NCAA DIVISION I AND NAIA:
(Tuesday, June 12- 10:00- 11:30 a.m.)
The concepts of institutional control and compliance are fundamental principles of the NCAA. Constitu1 2.1 and 2.5 state that: it is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association; each institution shall cot with all applicable rules and regulations of the Association in the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics programs; It shall monitor its programs to assure compliance and to identify where compliance has not been achieved. In any such instance, the institution shall cooperate fully with the Association and shall take appropriate corrective actions. An institution found to have violated the Association's rules shall be subj. to such disciplinary and corrective actions as may be determined by the Association.
In earlier years, a finding of lack of institutional control by the Committee on Infractions was more likely to be a fall-out allegation as part of a long list of recruiting or extra benefit violations. An exal was the allegation that the president signed a certificate of compliance containing false information certif by a staff member when he or she was aware of, or involved in, a violation.
In the mid-198os, the NCAA passed legislation instituting procedures to assist institutions gain or maintain control over the athletic programs. The procedures include requirements for self-study and final audits which ~re both elements of institutional control and responsibility.
At the same time the Association passed this institutional control legislations, it voted to increase severity of the penalties to be imposed against an institution when it was found to have committed major
violations of NCAA legislation. This was done in an effort to reinforce the principles of institutional COI and compliance. For example: the repeat violator legislation contemplates that major violations which OCCUI within five years of a finding of a previous major violation is the responsibility of the institution, not . sport originally penalized.
Since that time, the Committee on Infr~ctions has determined that a lack of institutional control is ; major violation and, through its opinions, has interpreted the institutional control legislation both in tel of violations and mitigation of penalties.
A review of the Committee's opinions, issued during 1988, 1989 and 1990, indicates that a finding of of institutional control may result from anyone of several circumstances, including: I) a series of patter] secondary violations, which demonstrate the failure to comply with institutional control and compliance principles; 2) a belief by the Committee that the institution has failed to manage its athletic program properly; 3) the failure of the institution to promptly investigate and report violations of NCAA legislatil 4) the failure of the institution to be vigilant and to act on facts and circumstances that it knew or shou have known were red flags, which should have put the institution on notice that it was necessary to monitor activityand to develop a compliance program to respond to it; 5) the failure to have an adequate monitori~ certification program relating to financial aid, practice and competition; 6) the failure to develop and
implement effective rules education programs and monitoring systems, and; 7) the failure to have systems in place for seeking legislative interpretations.
It is also significant to note that the Committee on Infractions may find a lack of institutional in an infractions case even though the NCAA enforcement staff did not bring the allegations. The Commi1 bring the allegation is, as a result of evidence presented at the hearing, the Committee finds that the supports the finding.
In an effort to gain a better understanding of this violation, it is instructive to review the Commit opinions in several recent cases where findings of lack of institutional control were made. In mentioning names of institutions, I do not intend to denigrate or cast aspersions on any institution or individual. Rather, I put the cases in context to help other institutions think about these issues and to encourage thE consider developing or enhancing programs to avoid problems in the future.
In a series of cases, including Minnesota, Cincinnati, Houston Baptist, Pittsburgh State, Texas A&M c Oklahoma State, the Committee made findings of lack of institutional control based on factors enumerated bE More recently, the Committee decided the Kentucky, North Carolina State, Maryland and Clemson cases. A del look at the institutional control aspects of these cases demonstrates the evolution of the Committee's thir
In the last few years the Committee found a lack of institutional control over the administration of the athletics program when: coaches did not seek guidance from the athletic administration concerning rules interpretations; 1) administrative procedures allowed student-athletes to receive pre-paid airline tickets; 2) the institution provided meals to more than one student-athlete who dined with a prospective student-athlete during prospect's official visit; there was inadequate administrative procedures in place to ensure that financial aid was properly provided to student-athletes.
