The NCAA spin from last October

[FHeal 4]

Well this is the way the NCAA spun it in last October....

From: NCAA Website

It includes this these snip-it's:

How does the new structure strengthen those penalties?

The guidelines for the penalties, whether they are financial, scholarship reductions or postseason bans, allow for much stronger punishment than the actual outcomes of past cases would suggest. We also asked the membership what penalties get people’s attention, and the list of what we call the “core penalties” reflects the membership view of most effective actions. The new structure should expedite the process more often than not. However, the NCAA’s ability to prove/prosecute guilt hasn’t changed.The new structure should expedite the process more often than not. However, the NCAA’s ability to prove/prosecute guilt hasn’t changed.

The new structure holds coaches more accountable for their actions and those of their staff. Why?

Yes, the new structure holds head coaches more accountable for what happens in their program. What we settled on was not the presumption that the coach knows everything, but that the coach is responsible for the program and should counsel assistants about what is appropriate and have processes in place to monitor whether the assistant coaches are doing what they are assigned to do in an appropriate way. And unless the head coach can provide that kind of mitigating evidence if something happens, then he or she is just as culpable as the assistant coach who does something

As the working group reviewed the current enforcement structure and contemplated desired outcomes from a revised approach, what common themes emerged about what needed to change?

First, it was clear we needed to have stiffer and more predictable penalties, so that people who were doing the “risk-reward” calculation would think twice about whether it was in their interests to engage in bad behavior. Having penalty guidelines – and having the penalties that are in those guidelines be more severe than what we have now – was a good way of sending clear signals to people. Second, how do we provide a more open and expedited process? … We felt one of the things we had to address was the “time to closure.” By expanding the Committee on Infractions to as many as 24 members and creating multiple panels of 5-7 members from that “pool” that can adjudicate cases more frequently, we expect to be able to cut the “time to closure” in half, at least for the less-complicated cases. Openness is fostered by having clear penalty guidelines for infractions so that everyone knows what the consequences for violations will be for them. … The third area or theme that emerged – and this was evident at the August 2011 Presidential Retreat was that everyone has to be part of the solution. There is a shared responsibility for upholding the values of the NCAA and the integrity of intercollegiate athletics.

((The whole article was much larger and only a few of my favorite remarks posted here.))

[FHeal 4]

There was also this video where Mark Emmert specifically mentions new assumptions for Head Coaches

[Guest jojo1515]

Yes, but if they refuse to investigate a case, then they can never find the evidence that these penalties should be enforced. Until something comes in the form of an official investigation, nothing they say matters. I hope for this one time they have the stones to back it up, but I am extremely skeptical...

[Weegle777 78]

NCAA officer:

"Mark, we have an assistant strength coach that loaned a player $500."

Emmert:

"Well then lets bust their butts and show them that we aren't playing around!"

NCAA rep:

"Sounds good Mark, I'll get the crew on the case."

Emmert:

"Great!" "Oh, what school was it?"

NCAA rep:

"Alabama."

Emmert:

"OH CRAP." "Hold off on that investigation, I have to make a call."

[SKIPPER_01 99]

HaHa...no pun intended

[CJBas 4]

Well this is the way the NCAA spun it in last October....

From: NCAA Website

It includes this these snip-it's:

How does the new structure strengthen those penalties?

The guidelines for the penalties, whether they are financial, scholarship reductions or postseason bans, allow for much stronger punishment than the actual outcomes of past cases would suggest. We also asked the membership what penalties get people’s attention, and the list of what we call the “core penalties” reflects the membership view of most effective actions. The new structure should expedite the process more often than not. However, the NCAA’s ability to prove/prosecute guilt hasn’t changed.The new structure should expedite the process more often than not. However, the NCAA’s ability to prove/prosecute guilt hasn’t changed.

The new structure holds coaches more accountable for their actions and those of their staff. Why?

Yes, the new structure holds head coaches more accountable for what happens in their program. What we settled on was not the presumption that the coach knows everything, but that the coach is responsible for the program and should counsel assistants about what is appropriate and have processes in place to monitor whether the assistant coaches are doing what they are assigned to do in an appropriate way. And unless the head coach can provide that kind of mitigating evidence if something happens, then he or she is just as culpable as the assistant coach who does something

As the working group reviewed the current enforcement structure and contemplated desired outcomes from a revised approach, what common themes emerged about what needed to change?

First, it was clear we needed to have stiffer and more predictable penalties, so that people who were doing the “risk-reward” calculation would think twice about whether it was in their interests to engage in bad behavior. Having penalty guidelines – and having the penalties that are in those guidelines be more severe than what we have now – was a good way of sending clear signals to people. Second, how do we provide a more open and expedited process? … We felt one of the things we had to address was the “time to closure.” By expanding the Committee on Infractions to as many as 24 members and creating multiple panels of 5-7 members from that “pool” that can adjudicate cases more frequently, we expect to be able to cut the “time to closure” in half, at least for the less-complicated cases. Openness is fostered by having clear penalty guidelines for infractions so that everyone knows what the consequences for violations will be for them. … The third area or theme that emerged – and this was evident at the August 2011 Presidential Retreat was that everyone has to be part of the solution. There is a shared responsibility for upholding the values of the NCAA and the integrity of intercollegiate athletics.

((The whole article was much larger and only a few of my favorite remarks posted here.))

Needless to say they should add, "Unless you're bama. In that case go on cheating as usual. We won't do anything to slow you down."