.

On the failure to follow its drug policy, SU admits it did not follow its own policy, but notes that the drug in question was always marijuana, in every case.

SU strongly rejects the accusation that Boeheim failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance. As we’ve learned, by NCAA rules, head coaches have a lot of restrictions on how they can be involved in a player’s academic pursuits. To put it simply, they can’t. If Boeheim was willfully promoting deception or non-compliance, then he should be tarred and feathered. I have yet to read evidence that he was. Nor was he willfully shirking the basic responsibilities he did have to maintain awareness on his staff of what it took to be compliant. His biggest mistake was being a part of some terrible hires, but I don’t fault him for not keeping a suspicious eye on the Director of Basketball Operations.

 SU also strongly disagrees with the lack of control charge. I also don’t see an institution run amok, either in the evidence I’ve read so far or in my own personal observations on campus. If you get into a car accident, it doesn’t make you a bad driver. If you get into regular car accidents, you probably are a bad driver. But SU’s institutional violations were varied and sporadic, not systemic. It wrote a terrible drug policy that it didn’t properly follow (for marijuana cases). And it had three academic advising employees participate in some disastrous academic fraud for one to four basketball players. And a bunch of smaller violations occurred that could have (and sure have) happened at any university operating under the NCAA’s crazy laws.

P2 “UNFORTUNATELY, THE LIFE OF THIS CASE HAS BEEN LENGTHY. THE INSTITUTION'S AND THE ENFORCEMENT STAFF'S INVESTIGATION SPANNED FOUR YEARS, AND THE NEED FOR THE INSTITUTION TO COMPLETE ACADEMIC PROCESSES ON CAMPUS, EXTENSIONS REQUESTS AND LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATION PROCESSES FURTHER DELAYED FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. A KEY INDICATOR OF AN EFFECTIVE PROCESS IS TIMELY RESOLUTION, WHICH DID NOT OCCUR IN THIS CASE.”

The NCAA blames the long investigation on SU’s lack of an effective process for overseeing and dealing with noncompliance issues. I can’t even navigate the NCAA’s website in a timely fashion.

P3 “THE BEHAVIOR IN THIS CASE, WHICH PLACED THE DESIRE TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS ON THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER ACADEMIC INTEGRITY, DEMONSTRATED CLEARLY MISPLACED INSTITUTIONAL PRIORITIES. SIMILARLY, MANY OF THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF PERSONS OF LEADERSHIP ENGAGING IN OR CONDONING CONDUCT THAT WAS CONTRARY TO THE NCAA CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS.”

This is just bad writing. Whose behavior placed the desire to achieve success on the court over academic integrity? Which persons of leadership engaged in or condoned conduct contrary to bylaws?

I’ve been frustrated with the reporting done on this story, which tends towards the same broad strokes. “Athletes were given cash…” “Athletes had papers written and turned in for them…” That’s how journalism works, boiling away the nuance and details. Unfortunately, the NCAA report lends itself to such broad strokes.