Unethical conduct was a symptom of the institution's failure to establish appropriate control. The scope and nature of the violations demonstrated the institution's failure to adequately educate, control or monitor
its coaches, student-athletes and representatives of its athletic interests. This was determined because the y engaged in activities that demonstrated that they had little knowledge of, or regard for, NCAA standards. Educational and monitoring programs did not function in a manner that gave the institution control of the problem. Violations were not promptly reported to appropriate members of the institution's administration or
the NCAA when discovered by an athletic department staff member. The institution did not effectively administer its summer jobs program. The Committee found that the University did not have a system of checks and balances or no administrative accounting or monitoring in place. There was no clear delineation of responsibility for certification of eligibility. There was a failure to maintain records required by NCAA legislation. The staff, student-athletes and the representatives of the institution's athletic interests failure to know NCAA
legislation led to a series of other violations. The institution did not have sufficient controls over team budgets to provide routing audits. The institution did not conduct regular compliance and education programs
and the institution failed to have appropriate procedures in place with the travel agency it used for athletic related travel.
Turning to the four recent cases mentioned at the outset. In May, 1969, the Committee decided the Kentucky case and found several violations, each of which standing alone, made this a major case under NCAA enforcement procedures. The violations involved money sent from the athletic department to a prospect's relative; unethical conduct; academic fraud; failure to maintain adequate certification procedures; and failure to maintain instjtutional control within the athletic department and the basketball program.
As a result of these violations the Committee considered shutting down the basketball program. However, the Committee reported that the case was evaluated in light of the University's efforts to bring itself into compliance. It was noted that prior to the hearing, the University took significant actions whjch demonstrated its commitment to operate its program under the control of the institution and in rules compliance. It also helped deliver the message to the various university constituencies that the basketball program \vas gcing to operate within the rules. In short, the Committee mitigated the penalty because of the corrective action put in place by the University prior to the time the case was heard.
Contrast to this case to the North Carolina State case decided in December, 1989. In this case, the Committee found violations in two areas, the handling of complimentary admission~ and the manner in which basketball shoes were issued. The Committee did not find any clear or direct competitive advantage as a result of the violations.
Despite the limited scope of the violations, the Committee determined that the violations indicated, "that the institution failed in its responsibility to control j.ts intercollegiate athletic program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association." The Committee also found that the violations showed a failure to comply with the principles of rules compliance which require a member institution monitor its programs to assure compliance. The Committee reported that the institution failed to exercise institutional responsibility because there was an absence of adequate compliance monitoring systems. The institution was also slow to correct practices and procedures that the institution, its director of athletics and coaches should have recognized as "a potential for rules violations."
The Committee concluded that this case should be classified as a major case subject to the minimum schedule of penalties mandated by the Association.
The Committee stated that a number of considerations entered into its fjnal conclusion that this was a major case, notwithstanding certain differences between this case and the more typical major cases involving willful violations of fundamental recruiting and extra benefit legislation.
First, the violations were not "isolated or inadvertent." Those relating to complimentary admission~ occurred over a period of time. Moreover, the University had reason to know that it needed to take
preventive action to avoid problems in this area. During the 1985-86 season, in response to national
attention to problems at other institutions concerning complimentary admissions, the University detected, took disciplinary action, and reported to the NCAA violations relating to compliJjlentary admissions in the men's basketball program. Nonetheless, no improvement occurred in managing compliroentary admissions, and improper designation of individuals on the complimentary list continued to occur.
Secondly, violations relating to the issuance of basketball shoes also continued over an extended pE of time. Although some improvement in control procedures occurred during the latter part of this time pel the procedures were inadequate to prevent some men's basketball team members from obtaining shoes without being accountable to return them to the institution.
