A Perspective On NCAA Selective Enforcement And Media Influence

by TeamWeaver on Jun 17, 2011 10:52 PM EDT

Sandy Bell writes:

..., my coach has expressed understandable concern that he is being singled out by the NCAA.

The NCAA has vacated almost 60 tournament appearances from coaches' records and over half of them for both institutions and coaches have no notation of any kind in school publications by either the penalized institution or future employers of the coach. - Mrs. Sandy Bell April 11, 2011 Letter to Lee Todd - Letter Full Text

Dennis Thomas responds:

The committee rejects out of hand any notion that it selectively punishes individuals or certain institutions, for that matter. For a veteran administrator at a major Division I institution to agree with a coach that he is somehow being 'picked on' by the Association is, again, very troubling to the committee." - Mr. Dennis E. Thomas June 3, 2011 Letter to Lee Todd - Letter Full Text

This is a pompous and very disingenuous set of remarks by Mr. Thomas, imo. Sandy points out that more than half the victims of the NCAA's vacations ignore them with seeming very public impunity while the NCAA (Thomas) jumps with both feet on Calipari as "the committee" finds it "troubling" that Kentucky (Calipari and Sandy Bell) should wonder about 'selective enforcement?!?' That's posturing, that's what that is.

Further, Thomas shows a clueless mentality as he pleads a deplorable lack of manpower and time to police the NCAA's regulations over something he could have personally identified with 30 seconds on Google

The committee's staff does not have the manpower or the time to retroactively review all instances of vacation made during the 60-year history of the NCAA enforcement program. However, if the office of the COI receives any information that an institution is not complying with a penalty, such as in the instant case involving Kentucky, it will take action. - Mr. Dennis E. Thomas June 3, 2011 Letter to Lee Todd - Letter Full Text

Now, like a bank robber lamenting being prosecuted while other stickup-artists run free, it's difficult to complain about selective enforcement, but Thomas' (and thereby the NCAA's) illustrative willingness to rely solely on external informants to motivate enforcement is a singular problem.

As we have repeatedly seen, the NCAA depends almost entirely on the investigative reporting of the media to define their enforcement efforts. While policing agencies have historically relied to varying extents on the input from external informants from time out of mind, when you use the media as your only or even primary source for determining who will be prosecuted for violations, you become complicit in their (the media's) agenda.

Because the media focuses primarily if not exclusively on the highest profile programs consistent with their readership goals (and in fact has a significant part in determining that same profile) that's where their scarce investigative resources are reasonably applied (as well as opinions, if no evidence, are expansively aired). By their total reliance on these media predilections, the NCAA is by necessity shackled by the media's myopic limitations and also their biases, prejudices and outright agendas (read Tipton, Forde, Thamel and O'Neil, et al). So, while many might believe the members of the NCAA COI aren't by nature intent on singling out individuals and programs, I think hardly anyone believes that to be true of the media. The result is unavoidably and demonstrably 'selective enforcement' by the NCAA.

Furthermore, Thomas goes to great length attempting to demonstrate the independent and fair minded embodiment of the COI:

Ms. Bell should be reminded that the NCAA is a member-ruled organization. The NCAA staff does not make decisions relative to penalties. Those decisions are currently made by the COI, a peer group selected from the membership and general public. The committee which made the decision to vacate wins in the 1996 Massachusetts case, the Championship Committee, is not the same body (the Committee on Infractions), which responded to a 2004 letter written by Mr. Calipari to then NCAA President Myles Brand regarding the vacation of records in the 1996 Massachusetts case (Enclosure 1). Further, the 2009 Memphis case was adjudicated by members of the Committee on Infractions, none of whom were on the committee in 2004. To assert that these separate and distinct bodies, each with completely different members, somehow conspired to "single out" Mr. Calipari is preposterous. - Mr. Dennis E. Thomas June 3, 2011 Letter to Lee Todd - Letter Full Text

First, this Calipari 500 Wins case has nothing to do with those committees from 1996, 2004 and 2009 and their integrity is not germane. It is only Mr. Thomas' current COI whose conduct is in question. But more importantly, though these individuals are no doubt professionals, even as Mr. Thomas is commissioner of the MEAC, they are all fans of their own individual players, programs and conferences - consciously or unconsciously jealous of their naturally conferred or hard-earned prerogatives and motivated by perceived past and current injustices and injuries they would rectify if possible.

These same COI member perceptions of injustices and injuries as well as their presumed perpetrators, punished or not, are shaped not only by their background and personal experiences but also by that very same media that the NCAA relies on so exclusively. Are we to believe the COI is immune to the uninterrupted media drum beat of 'Cheater, Cheater, Cheater" directed at Coach Calipari or the disparaging comments effortlessly tossed about concerning the University of Kentucky and its athletics programs? This when it can't even check to see if Steve Fischer's record accurately reflects his vacated wins in the San Diego State media guide or that of Florida A&M (a school in Thomas' own MEAC) without it being brought to their august attention by an obviously biased and inconsistent investigative press corp?

