The righteously indignant Pete Fiutak gets it wrong

Dear Mr. Fiutak:

Reinstatement decisions are NOT enforcement investigations.

In a column posted yesterday, Fox Sports’ Pete Fiutak takes the NCAA to task for what he sees as a glaring inconsistency in upholding the sanctions that hammer Southern Cal for the Reggie Bush case. He makes the mistake of comparing the Bush enforcement improper benefits case to the reinstatement decisions made by a completely different arm of the NCAA.

I probably shouldn’t single out Fiutak because honestly, he’s not the only one who gets it wrong. The sentiments he express are found in columns on sports pages across the country. They’re on websites, blogs and internet message boards. Very few of’em get it.

While Mr. Fiutak will get no argument from me that the NCAA’s “every case is different” approach to both enforcement and reinstatement matters is a recipe for chaos and confusion, his column contributes absolutely nothing to resolving the national confusion over the difference between the results of investigations conducted by the league’s enforcement arm and decisions rendered by a reinstatement staff with no investigatory powers whatsoever.

People want to compare the USC case to the other two highest profile cases of blatant violation of amateurism rules—the Cam Newton case at Auburn and the Tressel, Pryor et al case at Ohio State. In doing so, they try to make the case that Southern Cal is being made to pay a heavy price while Auburn and Ohio State get away scot free.

Here’s the key difference: The Bush case—after a half-decade of media and NCAA background investigation, a notice of inquiry, the formal enforcement investigation, a notice of allegations, a Committee on Infractions hearing, a decision, an appeal and a decision on the appeal—was a thorough, full-fisted anal exam conducted by people with no connection to the Trojan program. Meanwhile, the reinstatement processes that resulted in the eligibility decisions at Auburn and Ohio State were the result of dog-and-pony shows written, produced and directed by the schools themselves.

Repeat after me: Reinstatement decisions are NOT enforcement investigations.  Lather, rinse and for God’s sake repeat this to every college sports fan you encounter.

The Infractions Committee relied on information produced by the NCAA enforcement staff and that information was the closest to the truth that anyone could ever hope for. The reinstatement decisions were based on information provided by the schools, and that information was prepared in a manner that puts the best light on the school that anyone could hope for. It’s a huge difference and it seems to be completely lost on people who should know better.

I am the first to admit that while I know more about NCAA rules and procedures than I ever wanted to, I still have a great deal to learn. It would be helpful if Pete Fiutak and all the other master blasters in the national sports media would slow down, understand the processes involved and at least try to grasp this key distinction between enforcement and reinstatement matters. By not doing so, they’re not helping the public get their own arms around the concepts.

I’ll bet there’s one thing on which Fiutak and I can agree. That would be a standardized set of penalties with mandatory minimum sentences for major violations. This idea was posited by MrSEC. Such a system would end the “every case is different” approach currently in place in both the enforcement and reinstatement offices of the NCAA. To be certain, some unintended victims will suffer under such a cut-and-dried system. But if everyone understands what the penalties are—that all drug dealers, murderers and rapists go to prison, no matter what—there will be fewer people weighing the risk reward ratio and making the wrong decision.

We need that and if this week’s news is any indication, we might soon get it.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

 

USC case has ominous implications for programs under scrutiny

Mark Emmert was named the NCAA President on April 27, 2010. Emmert almost immediately began talking up a revamp of the Enforcement process, and before he formally took office in October, he’d already begun shaking up staff and reorganizing the front office. Forty-four days atfer being named President, the league’s Committee on Infractions released a scathing, 67-page report, painstakingly detailing a four year pattern of rules violations at the University of Southern California. The violations, wrote the committee,  “struck at the heart of the NCAA's Principle of Amateurism.” 

USC appealed, holding out slim hopes that recent reinstatement decisions would at least provide an avenue for the Appeals Committee to set aside some of the sanctions levied by Infractions. Yesterday, that committee DENIED that appeal and let stand a series of extraordinarily punitive measures against the school’s Football, Men’ Basketball and Women’s Tennis programs.

Make no mistake about it—sanctions for major violations are designed to punish the institution and do so in a manner that the committee deems appropriate for the violations committed. Whether or not you agree that these penalties are consistent with the crimes, you can’t deny that they are harsh and that they will bring the Trojans to their knees for years to come.

The severity of these penalties and the league’s unwillingness to show any mercy on appeal should also serve notice to the host of college athletics programs currently under NCAA Enforcement scrutiny, especially those involved in high-profile cases with headline-making allegations of impropriety. Auburn, North Carolina, Ohio State and Tennessee are all under ongoing investigations, some of which allege the same types of amateurism violations as those demonstrated in the USC case.

Should any or all of these programs come before the Committee on Infractions, they can expect to defend themselves against allegations contained in a highly detailed Enforcement report, with every “i” dotted, every “t” crossed and every footnote documented. They can expect to receive harshly punitive sanctions that will severely hamper their competitive abilities on the field or court, and they can expect the Appeals committee to show no mercy whatsoever, absent a glaring error on the part of Enforcement staff or the Infractions Committee.

You might think it’s a stretch to correlate Emmert’s “get tough” approach to rules violators,  the severity of USC’s penalties and yesterday’s seemingly merciless denial on appeal. Don’t kid yourself. This is Mark Emmert’s NCAA and it’s Mark Emmert’s Enforcement philosophy.

If you get caught committing major rules violations and try to stonewall or deceive the league, you will become the conference whipping boy for the better part of a decade.  Watch USC’s performance on the field over the next several years, and behold your likely fate.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

 

Blog: NCAA Committee DENIES Southern Cal, affirms all penalties

Via Conquest Chronicles, a Southern Cal blog with a pretty good following.