Third, the violations occurred because of inadequate institutional procedures for administering these areas of responsibility. Neither the faculty athletjcs representative nor any other person outside the
athletics department appeared to have a significant role in overseeing the compliance practices of the ath1 department. Further, there was no effective system within the athletj.cs department for monitoring or check these areas of compliance responsibility. The Committee also noted, as it has stated on other occasions, t an institution must be aware that when it combines the assignments of head coach of a major sport with thos director of athletics in one individual, the institution is responsible to ensure that adequate administrat arrangements are in place to provide appropriate supervision and monitoring of that prograro. There is noth inherently improper in an organizational structure that combines the positions, but it places responsibilit on the institution, as well as on the individual, to ensure that such a form of organization does not dimin institutional control.
Finally, the Committee outlined the basis for its findings by stating that it believes NCAA member institutions consciously adopted a narrow definition of secondary violations, limiting that category to violations that are "isolated or inadvertent." Because the Association intended to impose a duty on all institutions to make rules compliance a major responsibility for which each institution would be held accountable in a significant way if rules violations could be attributed to the absence of reasonable compliance procedures.
The Committee went on to say that the membership recognizes that maintaining compliance with NCAA ru: may involve costs. These costs to the institutjon will be both in terms of resources that must be devoted the task, and in terms of institutional energy needed to withstand pressures to relax an institution's commitment to rules compliance.
Although there may be cases in even the best-administered athletics programs where violations occurred despite efforts in the institution to prevent them, this category was not intended to permit an institution enjoy the benefits of competition wj.th other me111ber instjtutions while neglecting compliance responsibilitiei Even when the violations reflect no willful effort to obtain a competitive advantage, other institutions in the membership are disadvantaged when a competitor does not meet the minimum requirements of institutional control.
Approximately six months later, in March, 1990, the Committee issued its report in the Maryland case which is now on appeal. This case appears to combine the Committee's thinking as set out in the Kentucky i North Carolina State cases. In the Kentucky case the Committee found serious violetions, but also found ti the institution had developed and implemented a compliance program and had gained control of the athletic
program. In the North Carolina case the Committee found that the violations were less serious, but becausl lack of institutjonal control it was considered a major case. In the Maryland case the Committee found bo serious violations and lack of institutional control.
The Committee elaborated by saying that, as important as the findings regarding the provision of i~proper benefits to prospective and enrolled student-athletes or the unethical conduct of members of the staff were, the Committee found that the University had failed to ~eet the principles of institutional contr and rules compliance. The Committee wrote that although even the best-administered athletics program might have rules violations, the principles of rules compliance and institutional control require each member student-athletes' complimentary admissions and extra benefits. This also reflected a lack of effective men's basketball. This demonstrated a pattern of non-complience with NCAA rules governing the administrati( student-athletes' complimentary admissj.ons and extra benefits. This also reflected a lack of effective program for overseeing and monitoring the extent to which its men's basketball program operated in complian( with the NCAA rules.
Specifically, a lack of administrative control and oversight of the conduct of basic recruiting activities under circumstances where the men's basketball staff should have been aware these violations were occurring. There were extensive violations of NCAA ru]es governing recruiting contacts with and transportation of a prospective student-athlete under cj.rcumstances that the then head coach knew, or should have known, that the men's basketball ste.ff was providing such transportation. The University's athletics administration should have been alerted to the problem if a more effective compliance program had been in place. The university failed to oversee and account for the distribution and return of equipment and appare: to the men's basketball student-athletes by its then head basketball coach. The university failed to make a timely report to the NCAA of certain violations when the university's director of athletics should have been aware that a violation had been committed.
The university failed to have an effective program for educating members of the men's basketball coaching staff and student-athletes on their responsibilities under NCAA rules. This deficiency was
aggravated by the fact that the head coach had no prior coaching experience at NCAA member institutions.
The Clemson case decided in late May, 1990, consisted of two allegations involving major violations of a lireited nature in addition to some secondary violations that did not impact the penalty.
On two occasions, one football player received and distributed cash payments ranging between $50 and $70 to another player; and at a different time, this same player received $50 from a representative of the university's athletics interests.
