The NCAA's dilemma.....

[MadDawg]

As the NCAA now turns to the penalties phase of the largest cheating scandal in modern college athletics, the entire college sports world is watching. And now the members of the COI have to finally reconcile their new penalty matrix with the reality of an athletic program that systemically made breaking NCAA rules modus operandi. We have all speculated for a while now that this would be difficult to do. When the new guidelines for doling out punishment (the Matrix) was conceived, it's obvious and apparent an athletic program such as the one found in Oxford, with cheating and rule breaking embedded in the very core of their existence throughout the entire gambit of sports programs, was not anticipated or expected. So now they must apply their penalty structure and somehow not lose credibility or the respect of their member institutions in the process.
If they apply the penalties by the letter of their "law", the death penalty would be viewed as going extremely lenient. Following their own rules, and also assuming all level 1 violations by ole miss are just of the "standard" level, here is what the Matrix would require for penalties:

Bowl Ban: 15-30 years
Financial Penalties: $75,000 + 15-45% of the athletic budget
Scholarship Reductions: 150-300
Recruiting Restrictions: 110-220 weeks ban on unofficial visits
1.9 - 3.8 years ban on official visits
Probation Period: 30 - 90 years

As you can see, the NCAA has a big problem. If they choose to go lenient on Umiss based on this matrix, as they most assuredly will have to do, what message are they sending to other NCAA member institutions? I'll tell you. They are telling everyone that if you are going to cheat, go all in. Go big or go home. Don't just cheat a little here or there - might as well break every rule ever written. Because if you get caught, it really won't matter if you have 5 Level 1 violations or 15 Level 1 violations as Umiss does in this case. Your penalty will be about the same.
Now for a program that is completely above board, this will have little effect. But for a program out there that is cutting corners here or there, because, well, "everybody does it", this could be an opening of the floodgates. Why *****-foot around with $100 handshakes and a couple dead-period texts? Make it $10,000 cash and free hotels and food for the whole family. You'll pay the same price for each if you get caught.

It's your turn, NCAA. Just remember, the whole college sports world is watching.

[TrapGame]

Damn, even with the most minimum penalties they are completely destroyed as a football program for a generation.

C'mon NCAA, do it.

[Mobile Bay]

Deep in my heart, my guess has always been that they will allow a lot of the penalties to run concurrently instead of consecutively. This allows the NCAA to save face and say they followed the matrix and yet still not completely annihilate a program.

I also believe that if both parties are smart some backroom discussion has occurred in which Ole Miss and the NCAA have discussed the level of penalties the school will accept without appeal or lawsuit. So we probably won't see the complete annihilation of the program. But what we may see is a VERY long period of probation.

[phatdog]

The school has no basis for a lawsuit. They are a voluntary member of the NCAA.

[msudawglb]

The school has no basis for a lawsuit. They are a voluntary member of the NCAA.

And....the NCAA who did the interviewing of the student athletes did not release the documents with the student athlete names incorporated. You can not sue someone in a court of law that has been released with a confidential student athlete tag. If Ole Miss or any other entity other than the NCAA states that Student Athlete 39 is Leo Lewis....that statement is not credible. Tying the document to Lew Lewis would be ruled as "hearsay".

There is no judge that will allow this lawsuit to get to court.

[Reason2succeed]

As the NCAA now turns to the penalties phase of the largest cheating scandal in modern college athletics, the entire college sports world is watching. And now the members of the COI have to finally reconcile their new penalty matrix with the reality of an athletic program that systemically made breaking NCAA rules modus operandi. We have all speculated for a while now that this would be difficult to do. When the new guidelines for doling out punishment (the Matrix) was conceived, it's obvious and apparent an athletic program such as the one found in Oxford, with cheating and rule breaking embedded in the very core of their existence throughout the entire gambit of sports programs, was not anticipated or expected. So now they must apply their penalty structure and somehow not lose credibility or the respect of their member institutions in the process.
If they apply the penalties by the letter of their "law", the death penalty would be viewed as going extremely lenient. Following their own rules, and also assuming all level 1 violations by ole miss are just of the "standard" level, here is what the Matrix would require for penalties:

Bowl Ban: 15-30 years
Financial Penalties: $75,000 + 15-45% of the athletic budget
Scholarship Reductions: 150-300
Recruiting Restrictions: 110-220 weeks ban on unofficial visits
1.9 - 3.8 years ban on official visits
Probation Period: 30 - 90 years

