That's exactly the point. Message board heros are the one keeping this whole thing alive
We cut a booster
- Thread starter shsdawg
- Start date
That's exactly the point. Message board heros are the one keeping this whole thing alive
Good question. Why are people still freaking out about it? I'm sick of reading the board with idiots throwing out "Lack of Institutional Control" having NO IDEA of the precedent over how it has been used in the past or the definition of what it is.
There is concern, very minor, to the extent of possibly losing 2-3 scholarships/yr over a couple seasons. That is the CEILING of this. Our own beat writers are trying their best to make this into a bigger deal than it is.
They aren't OUR beat writers. They work for a failing industry and they probably hope something crazy and big did happen so they get to write first hand about it, have people across the country read what they write, and get the hell away from the CL and the DJ.
Hopefully this will clear some things up about lack of institutional control...
PRINCIPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
AS PREPARED BY THE NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
A. "CONTROL" IS DEFINED IN COMMON-SENSE TERMS.
In determining whether there has been a lack of institutional control when a violation of NCAA
rules has been found it is necessary to ascertain what formal institutional policies and procedures
were in place at the time the violation of NCAA rules occurred and whether those policies and
procedures, if adequate, were being monitored and enforced. It is important that policies and
procedures be established so as to deter violations and not merely to discover their existence
after they have taken place. In a case where proper procedures exist and are appropriately
enforced, especially when they result in the prompt detection, investigation and reporting of the
violations in question, there may be no lack of institutional control although the individual or
individuals directly involved may be held responsible.
In a situation in which adequate institutional procedures exist, at least on paper, a practical,
common-sense approach is appropriate in determining whether they are adequately monitored
and enforced by a person in "control." Obviously, general institutional control is exercised by the
chief executive officer of a member institution. However, it is rare that the chief executive officer
will make decisions specifically affecting the operations of the institution's athletics program.
Instead, the day-to-day duties of operation, including compliance with NCAA rules, will have been
delegated to subordinates either by specific action or by the creation of appropriate job
descriptions. Moreover, it is usually left to senior subordinates, such as the director of athletics,
further to delegate various duties regarding compliance with NCAA rules.
In most institutions, especially those with large and varied athletics programs, such delegations
are made to a number of individuals who are expected to exercise control over compliance with
regard to specific aspects of the program. The specific obligations of such individuals should be
in writing, and not merely an understanding among the senior officials of the university and the
athletics department. Not only the director of athletics, but other officials in the athletics
department, the faculty athletics representative, the head coaches and the other institutional
administrators outside of the athletics department responsible for such matters as the certification
of athletes for financial aid, practice and competition, are expected to assume a primary role in
ensuring compliance. Even though specific action has been taken to place responsibility
elsewhere, these individuals will be assumed to be operating on behalf of the institution with
respect to those responsibilities that are logically within the scope of their positions. Their failure
to control those matters so as to prevent violations of NCAA rules will be considered the result of a
lack of institutional control.
B. VIOLATIONS THAT DO NOT RESULT FROM A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.
An institution cannot be expected to control the actions of every individual who is in some way
connected with its athletics program. The deliberate or inadvertent violation of a rule by an
individual who is not in charge of compliance with rules that are violated will not be considered to
be due to a lack of institutional control:
• if adequate compliance measures exist;
• if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
• if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
• if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.
PRINCIPLES OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
AS PREPARED BY THE NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
A. "CONTROL" IS DEFINED IN COMMON-SENSE TERMS.
In determining whether there has been a lack of institutional control when a violation of NCAA
rules has been found it is necessary to ascertain what formal institutional policies and procedures
were in place at the time the violation of NCAA rules occurred and whether those policies and
procedures, if adequate, were being monitored and enforced. It is important that policies and
procedures be established so as to deter violations and not merely to discover their existence
after they have taken place. In a case where proper procedures exist and are appropriately
enforced, especially when they result in the prompt detection, investigation and reporting of the
violations in question, there may be no lack of institutional control although the individual or
individuals directly involved may be held responsible.
In a situation in which adequate institutional procedures exist, at least on paper, a practical,
common-sense approach is appropriate in determining whether they are adequately monitored
and enforced by a person in "control." Obviously, general institutional control is exercised by the
chief executive officer of a member institution. However, it is rare that the chief executive officer
will make decisions specifically affecting the operations of the institution's athletics program.
Instead, the day-to-day duties of operation, including compliance with NCAA rules, will have been
delegated to subordinates either by specific action or by the creation of appropriate job
descriptions. Moreover, it is usually left to senior subordinates, such as the director of athletics,
further to delegate various duties regarding compliance with NCAA rules.
In most institutions, especially those with large and varied athletics programs, such delegations
are made to a number of individuals who are expected to exercise control over compliance with
regard to specific aspects of the program. The specific obligations of such individuals should be
in writing, and not merely an understanding among the senior officials of the university and the
athletics department. Not only the director of athletics, but other officials in the athletics
department, the faculty athletics representative, the head coaches and the other institutional
administrators outside of the athletics department responsible for such matters as the certification
of athletes for financial aid, practice and competition, are expected to assume a primary role in
ensuring compliance. Even though specific action has been taken to place responsibility
elsewhere, these individuals will be assumed to be operating on behalf of the institution with
respect to those responsibilities that are logically within the scope of their positions. Their failure
to control those matters so as to prevent violations of NCAA rules will be considered the result of a
lack of institutional control.
B. VIOLATIONS THAT DO NOT RESULT FROM A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.
An institution cannot be expected to control the actions of every individual who is in some way
connected with its athletics program. The deliberate or inadvertent violation of a rule by an
individual who is not in charge of compliance with rules that are violated will not be considered to
be due to a lack of institutional control:
• if adequate compliance measures exist;
• if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
• if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
• if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.
This is exactly what I've been saying. We have demonstrated good internal control in this case. We found out that a violation may have happened. We reported it to the NCAA. When the booster didn't cooperate, we disassociated him. And when we found out the assistant coach knew about it and didn't report it, we fired him. That's exactly what we're supposed to do and it won't result in any serious penalties.