The Committee cited the following three factors in mitigation of a more severe penalty: I) there were only two violations involving three limited cash payments to an enrolled student-athlete and some secondary
violations that did not amount to a major violation. The Committee commented that no other serious allegations were presented to it. The two major violations do not in and of themselves demonstrate a lack of institutional control under the circumstances found jD this case. 2) It was also decided the violations could have occurred in a program that was operating in accordance wj.th NCAA legjf!lation. 3) the university presented evidence of jts efforts to improve institutional control since its last appearance in 1982. For example, the implementation of record keeping, monitoring controls, rules education programs for staff and representatives of the university's athletics interests. The university was instrumental in identifying and producing the player who received the D~ney.
As the cases illustrate, if the institution can establish that it is in compliance with the institutional control legislation, even though violations occurred, institutional control constitutes a mitigating, or unique factor which mitigates against more severe penalties.
In addition, strong corrective action taken prior to the hearing before the Comulittee on Infractions to prevent reoccurrence of a violation also constitutes mitigatjon. Generalitjes and promises are not enough. Replacing staff is not enough. Cooperation is not enough. The institution must convince the Committee that it has developed a comprehensive and effective compliance program.
The Committee commented that in the Maryland case penalties were based on the fact that there was a violatjon based on past conduct and nc indication that a strong monitoring program was in place. In effect, Maryland may have paid an "opportunity cost." If the institution does not develop and implement a compliance program, it loses its change for mitigation, in addition to evoiding a violation.
In closing, it is important to have an effective compliance program in place as evidence of institution al control and thereby foreclose a finding of lack of institutional control. They must also, at the same time, mitigate against the penalties i~posed as a result of any violations. This is a case where you can have your cake and eat it too.
Thank you very much, Mike. Next, I would like to call on Doug Johnson, who is a lawyer and has been with the NCAA for five years. Now, he's at the University of Miami, as our Associate AD, for our internal operations and heading our compliance and enforcement job. Doug Johnson.
Thank you, Same, and good morning. As both Sam and Mike alluded to, the issue of compliance and the issue of institutional control are very closely related. As indicated earlier, NCAA Constitution 2.5.1 expressly states that monitoring a compliance program is required. It's not an optional duty, it's required of all NCAA member-institutions.
We get into the term of monitoring. Some people say it's enforcement. Monitoring can be defined as assistance which gathers and evaluates the necessary information to determine whether your program is being run consistent with general standards of intercollegiate athletics and the policies of the NCAA.
In developing a compliance system, generally, you want to emphasize two factors. The first is education. You cannot successfully operate or monitor a compliance program without significant and detailed education. The reason is simple. If you're going around telling people they're not supposed to be doing something wrong, and they don't know what it is that they're not supposed to do wrong, you're in big trouble. So, before you go
about putting together significant procedures or operations within the department, it's necessary, first and
foremost, to make sure that there is some mechanism within the department whereby a]l staff members receive appropriate notification of NCAA legislation and are kept up-.to-date with interpretations that are passed through the Interpretations Committee and other related bodies throughout the NCAA.
If you look at the student-athlete summer job program handout, you'll see that it combines both the function of education and compliance. If you look at the first two pages, their basically educational in nature. They define the goal of the program, the outline that is required by the legislation. They inst what the institution's responsibility is going to be in operating the summer jobs program. All of it is educational in nature.
If you continue on through the form, you'll see that the form has sign-offs, wherebyan employer signs off, indicating that he understands the rule. The student-athlete signs off, indicating that he or she understands the rule. This would be the monitoring function. By keeping this form on record within the department, the department can prove consistent with the principles of institutional control. They've educa1 the student-athlete, the employees involved and the athletic department staff members. They've also kept an appropriate documentation to prove that these monitorj.ng efforts have taken place.
It's interesting that compliance is getting emphasis, particularly in light of the fact that if you go back eight years, there was no compliance department. No one even heard the word compliance. When you received compliance materials, it was generally in the form of a handout. Now, in the recent compliance seminars, compliance materials are two notebooks.