So, while Mr. Thomas may reject "out of hand any notion that [the COI] selectively punishes individuals or certain institutions," I think its lack of transparency, reliance on the media for enforcement case selection and past inconsistency in rendering its decisions and any punishments levied make Sandy Bell's concern for prejudicial action by the COI against Calipari and the University of Kentucky to be valid, appropriate and, if anything, understated. A regulatory institution cannot lay claim to unbiased application of its enforcement activities, imo, when it is so fundamentally dependent on and profoundly influenced by a media that is unabashedly biased, antagonistic and agenda driven.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It sounds to me like the NCAA

made a decision to get Jerry Tipton off of their backs.

by oldkentucky on Jun 17, 2011 11:31 PM EDT reply actions

It sounds to me

like Jerry Tipton is an agent of the NCAA.

I woke up feeling BLUE this morning. It's gonna be a great day.

by kywineman on Jun 18, 2011 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Having spent two decades plus

in an agency that promulgated and enforced administrative law this matter has some personal interest to me from insight gained over my career.

Such agencies have limited staff and an abundance of regulations to enforce. It becomes a matter of prioritizing the severity of failure to comply when allocating the enforcement resources. Obviously the most egregious and serious violations must be addressed first, followed by lesser instances as resources allow. I can see in the NCAA’s workload/staff situation that it is placed in a reactive rather than proactive position most of the time. Relying on information submitted by interested parties (complainants) and media reports is understandable. Scheduling routine wall to wall inspections of universities for compliance is simply way outside their resource. Random unannounced inspections would raise cries of selective enforcement and persecution.

I am not defending the COI’s actions by any means. Violations are usually classified by order of severity such as willful, serious, other than serious and deminimus. It seems to me that Coach Cal’s and UK’s issue here falls under deminimus. The NCAA certainly has bigger fish to fry than spending limited resources on such minor infractions that do not directly affect the sport of college basketball.

Since the COI opened this door, I believe it is the responsibility of the general public as well as the media to flood them with allegations of minor violations that they will have to investigate or choose not to in an arbitrary and selective manner. We have found a chink in their armor.

I call on UK fans to google till their arms fall off and complain to the NCAA about any inconsistencies they find. All responses from the NCAA should then be made public.

This matter, in my opinion, was a blatant attempt to embarrass Coach Cal and UK. This should have been handled in a very low profile manner. The NCAA gained nothing from this. They say it was about respecting their authority but it further demonstrated their lack of even handedness as a governing body. The NCAA by design is a reactive institution but they choose what they react to. That the chairman of the committee used the word troubling multiple times in his responses to UK while there are Cam Newton and Tyrell Pryor wannabees running around out there committing serious or wilfull violations of their rules demonstrates a disproportional application of time and resources. The chairman should be relieved of his position.
.

I woke up feeling BLUE this morning. It's gonna be a great day.

by kywineman on Jun 18, 2011 9:36 AM EDT reply actions

Wineman - I have a harder time with this issue.

I can see in the NCAA’s workload/staff situation that it is placed in a reactive rather than proactive position most of the time. Relying on information submitted by interested parties (complainants) and media reports is understandable.

I think you touch on the problem when you bring up the issue of infraction classification – “Violations are usually classified by order of severity such as willful, serious, other than serious and deminimus. …. Obviously the most egregious and serious violations must be addressed first, followed by lesser instances as resources allow.” The problem with sole use of an unevenly motivated media to drive regulatory enforcement is that it tends to distort that crucial triage process.

When the media “complainants” concentrate exclusively on the highest profile potential scofflaws, this ‘in-box’ reliance by regulatory agencies pushes the media’s own deminimus (if there’s nothing of greater import to latch onto at a particular high profile target of interest) focused agenda to the top of their enforcement priority. This while willful and serious violations pass undetected at a level below the focused interest of the media. The result is, by definition, selective enforcement.

by TeamWeaver on Jun 18, 2011 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions

"This should have been handled in a very low profile manner"

Wineman, I agree. But didn’t the letters and the story become public when a local reporter quoted the letters after an open-records request? Is it possible that both the complainer to the NCAA and the requester of the open records is one and the same?

by jdogblue on Jun 23, 2011 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions

No, ...

Originally the letters were leaked to Tipton by the NCAA to source his article. (Didn’t that backfire!) The subsequent articles written by everyone else a couple days later appeared after the Open Records/Public Information Requests were filled by UK.

by TeamWeaver on Jun 23, 2011 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions