The Rest of College Football

[Hannibal]

Poor Seantrel Henderson. The guy just can't catch a break.

[iam416]

I think 1995-type penalties seem most likely, JRB, at this remarkably early stage.

[entropy]

The death penalty won't happen, but at some point, the NCAA has to cripple someone again to prove a point.

[entropy]

By CHUCK CARLTON

Staff Writer

ccarlton@dallasnews.com

Published 16 August 2011 09:37 PM

When Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin asked Aggies for patience Monday, maybe he should have included the Big 12 in his request.

The ongoing courtship between A&M and the Southeastern Conference cannot continue for much longer without resolution, Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe made clear Tuesday.

?I think the members deserve to know what Texas A&M?s intentions are going forward regarding the conference,? Beebe said.

He said the idea of the saga extending for months simply isn?t a possibility for the Big 12.

?I would suggest that would be an untenable position,? Beebe said. ?We can?t operate with an institution waiting to decide if it wants to remain in the conference. There has to be a very short time for an institution to commit.?

Some point soon, Beebe said he could approach the Big 12?s board of directors about setting a date for A&M to make a commitment.

He raised the idea that the Big 12 could pursue a stronger, contractual pledge ?because the one last summer wasn?t binding enough.? In addition to the current rules specifying withdrawal penalties, Beebe suggested that the extended commitment would involve damages for any school that would leave.

While Beebe didn?t offer a time period, the remaining 10 schools made a 10-year pledge last season.

Beebe said the conference had ?already suffered damages to its name, brand, and reputation.? A $1 million rebranding campaign by Austin-based GSD&M Idea City called ?This Is How We Play? has been essentially rendered unusable.

Additionally, Beebe wondered about Loftin?s comments regarding confusing Big 12 bylaws regarding departure payments. The commissioner noted that A&M backed the conference?s stance and accepted the exit fees from Nebraska and Colorado a year ago.

Texas A&M declined comment through spokesman Jason Cook, who pointed to Loftin?s comments Monday after the regents gave him the power to deal with conference alignment.

?What we do, if anything will be in the best interest of Texas A&M and the state of Texas,? Loftin said. ?We?re also very concerned about the members of the Big 12. We don?t want the Big 12 to go away. We have no intention of doing anything that might precipitate that.?

While the SEC discussed expansion on Sunday, including A&M, the conference decided to remain at 12 teams for now.

Sources indicated that talks between the SEC and A&M remain alive and ongoing.

But NCAA president Mark Emmert also became involved, suggesting a summit on conference alignment and calling Beebe and several SEC presidents.

Beebe emphasized that the Big 12?s first option was to retain A&M, which has longstanding conference rivalries. The Big 12 board of directors has conveyed the same sentiment in a statement Saturday.

?Ultimately, our strong main desire is to keep A&M and address whatever need to be done to keep them as happy, fulfilled members of the conference,? Beebe said.

The Longhorn Network had provided the spark for A&M?s decision to look at the SEC. Since then, Big 12 and the NCAA have neutralized concerns about high school games appearing on Texas? new startup venture with ESPN.

Loftin said A&M was motivated by a desire for national visibility and financial resources.

Dallas tycoon and Oklahoma State uberbooster T. Boone Pickens said the Aggies should stay put.

?That's a big mistake for Texas A&M to move out,? Pickens told the Oklahoman. ?They're moving out of Texas when they do that, and I don't think that's a smart deal.?

Beebe said he was not issuing an ultimatum to A&M.

?I don?t think any of this is unreasonable or nasty,? Beebe said. ?It makes sense especially with scheduling and other long-term concerns.?

[entropy]

Interesting approach by the Big12... I can see why you'd want this resolved, but I'm not sure backing someone in the corner is appropriate.

[iam416]

The problem the NCAA has is finding truly culpable behavior that is "deterrable." That's what they had in the SMU case. I mean, the f'n BoT was into it up to their necks after repeated NCAA violations/warnings.

I know there are allegations of coaches/University officials being aware of Shapiro's conduct (which, incidentally, is about as gross as it gets in college sports). But for the NCAA to crater Miami, they need to tie that knowledge directly to the folks in charge or have an overwhelming case of willful blindness, i.e., folks at Miami could have taken relatively easy, reasonable steps to determine the situation and put an end to it.

If the knowledge element isn't there, then the punishment can't be as severe. Our legal system places a tremendous degree of emphasis on knowledge because (a) it reflects culpability which (b) suggest the extent to which the conduct can be deterred. It's the reason why killing someone with premediation is a capital offense and killing someone in pure car accident won't get you jail time.

SMU was acting with premeditation. No other University I'm aware of has come close to that. I mean, there have been plenty of bad things happening all over the college landscape before and since, but nothing that so clearly involved University knowledge.

As an aside, I had to laugh at ESPN this morning. I know you guys think I'm tinfoil with this shit, but I'm watching Mike and Mike at 6am, and they open with.....TP talking to Goodell -- talk about his issues -- show gads of highlights of him and then move to Miami (while still showing TP, to be fair, against Miami...heh)....and then conclude with the little overlay rectangle "Ohio State and Miami under NCAA Investigation". Cracked me up. It must pain them to get scooped by Yahoo on a story that was, I think, out there for anyone to get. It might embarrass what's left of whatever journalistic integrity they had to read how real journalists investigate and write a story. And it's conceivable that they're disappointed that one of their "properties" took a big hit. So, why not remind everyone of the problems with the B10's flagship program! Anyway, I know - tinfoil. I admit it.

[iam416]

Ponzi schemer, fraud or whatever, this rings true:

“Miami is a private institution, it’s in a transient city. We didn’t have the money to pay recruits. There is so much more money in big public universities. In the SEC, the money is an endless river.

[entropy]

http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news;_ylt=AphIPkFl_TqWKp5vAHmUFpY5nYcB?slug=dw-who_is_nevin_shapiro_081611

story tells of shapiro's motivation

[entropy]

For the NCAA to gain control, they have to start saying an administration that ignores obvious signs is just as guilty as an administration that complies with breaking the rules.

no way Miami didn't know this was going on.

[Hannibal]

The problem the NCAA has is finding truly culpable behavior that is "deterrable." That's what they had in the SMU case. I mean, the f'n BoT was into it up to their necks after repeated NCAA violations/warnings.

This is very deterrable. Just like the cheating at every other program. Severe penalties will force Miami and other universities to take self-enforcement seriously. It will force them to vet their head coach and assistant hires more rigorously, and fire them quicker if they are cheating. It will force them to create a culture of compliance where this kind of thing is frowned upon. It will change the instincts that people have so that their gut reactions are different. It will give the coaches incentive to investigate boosters and to not recruit athletes with an entitlement attitude. It will encourage universities to investigate guys like this if they get tips. It will make fans pissed off at the coaches and players who get their programs in trouble. It's not unreasonable. And it has to be done, because the difference between self-enforcing and not self-enforcing right now is providing a huge competitive advantage for the programs that don't self-enforce. You can't tell me that recruits don't know where they can go to get "taken care of" if they want. Especially in this case, where they were visiting this guy's house.

[entropy]

Portland television station KATU obtained the unedited police dashboard camera footage of the police stop of Oregon cornerback Cliff Harris during his 118 mph joyride in a rented car. The film exposes a reference to a marijuana smell in the car and Harris' response of "we smoked it all" when questioned about the smell by police officers. It also turns out that the passenger in the car was starting quarterback Darron Thomas.

The footage is one more example of Harris at his lacking maturity best. Not only was the joyride dangerous, and possibly involved drugs, but it also involved Thomas on some level. It will be interesting to see if the video revelations bring about more consequences from coach Chip Kelly.

[JRB]

I know there are allegations of coaches/University officials being aware of Shapiro's conduct (which, incidentally, is about as gross as it gets in college sports). But for the NCAA to crater Miami, they need to tie that knowledge directly to the folks in charge or have an overwhelming case of willful blindness, i.e., folks at Miami could have taken relatively easy, reasonable steps to determine the situation and put an end to it.

Well, allegedly Shapiro tried to fight Miami's compliance director in the press box in front of witnesses. I'd say that was a fairly clear warning sign. That Miami, again allegedly, made no concerted effort to disassociate the guy from the program even after that is not going to go over well.

[iam416]

This is very deterrable. Just like the cheating at every other program. Severe penalties will force Miami and other universities to take self-enforcement seriously. It will force them to vet their head coach and assistant hires more rigorously, and fire them quicker if they are cheating. It will force them to create a culture of compliance where this kind of thing is frowned upon. It will change the instincts that people have so that their gut reactions are different. It will give the coaches incentive to investigate boosters and to not recruit athletes with an entitlement attitude. It will encourage universities to investigate guys like this if they get tips. It's not unreasonable. And it has to be done, because the difference between self-enforcing and not self-enforcing right now is providing a huge competitive advantage for the programs that don't self-enforce. You can't tell me that recruits don't know where they can go to get "taken care of" if they want. Especially in this case, where they were visiting this guy's house.

All of that is well and good, but I don't think it would stop anything but the most egregious behaviour. "Culture of compliance" and "self-enforcement" are noble concepts that, IMO, produce scant results when dealing with type of prohibited behavior the Universities are dealing with.

They can crater Miami -- and they might. They did once in 1995. They hammered USC. Is that going to change anything? Are boosters going to stop paying players? Are $100/$200, etc handshakes going to stop? Buying drinks and dinners? Of course not. The University is, within reasonable bounds, more or less powerless to stop that from happening. Neither the boosters nor the players have any real incentive NOT to undertake this behavior. I mean, it's not like the NCAA rules are criminal rules nor are NCAA rules even morally right or wrong. They're just rules. Arbitrary.

The stuff that can be deterred is the truly egregious. It would seem Miami probably should have stepped in earlier with Shapiro. That's premature, but the Yahoo guys are pretty good and there's enough there to suggest that Miami had a fairly easy and obvious course to follow. BUT, what if they do that and some players still visit Shapiro? How do you stop that?

I know we fundamentally disagree on this issue, Hanni. I don't think your position unreasonable. But, personally, I think a scorched earth policy is the wrong way to go. I think NCAA punishments need to be rationally tied to both intent and the acts.

[iam416]

Well, allegedly Shapiro tried to fight Miami's compliance director in the press box in front of witnesses. I'd say that was a fairly clear warning sign. That Miami, again allegedly, made no concerted effort to disassociate the guy from the program even after that is not going to go over well.

Yeah, that's going to be their biggest problem. As I said, if they took this step in earnest and players still found their way his mansion or VIP booth, eh, what are you going to do? But they did nothing.

[Hannibal]

All of that is well and good, but I don't think it would stop anything but the most egregious behaviour. "Culture of compliance" and "self-enforcement" are noble concepts that, IMO, produce scant results when dealing with type of prohibited behavior the Universities are dealing with.

For what it's worth, those concepts work very well in the corporate world. That's the perspective that I come from. In my career, I have seen attitudes towards both environmental compliance and sexual harrassment change significantly. In no small part, because of external pressure and, in many cases, Draconian penalties that dramatically outweigh whatever competitive advantage that you get from breaking the rules. I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect the same thing in college football because I don't buy the notion that every program cheats.

If nothing is going to make a difference, then I'd rather see the NCAA officially declare the end of amateur athletics and just let boosters&agents pay players.