Today, we'll focus on three areas; the area of academics, financial aid and what we call general athletics eligibility. As Mike alluded to earlier, it's very important in establishing a complj.ance program that you have some type of checks and balances. This means that the athletic department has specific duties but that the institutional personnel also has a duty in monitoring or following up appropriate procedllres. this way, it's not one person's responsibj.lity or if one person errs, you don't find yourself in a situation of violation. Rather, with an appropriate checks and balance system, you have several individuals and sever departments looking at compliance materials and related activities and there's far less likelihood of any errors. Obviously, intentional violations will occur and those will be very difficult for any compliances t stop. This is difficult because if someone intentionally violates the rules, they're going to attempt to circumvent whatever system you have in place. Through the process of education and making staff members understand what their obljgaticns are, hopefully, peer pressure will prevent those types of intentional violations from becoming too frequent.
In academics a depart~Jent needs to break down runctions between what's essential and what's required m what I say might be desired. You do that in every compliance category. What's required, particularly in Division I, is certification of initial eligibility, certj.fication of satisfactory progress and good academic standing. Certainly, the athletic department has a significant role in this. It's the posit jon of the department to indicate to student-athletes the importance of academics, the importance of going to class and the importance of obtaining a degree.
When it comes to monitoring the actual certification process, oftentjmes, this is more effectively doru at the university level. Most universities have admissions policies which reflect their goals and should be applied evenly to student-athletes and non student-athletes. If this is appropriately done, the university official, whether it be the head admissions or his or her designee, will make the appropriate certification and pass that information on. It's up[[ to the athletics department to review that type of certification to determine whether there have been any errors made. This is particularly true in close cases where it's difficult to determine if a person has met the initial qualifying legislation or where it's been determined that a student-athlete has not met that legislation. Because of the penalties and sanctions involved in beil a partial non-qualifier, it is very important for the institution to pay particular care to the class of individuals who may fall into that category. Likewise, with satisfactory progress in continuing education, would be the registrar's runction or enrollment services runction to do the initial certification. They ne~ to sign off on the fact that the student-athletes have met university standards for good academic standing.
When it comes to financial aid, a similar checks and balance system should be used. Financial aid, unless it is given solely on the basis of athletics, should be administered through the university. In fac the legislation requires that it be administered through the university. Once a university has received an appropriate squad list and information from the athletics department, it goes to financial aid. You want t to happen because financial aid can make appropriate decisions without peer pressure from athletic administrators and coaches regarding final decisj.ons. This is not to say that athletic administrators and financial aid officers should not work together or discuss issues or that there will not be disagreements. But, these issues should be discussed and a final decision should be made based upon the knowledge of the financial aid officer or the academic officer and the relationship to athletics policies.
The third area is much more related to athletic activities. Most of these functions will be performed in the athletic department. This is where an athletic department must be particularly careful. The first will be recruiting issues and every recruiting legislation changes significantly and there are volumes and volumes of this legislation. In general, our recruiting coordinator and/or a coach will be responsible for compiling the appropriate documents whether they be recruiting official or unofficial visit forms. Monitoring reimbursements forms and all of those types of related activities. It will be up to the athletic department to keep significant information that's related to potential NCAA violations on file to make oertain that if there is a time for review, the appropriate records will be maintained. An institution has to be able to back themselves in all mstters.
Since there is no university official involved in those type of activjties, in general, other than athletic department staff members, you need to have an audit function. This audit function can be performed yearlyand sometimes more than yearly within the department itself. The appropriate compliance person looks
at records from time-to-time and makes certain that they are being filled out correctly anq that they've been distributed to student-athletes appropriately and that they are being kept consistent with standards.
