Proposal for NCAA infractions/punishments
I've said it before - I think the concept of vacating wins is stupid. The NCAA's system of punishment leaves much to be desired, and I have a proposal that will allow more fitting punishments to be meted out.
For programs that have infractions, scholarship reductions are warranted. But for personal offenses (e.g., cheating on exams, contact with an agent, etc.), it's not fair to punish the coaches, players, and fans who had nothing to do with the situation - particularly when the actual perpetrators often get away with little or no punishment. Forfeits, or the currently popular vacating of wins, should be reserved for situations where coaches knowingly used ineligible players. However, if a coach is unaware of an infraction, how can s/he be expected to sit the "ineligible" player? It makes no sense.
Instead, let's put the punishment more fully on the perpetrators. Suspensions work to a point, but what about infractions uncovered after a player leaves campus? Those players are rarely affected by their misdeeds. Therefore, I propose that the NCAA allow athletic scholarships to be reclassified as scholarship/loans. As long as athletes fulfill certain criteria/conditions, the educational funding awarded for their athletic participation is classified as a scholarship. If, however, athletes fail to meet the outlined conditions, their funding reverts to a student loan. All the laws applicable to student loans and their collections would then apply to some or all of the funds the athlete received. This would hold the athletes personally responsible for their own actions.
Say an athlete graduates, and it is later discovered that s/he cheated on an exam (or committed some other infraction that would affect eligibility) at the start of his/her junior year. Instead of the team "vacating" any wins in which this athlete participated, the athlete's funding in his/her junior AND senior seasons would revert to student loan status (i.e., for the period during which s/he was ineligible). The university would likely still receive a scholarship reduction, but the largest consequences for this athlete's actions would fall mostly on him/her.
The conditions would need to be carefully expressed, of course - transferring, leaving school early, etc. should not cause the funding to revert to loan status. But, actions that currently cause programs to be put on probation should initiate the reclassification. Let's punish the perpetrators, and not the universities that have given them the opportunity to receive a college education.
I am still formulating this idea, so suggestions and feedback would be appreciated.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Punishing the offender instead of the institution
Sounds like a good idea. What happens in the case of someone with say Reggie Bush potential. In such a case the where say he’s graduated "and found and it is later discovered that s/he cheated on an exam (or committed some other infraction that would affect eligibility) at the start of his/her junior year. Instead of the team “vacating” any wins in which this athlete participated, the athlete’s funding in his/her junior AND senior seasons would revert to student loan status (i.e., for the period during which s/he was ineligible)." He could painlessly pay the loan out of his multi-millions. This would be almost no penalty at all.
True
It would be a drop in Reggie’s bucket – but it’s more “punishment” than he’d be getting these days. Athletes who expect to make millions may disregard such “minor” punishment, but the majority of athletes won’t be going pro in a sport that pays huge dollars. Many athletes realize this, and the possibility of needing to pay their educational expenses back may be pretty big deterrent for them.
While it sounds good, the one thought I had while reading your idea was that
coaches and administrators could possibly ignore or “not know” about situations where cheating, contact with agents, etc, occurred, knowing they have no accountability, and it if ever comes out, the player is the only one who will face repercussions.
I agree the current system sucks, and you have some good ideas, but I am not sure putting all the consequences on the student is the best option. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, but I don’t have a clue as what is fair.
>-----:----:------>Spear 'em then Scalp 'em
That's true
Proving that a coach had knowledge would often be difficult. As I said, though, some scholarship reductions are probably warranted in many cases (after all, technically, the institution should have policed things a bit more). So the coaches/schools aren’t completely left out of any punishment – but the many players NOT involved don’t have to see all their wins get tossed aside.
Anyway, thanks for the comments! My idea is a work in progress, but I think the ultimate aim – increasing personal responsibility – is a good one.
how are you going to prove that the coach didn't know?
Because those coaches are smart, a coach may decide to keep himself in the dark or as far away from a situation so he can claim that he didn’t know.
I probably don't know Judo, but I have a black belt in crazy.
If you are replying to my comment, and whenever you are replying to someone's comment please click on the reply key to line it up in a nice, neat, orderly fashion, and people can follow the thread.
So if you are replying to my comment, you post is exactly the point I was making. Coaches would just keep themselves in the dark and pull a Sgt. Schultz (“I know nothing”).
Or another way to look at would be, how are you going to prove that the coach did know?
That is the flaw I found with Invictus’ scenario.
>-----:----:------>Spear 'em then Scalp 'em
Without getting into a huge discussionI think there would be too many legal issues
(Assuming this was a good idea)

by 



