---

Conquest Chronicles understands, based on multiple sources, that the NCAA has denied USC's appeal, much as Pat Haden and many others predicted they likely would. As we get more information on the ruling, we'll be keeping an eye out for reaction from with the football program, any impact on scholarships for 2011, and so on. The official stories should start to appear late today.

---

Nothing from any of the major news organizations yet but if CC is right, that’s only a matter of minutes.

UPDATE: Sure enough. Rivals/Yahoo! Sports is confirming, as is Bryan Fischer of CBS Sports. 

Trojan fans had pinned their hopes on the Cam Newton reinstatement decision last December, and their spirits rose even further with an equally mind-numbing reinstatement decision for Terrelle Pryor et al at Ohio State.

Alas for the Men of Troy, those weren’t decisions rendered at the end of full fledged NCAA enforcement investigations. The USC case took almost half a decade to resolve, from the first media reports of improper benefits through today’s news that their appeal had been denied.

Nearly a year ago, the NCAA Committee on Infractions released its report and included the following sanctions against the Men’s Basketball and Football programs:

• Four years probation
• Football hit with two-year ban on postseason play
• Basketball hit with one-year ban on postseason play
• Football hit with 30 scholarships over three years (10 per year) beginning in 2011
• Football limited to 75 scholarship players on the roster for three years beginning in 2011
• Fines and forfeitures totalling $211,200.
• Vacation of wins, including regular and postseason wins.
• Vacation of the 2005 Orange Bowl, where the Trojans trounced the Oklahoma Sooners for the 2004 BCS Championship.
• Finding of "lack of institutional control."
• Players currently enrolled and affected by the ban could transfer to any Division I school with no “sit out” penalty of one year.

In September, Reggie Bush surrendered his Heisman Trophy.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

 

Reggie Bush to lose his Heisman

The University of Southern California will get another black eye later this month, as the Heisman Trophy Trust is planning to strip former USC running back Reggie Bush of the coveted trophy.

---

Two sources close to the Heisman trust said the body’s investigation is coming to a close, and will ultimately concur with the NCAA’s determination that Bush was ineligible during his Heisman-winning season in 2005. Because of that independent conclusion, sources said the trust will relieve Bush of the award and leave the honor for that season vacant. The sources said Bush met with Heisman representatives last month at the New York law offices of Emmet, Marvin & Martin. The sources would not reveal details of that meeting.

The Heisman trust has been conducting its own independent inquiry into Bush’s eligibility since the NCAA ruled in June that the USC star had committed multiple violations by accepting cash, gifts and other impermissible benefits while playing for the Trojans. Yahoo! Sports first detailed the extra benefits in September 2006. In its findings, the NCAA retroactively ruled Bush ineligible for part of the 2004 season and all of 2005. The NCAA also ordered the USC program to remove all references to Bush from its sporting venues and promotional materials and vacate his statistics from all games in which he was ineligible.

In July, incoming USC president C.L. Max Nikias announced that the university would be returning its copy of Bush’s Heisman to the trust, stating the Trojans would honor and respect athletes who “did not compromise their athletic program or the opportunities of future USC student-athletes.” New USC athletic director Pat Haden followed up in August, stating during an interview with the Dan Patrick radio show that Bush should also voluntarily return his Heisman.

---

It is a tragic moment in college football history.  In the 75 years since the Downtown Athletic Club has been selecting the most outstanding college football player of the year, no one has ever had the award taken away.  Instead of being remembered as the electrifying athlete who led USC past Oklahoma to the national title in the 2005 Rose Bowl, he’ll be remembered as the player who took “impermissible benefits” during his tenure with one of college football’s most storied programs.  Shame on you Reggie, for creating such a dark spot on USC’s history.

But who could blame him?  And, who really thinks that the atmosphere at Southern Cal was a rare anomaly? College football is big business, and the top prospects in NCAA are hotter commodities than credit default swaps were in 2007. At large institutions like USC, it is virtually impossible for athletic departments to keep up with who players come into contact with.  When you have agents and their runners throwing wads of cash at 20-something kids with little life experience, stuff like this is bound to happen.  When agents and their runners throw lavish parties and offer all of the pleasures a young man could want, what do you think is gonna happen?  Think it only happened at USC?  Think Reggie Bush is the only one this happened with?

I don’t blame Reggie Bush.  I don’t blame USC.  I blame a culture of corruption that lets skanky agents compromise the integrity of the game.  And as long as there’s money to be made by compromising the game—and the amateur status of the athletes who play it—it will continue until the consequences of the crimes are brought to bear on the perpetrators.  Right now, there are no consequences.  A few states have passed legislation that ostensibly makes a crime out compromising college athletes, but the laws are toothless and virtually unenforceable. 

What needs to happen is that the NFL (and NBA as well) need to step in and stiffen their own rules.  If one agent is caught compromising the amateur status of a student athlete, that agent should be banned for life.  Make an example or two out of these scumbags, and stuff like this will stop.

I feel sorry for Southern Cal because a fine institution has had its legacy tarnished.  I also feel sorry for Reggie Bush, who really was an outstanding college football player and probably deserved that Heisman.  But I really hate that a handful of people with no integrity at all have created such a dark time in the history of a great sport.  This shouldn’t be about Bush or USC.  It should be about cleaning up a very big mess created by a few unscrupulous agents and their shameless minions.

Update: The Heisman Trust is now telling ESPN news that no decision has been reached and that Yahoo! Sports reports are inaccurate.  However, the latter is sticking by their story that Bush will be stripped of the award.