However, in order to insure that the department is running well, you need to look to an outside individual, someone outside the athletic department, to oversee and to conduct a thorough audit of the
athletic department. This audit can take two forms. Many universjtjes utilize university personnel, such as legal vice president or a registrar or some type of admissions person to review all documents. As lor~ as it's done outside the athletic department, you don't face the problems of appearances. By
this I mean, if a coach investigates his or her own sport and fails to notice something, then the NCAA notices it, there will always be the issue of whether the coach intentionally overlooked this area. It could be very well that the coach did not overlook this area, but when you only have the athletic department looking at a document, you run the risk of that appearance of inpropriety. If another outside university official does the audit, you do not have the problem. You may want to send it to an outside agency.
The benefits of an outside several. Oftentimes, in working with something you fall jnto the forest and the tree syndromes. You can't see the detail because you are constantly looking at the general picture day after day. A minor mistake on a form escapes you. You don't mean to overlook it, but you're doing other daily activities and you just don't find it. That's why an outside auditor has the opportunity to look at the forms with more detail. They will examine your records, interview your student-athletes, speak with your coaches and look at the types of functjons that the university is conducting.
I encourage each of you to look at your scope of audit function. It's in your handout. Helen wj.ll be speaking about that later. The scope of audit is an excellent check list for major institutions. This scope of audit addresses the educational issue on its front page. You can determine whether you are doing the appropriate educational issues. As you continue through the scope of audit, you begin to see the monitoring functions. On page two, you'll see coaching staff limitations. You'll see audit functions relating to summer camps and issues which are very important in maintaining appropriate institutional controls which may not be covered in an audit done within the athletic department.
In closing, it's very important to have a strong compliance program. It should be run effectively, administered in detail and, most importantly, it should have the support and backing of the B.dministration Thank you.
Thank you, Doug. You can tell he's much smarter than I am. I would like to introduce a lady who certainly has done a lot of work for this panel. She's been in the business for 20-years. She's the director of athletic operations at Western Illinois University. Her primary emphasIs has been on compliance and enforcement. May I introduce, Helen Smiley.
Thank you very much. Rules education, as you have heard everyone up here say, is a very important part of your program. I encourage all of you to look at your compliance materials that you have received or will receive from the NCAA. They're very complete and they go into the total aspect of rules and education helping your to establish your program. The constituent groups are perspective student-athletes. Anytime you are corresponding with them or anytime coaches are talking with them and their families, your enrolled Btudent-athletes, coaching staff, internal administrators within the department such as, trainers, secretaries and many other people will need to be informed about the rules and education. Equipment managers, sports information directors and all of your internal staff people who are not coaches, admissions, and financial aid people are all internal people who need to be educated. Your outside groups are your boosters, alumni and
people who work with you in your summer job programs. These are, as Sam called them, outside people. Lastly, high school coaches and administrators need to be educated. Anytime you have a chance to talk to them, do so. This is important.
I would like to throw out a few questions for your at this time. You need to ask yourself, are you willing to commit to running your program with integrity and within the rules? If so, how are you doing this? How are your showing this commitment? "Jho is responsible? Have you named someone within your institutions with, not only the responsibility, but with the authority? As we got together working on this panel, we voiced the opinion that compliances are very difficult responsibilities. Especially, if this person is in the area of working with the violations as well as the education. It's a tough job and someone needs the authority as well as the responsibility to do this job. Is this commitment institution wide, from the CEO, athletic director, on down? Again, how is this manifested?
Compliance is a critical element of institutional control. Hopefully, today, we've at least make you a little bit n,ore informed about the sense of compliance and its importance to your program. I'd like to give you a few tips to take back to your campus. First of all, examine your rules and education efforts. You might do it as if you were preparing a report for the Rules and Fashion Committee. This scope of audit is an excellent outline for you to begin using now. What do you do to keep your staff informed? What are you doing for your student-athletes? What are you doing for your boosters?
Secondly, if you don't have an education program, start one. Get one going. As Mike said, "it's never too late." Get something going, and again, the scope of audit is an excellent material for you to begin.
Another suggestion is to begin rewriting the job descriptions of your personnel. ]nclude in these the responsibility for knowing the rules in each specific person's area. I mean your coaches or anyone else within your department. It is important that they know the rules and they need to be committed to that.
Look at your hiring policy and your disciplinary action. Are you yourself hiring administrators or coaches who have a history of rules compliance. Ask yourself that. Do you take clear and precise action against anyone who has violated or who does not self-report. We have NCAA rules. You have Conference rules. You need to get this self-reporting function into your system.
What is your coromitment to academics and graduatj.on? The self-study j.s a requirement. August of 1991 is the final date for all self-studies to be in. I heard that about 85 percent of the institutj.ons have not completed their self-study. A lot of you are working on them now, but it's important for you to look at what your commitment is to academics and graduation. We put together what we call the commitment to academic statement.
As we said today, athletics integrity is no accident. It's a direct result of a collective institutional decision and it's achieved through three important commitments: First of all, it's defining your realistic standards. Know exactly what you need to be doing; secondly, dedicating the sufficient resources to get this done. It is important that this is in progress and you, as athletic directors, need to be sure that the resources are there for that. Third, reviewing and monitoring your program on a regular basis.
I'm going to introduce Sam, who will do some closing remarks and then we will have time for questions and answers. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Helen. I would like to make a couple of statements. I think the big thing that we're saying is that you must have institutional control and it comes in many different forms. You need the cooperation of so many people. It's like having a toothache. It doesn't get any better, and it continues to get worse if you don't take care of it i~~ediately. All of us in this room have dealt with big problems and small problems. Usually, you cope with the big problems well. When you have that small problem, and you turn your back on it, it's going to perpetuate itself and it surely isn't going to get any better. You have to deal with it immediately and kill it before it does fester.
One of the things that bothers me to some end, and I hope that there will be an explanation at some point, is that the coach is now being the whipping person for the mistekes of the university. It seems that
as we're going on, we all are so ready to fire the coach and then the institution will slap their hands and go on wj.th their business. If we're really going to exercise control, it's the responsibility of the institution to exercise that control and make certain that they do have institutional control. If you allow them to violate the small rules, it isn't going to get any better. You and I, and everybody else in this room, kno\is that there's an awful lot going on out there. We have the Knight Commission working in this area. We have
the Presidents Commission, the NCAA, Division I-A Athletic Directors, the Council and everybody, including the media, have all of the answers for what we're supposed to be doing in big-time intercollegiate athletics. As
I said before, it's much better than most people think, but yet, there is room for improvement.
We are in a very critical stage in what we're going to do with reform of intercollegiate athletics and cost reduction. I believe that those are two important issues and we should not turn our back to them. But,
I sincerely do not believe that those are the real issues as far as college athletics today. I really believe all of the other things that we're doing would be protected and taken care of. We have the Knight Commission who is dealing with one plus three, which is a very good model and an outstanding approach to presidential
We have, in the state of Florida, some politicians who are putting together a Bill and have the Bill in place that if a coach violates a rule and the NCAfl- sanctj.ons that university or that coach because of it, you can take j.t to court within that state and it doesn't rest within the NCAA. I think that will be one of the worst Bills ever passed in this state or any other state. Intercollegiate athletics rest within the NCAA. You're a part of that organization on a voluntary basis and you can be a part of it if you want, and not a part of it if you don't want, but the legislation, the reprimands or the penalties rest within the NCAA.
I would like to see, personally, these people who are working so hard in paving the way for intercollegiate athletics, for the next decade and many years to come, to really look at what is the really solid model as far as institutional control. And, come up with that model and, therefore, those instjtutions who have it and have it in place, to be given a grant and some financial assistance, which will allow some of those schools around the country who do not have the resources to have as much help in the academic area or
the compliance or enforcement areas, and take a lot of that burden off the national issues where the national office can't police some 1,000 schools. Put more pressure and more stress within the school itself to have institutional controls. Those who don't have it, don't belong in the business. rlliat they need is some assistance in order to have comprehensive prograre. To me, that is extremely important as far as the future of this industry is concerned. It is healthy, it is good and it is something that we must preserve for the many years to come. The make up of this body reflects what sports are really all about.
Thank you, Sam. We're pleased to have Steve Morgan up here with us on our panel. Steve is from the NCAA. Are there questions?
Thank you very much.
I'm Todd Turner, from North Carolina State. I would like to ask Steve Morgan to talk about the role the NCAA office expects our conference office to play in the monitoring and the education and interpretation relative to rules and compliance.
Basically, in dealing with the conference rules, we would like to see conferences make those decisions themselves as to what role they \iant to play. We hope to provide adequate resources to help a conference play what role it wants to play. We think it would be efficient, particularly in use of conference grant funds in Division I conferences, if the conference issues try to help resolve these problems. It appears quite often in conferences that have a lot of geographic common positions within the conferences. Many times the same questions will occur on a number of compuses. The conference office can play an important part in trying to help monitor those things and not necessitate each institution going to the national office in Kansas City. Nobody \iants to see the NCAA staff continue to grow. One of the ways to help control their growth as the demand for compliance and legislative services contj.nues to grO\i is to help educate conference staffs and help them to educate member-institutions to take on that role on campus.
In dealing with the enforcement side of the conference level, we have discussed this in recent years. It's important for the conference office to assist in the reporting of major violations if they occur. But, basically, be on the sidelines as those matters are investigated and brought to conclusion through the NCAA Committee on Infractions. If the conference believes there are additional actions necessary within the conference because of the NCAA penalties, they could take place.
Secondary violations from the national perspective, we'd like to see the conferences playa significant role in helping member-institutions react to secondary violations, take action and report those to the nationaloffice. If you're catching the secondary violations, taking action and reporting that action immediately, you can put yourself in a posture of appearing quite proper in having very good institutional
control. Every institution has some kind of a secondary violation go on in any given year. ~lany times, more than one. That doesn't mean a lack of institutional control if they are detected and action is taken and they are reported.
If a secondary violation is reported and adequate action is taken on the campus or within the conference, we do not as a national organization take further action. \ve accept that action. We place it in the file and there's no public reporting of those violations. There is no embarrassment attached to each of those reports. We thought one of the major deterrents in reporting secondary violations was the danger of public acknowledgement as if they were along the same lines as the major violations. We think the conference and the institution can playa major role there.
I very much appreciated the perspectives you've heard here today. I think you had some good analysis of some recent NCAA infractions cases. It's clear that institutional control is rising to the level of perhaps being the preeminent kind of serious violation that can devastate your program. Obviously, major violations are violations where you don't need a book to tell you it's wrong. If you see those things coupled with a lack of institutional, control, the penalties will be severe and long-lasting and can have a devastating affect. I want you to be aware of the fact that the NCAA Compliance Services staff is available to help on
any of our member-institution campuses. We're trying to provide the maximum services we can for the minimum dollar. We're not charging the institutions for the services we provide.
Sam made reference to the state legislation pending in Florida. We've had other states in which legislators oftentimes who are alumni or boosters in that state under investigation. We see this legislation surface and it's really crj.tjcal that institutions in those states respond on behalf of the association in which they're members. As you know, if you all don't like the enforcement process, if you don't like the rules, there's a convention every year and you can change those rules. But, all of us in this room know that we're better off administering these programs within the Association than we are having state legislatures in each of the 50 states decide how NCAA investigations should be run. Most of the time, the people developing this legislation have very little knowledge of what the NCAA even does. We find out as soon as we start answering some of their questions. They're reacting from emotion. They don't want their alma mater disrupted by an NCAA penalty. Be attentive to that in your states. Particularly, those of you at public institutions. Try to be aware of them and urge your CEO's to get out and understand what their legislatures are getting into. If you want help in that area, please contact us. We'll be glad to assist you.