PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Approves Tougher Sanctions



Zagdawg
10-30-2012, 09:48 AM
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8572310/ncaa-approves-tougher-sanctions-rule-breakers


The timing for this probably won't sit well with the Gaels.

primal23
10-30-2012, 10:00 AM
Coach Cal hopefully will slither into a violation soon

zagitup
10-30-2012, 10:20 AM
If a member of the coaching staff commits an egregious infraction, the head coach must prove he or she was unaware it occurred or face a suspension that ranges from 10 percent of the season to one full season.

Wow. How is a head coach supposed to do that? This sort of sounds bass ackwards to me... you know, due process and all that. :confused:

Can some of our legal minds on the board weigh in on whether this would withstand a possible court challenge by a sanctioned head coach?

007Zag
10-30-2012, 12:31 PM
Isn't it impossible to prove you didn't know...proving a negative and all that? And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? I know the NCAA isn't exactly a court of law, but I would assume some semblance of due process to be preserved.

DADoZAG
10-30-2012, 01:27 PM
Isn't it impossible to prove you didn't know...proving a negative and all that? And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? I know the NCAA isn't exactly a court of law, but I would assume some semblance of due process to be preserved.

Someone with a license to kill should know better.

The NCAA more closely resembles the Mafia then the US Justice System.

Besides, my bet is that testimony from an assistant coach falling on the sword for the head coach will do as proof.

Go ZAGS!

CDC84
10-30-2012, 03:09 PM
I'm afraid due process has never been a part of how the NCAA handles its business.

My best guess is that a lot of the motivation behind these changes is to help discourage the classic PR move of firing "rogue" assistants in attempt to make the head coach and the guys who hired him look good. The kind of thing we saw at Missouri during the Quin Snyder mess a few years ago.

007Zag
10-30-2012, 04:05 PM
Certainly, it's problematic that assistant coaches are sometimes asked (or "persuaded") to take a fall, but this sure seems like trading one bad problem for another.

Coptrdr
10-30-2012, 04:46 PM
Hey, if the POTUS can say he didn't know and get away with it why can't an NCAA coach?

Martin Centre Mad Man
10-30-2012, 05:05 PM
Isn't it impossible to prove you didn't know...proving a negative and all that? And what happened to innocent until proven guilty? I know the NCAA isn't exactly a court of law, but I would assume some semblance of due process to be preserved.

The government has a burden to prove guilt by a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials, but there are a lot of other venues in which the government does not have to meet that high burden. For most regulatory actions, the standard of proof is merely a preponderance standard, i.e. a "more likely than not," standard.

There are also a lot of civil laws and regulations on the books where a citizen or business has an obligation to prove his own actions are correct, although that is usually by a much lower standard of proof. If a business chooses to enter a tightly-regulated industry, the business often is subject to inspections, audits, or reporting requirements to prove compliance with regulatory regimes.

Martin Centre Mad Man
10-30-2012, 05:20 PM
Can some of our legal minds on the board weigh in on whether this would withstand a possible court challenge by a sanctioned head coach?

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the NCAA falls outside of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the case of NCAA v. Tarkanian. This means that the NCAA is more or less free to define how much due process it provides to its member institutions for the organization's enforcement actions. Once it establishes the due process rules, the courts probably will not entertain actions against the NCAA so long as the NCAA follows its own internal rules.

Shanachie
10-31-2012, 07:43 AM
Wow. How is a head coach supposed to do that? This sort of sounds bass ackwards to me... you know, due process and all that. :confused:

Can some of our legal minds on the board weigh in on whether this would withstand a possible court challenge by a sanctioned head coach?

I think this is a great step by the NCAA. Think about this in the context of other businesses. If people that work for me are found to be violating either the law or significant company policies, I'm damn sure going to have to answer for it.

Hire trustworthy people and foster an ethical culture.