NCAA enforcement process seems likely to (finally) be changed

With the NCAA’s annual convention beginning today in Indianapolis, much of the focus as the association confronts sizable existential questions centers on the new pared-down constitution that is expected to be ratified. But on the enforcement front, in particular, potential movement on a few key facets in the process bears watching closely.

For decades, the NCAA’s investigative unit justifiably has been criticized about perceived selective enforcement and arbitrary punishments, not to mention the interminable years-long process of settling many cases. There finally is a push for consequential reform. 

“The constitution needs to be updated, a lot of the procedures need to be updated,” one conference commissioner told On3. “There is a disparity in the infractions process. For many years, the smaller schools have been more heavily penalized than the bigger schools. The infractions committee really doesn’t come down hard on the Power 5. They come down hard on the Cleveland States.”

That’s a reference to the late Jerry Tarkanian’s famous quip about the NCAA being so mad at Kentucky that it slapped Cleveland State with two more years of probation. The LEAD1 Association, which represents all 130 FBS athletic directors, in the fall made numerous recommendations to the NCAA to reform the enforcement process, including correcting flaws in the third-party process, incentivizing university cooperation and avoiding punishing innocent athletes. 

Reform could begin with potentially suspending a recent third-party addition to the enforcement process — the Independent Accountability Resolution Process, a 15-member committee that serves as an alternative to the traditional committee on infractions.

In the wake of the FBI’s investigation into college basketball, the IARP was established in 2018 based on recommendations from the Condoleezza Rice-led Commission on College Basketball in hope of streamlining the process for select major infractions cases. As it turned out, the process has been anything but swift. After taking on six high-profile cases, the IARP to date has ruled only on one, North Carolina State, which last month escaped major penalties. The other issue with the IARP is that decisions are final and not subject to appeal or further review.

According to the NCAA, the Division I Board of Directors will consider potential suspension of the IARP.

There are two other enforcement facets that have longed screamed for reform. First, the NCAA has a decades-long history of penalizing athletes for the sins of those long disconnected from the program. The recent case concerning Oklahoma State’s men’s basketball team served as a perfect example.

Assistant Lamont Evans allegedly accepted bribes to steer players to agents, and Evans was fired in 2017. The school said no recruiting advantage was gained and no ineligible players were used in games. Some of the current players were in middle school when the investigation began. Yet the Cowboys, a team that just knocked off defending national champion Baylor, are banned from the NCAA tournament this season, with the punishment actually impacting the current players on the roster.

The good news is that the draft of the new constitution states that division and conference regulations must ensure to the greatest extent possible that penalties do not punish programs or athletes innocent of the infractions. And there are already indications of a new school of thought regarding punishments. NC State avoided a postseason ban in its infractions case, with Independent Resolution Panel member Dana Welch saying, “We basically determined that we didn’t want to hurt or punish the student-athletes that are currently competing.”

There also is a push for schools to be incentivized for cooperating with investigations. The old thinking was that fully cooperating and self-imposing penalties would yield more lenient penalties. But the Oklahoma State case illustrated that no longer necessarily held true. In fact, Cowboys athletic director Chad Weiberg said he’s concerned that his school’s case sends a “very chilling message” to schools that cooperating is not in your best interest.

“What message does it to send to membership that you can receive a postseason ban regardless of the fact the findings found no lack of institutional control, no head coach responsibility, no failure to monitor, no academic fraud or misconduct, no participation of ineligible players as a result of violations and no recruiting violation,” Weiberg said, “a decision we believe has never happened before in the history of the NCAA?”

On the NCAA enforcement front, change is now afoot. It’s about time.