As you can see, the NCAA has a big problem. If they choose to go lenient on Umiss based on this matrix, as they most assuredly will have to do, what message are they sending to other NCAA member institutions? I'll tell you. They are telling everyone that if you are going to cheat, go all in. Go big or go home. Don't just cheat a little here or there - might as well break every rule ever written. Because if you get caught, it really won't matter if you have 5 Level 1 violations or 15 Level 1 violations as Umiss does in this case. Your penalty will be about the same.
Now for a program that is completely above board, this will have little effect. But for a program out there that is cutting corners here or there, because, well, "everybody does it", this could be an opening of the floodgates. Why *****-foot around with $100 handshakes and a couple dead-period texts? Make it $10,000 cash and free hotels and food for the whole family. You'll pay the same price for each if you get caught.

It's your turn, NCAA. Just remember, the whole college sports world is watching.

Or they could persuade OM to self impose a one or two year DP to get the NCAA off the hook of having to destroy the program for a full decade.

[Really Clark?]

The penalties don't work that way. The school penalties are seperate from the infractions of individuals and their penalties. The COI wont add for each seperate infraction that are tied to an individual. The Level 1 LOIC and what severity they determine that infraction to be will be where the bulk of the schools penalties come from. The volume and ACT fraud will play a part on the final total but they can't just add all of the infractions together for school penalties.

[MadDawg]

The penalties don't work that way. The school penalties are seperate from the infractions of individuals and their penalties. The COI wont add for each seperate infraction that are tied to an individual. The Level 1 LOIC and what severity they determine that infraction to be will be where the bulk of the schools penalties come from. The volume and ACT fraud will play a part on the final total but they can't just add all of the infractions together for school penalties.

So having 3rd parties do the cheating for the school is an effective and NCAA-approved way to insulate the school from penalties?

[QuadrupleOption]

The penalties don't work that way. The school penalties are seperate from the infractions of individuals and their penalties. The COI wont add for each seperate infraction that are tied to an individual. The Level 1 LOIC and what severity they determine that infraction to be will be where the bulk of the schools penalties come from. The volume and ACT fraud will play a part on the final total but they can't just add all of the infractions together for school penalties.

This is not correct. Show cause penalties are specific to a particular coach, but that coach is still a representative of the school in question, and the school will also take a hit for those actions.

[Really Clark?]

This is not correct. Show cause penalties are specific to a particular coach, but that coach is still a representative of the school in question, and the school will also take a hit for those actions.

That goes to the LOIC charge. The school won't face penalties specific to Farrar for example, but the overall scope of the investigation that leads to a LOIC control infraction is what will set the severity of the school's penalties. But they can't just add all the infractions up under the matrix for a school penalty.

[TXDawg]

I'm guessing they'll carve out the infractions that occurred before the Matrix was implemented (ACT Fraud, David Saunders, etc) and apply "pre-Matrix" penalties for those. They'll only use the Matrix for violations that occurred after the Matrix was implemented.

Would be interesting to see a similar break-down as above, but with only the "post-Matrix" violations.

[Really Clark?]

So having 3rd parties do the cheating for the school is an effective and NCAA-approved way to insulate the school from penalties?

No. Look at ULL for example. There were 4 infractions in that case. The school itself only received 1 infraction and was penalized for that infraction. But the COI did not add in the other 3 infractions that were tied directly to the individual, Saunders, to the school's penalties. Those penalties were seperate from the school. Under the matrix if you try to apply each infraction to the schools penalties then ULL should have received at 3 times the penalties that they did. People are just applying the penalties for EACH infraction to school penalties and that just can't happen and goes against the procedure.

[Really Clark?]

I'm guessing they'll carve out the infractions that occurred before the Matrix was implemented (ACT Fraud, David Saunders, etc) and apply "pre-Matrix" penalties for those. They'll only use the Matrix for violations that occurred after the Matrix was implemented.

Would be interesting to see a similar break-down as above, but with only the "post-Matrix" violations.

That's correct

[gtowndawg]

C'mon NCAA, do it.

https://m.popkey.co/db9c33/lMpL1.gif

[MadDawg]

No. Look at ULL for example. There were 4 infractions in that case. The school itself only received 1 infraction and was penalized for that infraction. But the COI did not add in the other 3 infractions that were tied directly to the individual, Saunders, to the school's penalties. Those penalties were seperate from the school. Under the matrix if you try to apply each infraction to the schools penalties then ULL should have received at 3 times the penalties that they did. People are just applying the penalties for EACH infraction to school penalties and that just can't happen and goes against the procedure.

I just read the 4 infractions for ULL - and every one of them was on Saunders.

1. David Saunders ACT fraud
2. David Saunders providing improper recruiting inducements
3. David Saunders providing false and misleading statements to NCAA
4. David Saunders withholding information from NCAA investigators

Which one was ULL's infraction?

[spbdawg]

#

[Really Clark?]

I just read the 4 infractions for ULL - and every one of them was on Saunders.

1. David Saunders ACT fraud
2. David Saunders providing improper recruiting inducements
3. David Saunders providing false and misleading statements to NCAA
4. David Saunders withholding information from NCAA investigators

Which one was ULL's infraction?

Saunders individual infractions were: FRAUDULENCE IN CONNECTION WITH COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, IMPERMISSIBLE INDUCEMENTS and UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY THE FORMER ASSISTANT FOOTBALL COACH (directly from NCAA final report subsections A, B, C of the Analysis)

The school did not get a seperate LOIC or Failure to Monitor charge, so they only received a "Core Penalties for Level I – Mitigated Violations by the Institution" charge. That was all of the charges

[Really Clark?]

Even if the school was the beneficiary of the students' services who participated in the ACT fraud....and the school was obligated to monitor academic compliance and didn't? The school and its fanbase (and its crooked boosters) benefited from dirty play and they (everyone including the school) should be punished.

Besides, LOIC is only one allegation and the maximum aggravated Level I penalty is 12.5 scholarships.....they (the school, its fans and shady boosters) deserve to get hammered for more than 12.5 schollies.

That penalty isn't incorrect for a Level 1 aggrevated. It is 25-50% and 2-4 years postseason ban.

And the AcT fraud alleagtions will be handled either by old standard or new matrix, which ever is the less penalty

[QuadrupleOption]

That goes to the LOIC charge. The school won't face penalties specific to Farrar for example, but the overall scope of the investigation that leads to a LOIC control infraction is what will set the severity of the school's penalties. But they can't just add all the infractions up under the matrix for a school penalty.

I guess I'm really not following because according to their very own matrix that is EXACTLY what they are supposed to do. They have 21 violations, each of which carries a penalty described in detail in NCAA documentation.

Sure the COI has latitude, and I don't expect 120 scholarships, but please don't think that they're only going to get hit for the LOIC. That's just an additional level 1 violation brought against them. They will be penalized for every violation listed in the NOA.

[Really Clark?]

I guess I'm really not following because according to their very own matrix that is EXACTLY what they are supposed to do. They have 21 violations, each of which carries a penalty described in detail in NCAA documentation.

Sure the COI has latitude, and I don't expect 120 scholarships, but please don't think that they're only going to get hit for the LOIC. That's just an additional level 1 violation brought against them. They will be penalized for every violation listed in the NOA.

No. The matrix doesn't and was never stated that each infraction is stacked and added together to get school penalties. The school will have penalties with the LOIC and additional from the entire scope, volume, and severity of the remaining case. ACT fraud part may or may not be seperate with the old structure. But the procedure was never to take each infraction and add the up for a total of school penalties. Heck if the go max for one Level 1 aggravated for LOIC you are looking at 50% scholarship reductions, 4 year postseason ban, 10 years probation, etc. Nobody's is guessing they even get that much and that is why it was never intended to be stacked and added for the individual infractions.

[1bigdawg]

No. The matrix doesn't and was never stated that each infraction is stacked and added together to get school penalties. The school will have penalties with the LOIC and additional from the entire scope, volume, and severity of the remaining case. ACT fraud part may or may not be seperate with the old structure. But the procedure was never to take each infraction and add the up for a total of school penalties. Heck if the go max for one Level 1 aggravated for LOIC you are looking at 50% scholarship reductions, 4 year postseason ban, 10 years probation, etc. Nobody's is guessing they even get that much and that is why it was never intended to be stacked and added for the individual infractions.

Really Clark: What do you guess they will get for punishment?

[Really Clark?]

Really Clark: What do you guess they will get for punishment?

Man I've been back and forth on numbers and of course this depends on the LOIC charge severity but if nothing changes on the infractions I guess 5-6 year probation, 2 years postseason ban (with a chance for 3), 30-38 scholarship reductions, etc. At times I've thought as much as the max 50% scholarship reduction but I just not quite convinced they go full max for a Level 1 aggravated but I wonder if they don't say because of the volume, severity and they way the school has handled this case, there may never be a more clear cut and significant case to set the limits for a case investigated not involving a repeat offender.

[spbdawg]

#

[Really Clark?]

I'll leave this here:

Violation Level I Violation Level II Scholarship Reductions of Involved
Sport(s) Program(s)*
Aggravation 25 to 50%
Standard Aggravation 12.5 to 25%
Mitigation Standard 0 to 12.5%
Mitigation 0 to 5%



Penalty Guidelines
Version No. 6 (July 12, 2012)
* For cases in which financial
aid overages have occurred, a
minimum 2-for-1 reduction in
financial aid awards shall apply
up to at least 20% of the team
financial aid limit.

One aggravated Level I violation costs the school 25%-50% of X number of schollies. Either it's against the 25 or the 85. Which is it?

You are blending Level I and II together incorrectly (Level 1 standard and Level 2 aggravated have the same penalty structure, but there is no such penalty as a standard aggregation) and there are only 3 different severity sublevels. Mitigated, standard and aggravated.

Here is an easier copy to read:

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Att2_Penalty%2BGuideline%2BMatrix%2B%28Version%2B6 %29_101212.pdf

[1bigdawg]

I would hope for a 3 season bowl ban because I believe the 2016 class should have the opportunity to transfer. That class was signed when they had already gotten an NOA and were lying about it to recruits.

[MadDawg]

Saunders individual infractions were: FRAUDULENCE IN CONNECTION WITH COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, IMPERMISSIBLE INDUCEMENTS and UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND FAILURE TO COOPERATE BY THE FORMER ASSISTANT FOOTBALL COACH (directly from NCAA final report subsections A, B, C of the Analysis)

The school did not get a seperate LOIC or Failure to Monitor charge, so they only received a "Core Penalties for Level I ? Mitigated Violations by the Institution" charge. That was all of the charges

That's not a "charge". That's a penalty for mitigated Level 1 violations.

Again, I ask, what was ULL's infraction?

[MadDawg]

From the NCAA's final report on the ULL case:

"Level I violations are severe breaches of conduct. The panel concludes the institution committed Level I violations because institutions act through their staff and the institution's former assistant football coach committed multiple Level I violations in this case."

I think you are confusing the way the NCAA uses "mitigating" and "aggravating" factors with the actual infractions. In the ULL case, the institution was seen has having several mitigating factors which greatly reduced their penalties. The NCAA actually stated they were the shining example for other schools to follow in dealing with NCAA inquiries. Yes, they actually did have exemplary cooperation.

[Really Clark?]

That's not a "charge". That's a penalty for mitigated Level 1 violations.

Again, I ask, what was ULL's infraction?

"Although the institution had no idea about the former assistant football coach's actions, institutions act through their institutional staffs. The NCAA constitution and bylaws require institutions to be accountable for the actions of their staffs. After determining the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors the panel classifies the violations in this case as Level I – Mitigated for the institution and the former assistant football coach's violations as Level I – Aggravated."

The school didn't have a specific charge for Failure to Monitor or LOIC but under the bylaws they still are charged for being responsible with 1 Level 1 mitigated infraction and the remaining 3 Level 1's are against Saunders individually.

[Really Clark?]

From the NCAA's final report on the ULL case:

"Level I violations are severe breaches of conduct. The panel concludes the institution committed Level I violations because institutions act through their staff and the institution's former assistant football coach committed multiple Level I violations in this case."

I think you are confusing the way the NCAA uses "mitigating" and "aggravating" factors with the actual infractions. In the ULL case, the institution was seen has having several mitigating factors which greatly reduced their penalties. The NCAA actually stated they were the shining example for other schools to follow in dealing with NCAA inquiries. Yes, they actually did have exemplary cooperation.

No I'm not confusing anything. They did mitigate their charge and the penalty also was according to the mitigated range. Also, don't forget the COI choice to use the matrix for ULL since that was going to be the lesser penalty for the school instead of the old standard. But Saunders had 3 violations and it is spelled out specifically his the report. The schools charge is a Level 1 mitigated because a school has to be charged with a violation per the bylaws. That is the 4th violation.

[MadDawg]

"Although the institution had no idea about the former assistant football coach's actions, institutions act through their institutional staffs. The NCAA constitution and bylaws require institutions to be accountable for the actions of their staffs. After determining the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors the panel classifies the violations in this case as Level I – Mitigated for the institution and the former assistant football coach's violations as Level I – Aggravated."

The school didn't have a specific charge line Failure to Monitor or LOIC but under the bylaws they still are charged for being responsible with 1 Level 1 mitigated infraction and the remaining 3 Level 1's are against Saunders individually.

Incorrect. The school and the coach were both charged with multiple Level I violations. The institution got greatly reduced penalties due to their cooperation and all of their charges were mitigated. The coach involved had no mitigating factors and infact had several aggravating ones.

[Johnson85]

No. The matrix doesn't and was never stated that each infraction is stacked and added together to get school penalties. The school will have penalties with the LOIC and additional from the entire scope, volume, and severity of the remaining case. ACT fraud part may or may not be seperate with the old structure. But the procedure was never to take each infraction and add the up for a total of school penalties. Heck if the go max for one Level 1 aggravated for LOIC you are looking at 50% scholarship reductions, 4 year postseason ban, 10 years probation, etc. Nobody's is guessing they even get that much and that is why it was never intended to be stacked and added for the individual infractions.

It's never been a strict adding exercise, but the matrix also doesn't mean that infractions committed by employees don't count against a school. They do. The school can take actions to help mitigate their penalties in comparison to the individual personally committing the infraction, but that doesn't mean the school isn't guilty of the infraction. I have no clue what's about to happen to Ole Miss, but I'm pretty sure there is not going to be anything indicating that they only committed one infraction (assuming LOIC sticks) or zero infractions (if LOIC doesn't stick).

[spbdawg]

#

[Really Clark?]

Incorrect. The school and the coach were both charged with multiple Level I violations. The institution got greatly reduced penalties due to their cooperation and all of their charges were mitigated. The coach involved had no mitigating factors and infact had several aggravating ones.

The school did not have multiple infractions.

[Really Clark?]

Yes, the copy/paste job was botched.

Still, one aggravated Level I violations equates to 25%-50% of X number of scholarships lost. Is X against the 25 annual limit or the 85 cap? The graph is vague.

You will have X against the 85 total but they will divide it out per so many per year.

[Really Clark?]

It's never been a strict adding exercise, but the matrix also doesn't mean that infractions committed by employees don't count against a school. They do. The school can take actions to help mitigate their penalties in comparison to the individual personally committing the infraction, but that doesn't mean the school isn't guilty of the infraction. I have no clue what's about to happen to Ole Miss, but I'm pretty sure there is not going to be anything indicating that they only committed one infraction (assuming LOIC sticks) or zero infractions (if LOIC doesn't stick).

Didn't say a thing any point that if LOIC is thrown out the school will have no penalties. ULL didn't get either Failure to Monitor or LOIC but still a single Level 1 mitigated penalty was charged to them. OM will get that plus LOIC and maybe how ever they work the ACT either under old or new matrix. The problem is everyone thinking that it is literally every single infraction added up to charge the school and it doesn't and has never worked that way. You will take the infractions as a whole and because of volume and severity set the sublevel of LOIC charge and add to that if the COI deems it is not sufficient. But they look at the remaining infractions as a whole for ONE penalty structure for the school, not each individual infraction adds X number of penalties to the school.

[spbdawg]

#

[QuadrupleOption]

Hmm there were several responses through this that I kind of wanted to roll up, but here I go....

So, ULL had 4 level 1 violations against the program. Each of these violations were enough to cause issues for both ULL and David Saunders.

ULL cooperated fully, performed a complete and thorough investigation and IMMEDIATELY FIRED SAUNDERS when they realized what was going on.

Due to this, the NCAA COI lowered the charges for ULL from Standard to Mitigated.
Under the new matrix, mitigated penalties can carry a reduction of 0-12.5% in scholarships, 0 - 2 years probation, and 0 - 1 year postseason ban.

ULL's penalties (self-imposed) were:
2 year probation
5 scholarships lost for 2015 (20% of 25)
3 scholarships lost for 2016 (12% of 25)
3 scholarships lost for 2017 (12% of 25)
Reduced off-campus recruiting a total of 40 days over 2 years (also allowed in the matrix)
Limited official visits (also allowed in the matrix).
No post-season ban (allowed due to the mitigation of the charges by the NCAA).
Vacated all 2011 contests in which ineligible players competed (not in the matrix).

So a few points I take from this:
1) ULL's self-imposed restrictions were EXACTLY IN LINE with 4 level 1 MITIGATED violations.
2) The scholarship reductions per violation are applied to one year's scholarships, NOT the overall total.
3) UM has done NOTHING to suggest that any of their violations will be considered mitigated.
4) Really Clark? has a point here that every possible penalty might not be applied on a per-violation basis, but every violation WILL HAVE a penalty associated with it.
5) However, the fact that some violations can be laid at the feet of a coach as opposed to the school will make no difference. UM will be hit for every one of them in some fashion.
6) They are ****ed. No matter how much you slice it, they are going to be smashed by this to the point that it will take them 15+ years to field a decent team (unless they go all-in again, of course).

[Reason2succeed]

In B&B fashion here are things that are true:

1. The point of the penalty matrix was to take away the subjectivity from NCAA penalties so that a situation like Miami doesn't happen again where the NCAA gets totally embarrassed by their inability to properly police college athletics for big schools.

2. The NCAA has been hammering coaches with show causes.

3. OM case is the first major case to be decided under this penalty matrix and will set precedent.

4. OM's case is the biggest and most expansive since SMU.

5. The NCAA took its time to totally revamp the way the enforcement staff operates for situations like this.

6. The NCAA has not come this far to 17 it up by letting OM slide.

[MadDawg]

The school did not have multiple infractions.

From the final NCAA report (this is what you called a charge earlier):

Core Penalties for Level I ? Mitigated Violations by the Institution (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5)

See that little "s" after the word "Violation"? That means more than one.

[MadDawg]

Hmm there were several responses through this that I kind of wanted to roll up, but here I go....

So, ULL had 4 level 1 violations against the program. Each of these violations were enough to cause issues for both ULL and David Saunders.

ULL cooperated fully, performed a complete and thorough investigation and IMMEDIATELY FIRED SAUNDERS when they realized what was going on.

Due to this, the NCAA COI lowered the charges for ULL from Standard to Mitigated.
Under the new matrix, mitigated penalties can carry a reduction of 0-12.5% in scholarships, 0 - 2 years probation, and 0 - 1 year postseason ban.

ULL's penalties (self-imposed) were:
2 year probation
5 scholarships lost for 2015 (20% of 25)
3 scholarships lost for 2016 (12% of 25)
3 scholarships lost for 2017 (12% of 25)
Reduced off-campus recruiting a total of 40 days over 2 years (also allowed in the matrix)
Limited official visits (also allowed in the matrix).
No post-season ban (allowed due to the mitigation of the charges by the NCAA).
Vacated all 2011 contests in which ineligible players competed (not in the matrix).

So a few points I take from this:
1) ULL's self-imposed restrictions were EXACTLY IN LINE with 4 level 1 MITIGATED violations.
2) The scholarship reductions per violation are applied to one year's scholarships, NOT the overall total.
3) UM has done NOTHING to suggest that any of their violations will be considered mitigated.
4) Really Clark? has a point here that every possible penalty might not be applied on a per-violation basis, but every violation WILL HAVE a penalty associated with it.
5) However, the fact that some violations can be laid at the feet of a coach as opposed to the school will make no difference. UM will be hit for every one of them in some fashion.
6) They are ****ed. No matter how much you slice it, they are going to be smashed by this to the point that it will take them 15+ years to field a decent team (unless they go all-in again, of course).

You have it exactly right. The whole "mitigated" factor allows the NCAA a wide berth for giving penalties. A mitigated Level I violation can basically carry no penalty if the NCAA believes the institution cooperated fully. That's how 4 Level I violations by ULL carries zero bowl ban.

And as you point out, the OM case is the exact opposite. No exemplary cooperation. They kept coaches a LONG TIME after their misdeeds were uncovered. They even made a point to clarify that when Freeze was fired it was NOT over NCAA issues. They are 17'd.

[Dawgology]

In B&B fashion here are things that are true:

1. The point of the penalty matrix was to take away the subjectivity from NCAA penalties so that a situation like Miami doesn't happen again where the NCAA gets totally embarrassed by their inability to properly police college athletics for big schools.

2. The NCAA has been hammering coaches with show causes.

3. OM case is the first major case to be decided under this penalty matrix and will set precedent.

4. OM's case is the biggest and most expansive since SMU.

5. The NCAA took its time to totally revamp the way the enforcement staff operates for situations like this.

6. The NCAA has not come this far to 17 it up by letting OM slide.

This exactly! Folks keep saying that everything is subjective when it comes to assigning penalties. This WAS true...in the old matrix. It led to a lot of problems for the NCAA. The entire point of the new matrix is to greatly reduce subjectivity. There is a little wiggle room in for the COI to reduce infractions from aggravated to standard or standard to mitigated but the penatly matrix is pretty damn clear with what each of these infractions carry in regards to penalty.

This will absolutely set a precedent for the rest of the NCAA affiliated schools. If they group all penalties together and hit them with a 25 scholly reduction over 4 years and an additional 1 year bowl ban I'm telling my program to go big and ALL IN on paying, cheating, whatever because it's totally worth it. It would actually encourage programs to cheat BIG instead of little if they are just going to lump 21 violations together and hit them with a mid-tier scholly reduction and ban. I don't think that is why the new matrix was created.

[Really Clark?]

This exactly! Folks keep saying that everything is subjective when it comes to assigning penalties. This WAS true...in the old matrix. It led to a lot of problems for the NCAA. The entire point of the new matrix is to greatly reduce subjectivity. There is a little wiggle room in for the COI to reduce infractions from aggravated to standard or standard to mitigated but the penatly matrix is pretty damn clear with what each of these infractions carry in regards to penalty.

This will absolutely set a precedent for the rest of the NCAA affiliated schools. If they group all penalties together and hit them with a 25 scholly reduction over 4 years and an additional 1 year bowl ban I'm telling my program to go big and ALL IN on paying, cheating, whatever because it's totally worth it. It would actually encourage programs to cheat BIG instead of little if they are just going to lump 21 violations together and hit them with a mid-tier scholly reduction and ban. I don't think that is why the new matrix was created.

You need to read this. Hopefully this helps understand what they intend to do with this guideline. Also, read the part how they penalize based on the type of case this is as a whole. They never stated or intended to stack infractions or that this was more absolute than a guideline. What the membership wanted with a matrix was a stronger penalty for actions to eliminate the risk reward aspect of schools deliberately cheating and a better more consistent way to penalize teams and individuals

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/violator-beware-penalties-new-enforcement-structure-pack-punch

[Johnson85]

Didn't say a thing any point that if LOIC is thrown out the school will have no penalties. ULL didn't get either Failure to Monitor or LOIC but still a single Level 1 mitigated penalty was charged to them. OM will get that plus LOIC and maybe how ever they work the ACT either under old or new matrix. The problem is everyone thinking that it is literally every single infraction added up to charge the school and it doesn't and has never worked that way. You will take the infractions as a whole and because of volume and severity set the sublevel of LOIC charge and add to that if the COI deems it is not sufficient. But they look at the remaining infractions as a whole for ONE penalty structure for the school, not each individual infraction adds X number of penalties to the school.

No it's not going to work that way, but that doesn't mean UM isn't charged with multiple violations. When their agents commit a violation to benefit the school, the school is charged with the violation. The entire reason there are show causes is the concern that because the school is charged and penalized for the violations of its agents, the coach actually committing the violation might be able to leave the school and avoid any long term penalties once he has a new job.

[Really Clark?]

No it's not going to work that way, but that doesn't mean UM isn't charged with multiple violations. When their agents commit a violation to benefit the school, the school is charged with the violation. The entire reason there are show causes is the concern that because the school is charged and penalized for the violations of its agents, the coach actually committing the violation might be able to leave the school and avoid any long term penalties once he has a new job.

I understand that, but when the COI actually go to the penalty portion they will take the case as a whole and issue the Level and severity of the case against the school. The COI will adjust to where they think the appropriate penalty structure should be and they have room to be subjective. The penalties to the individual will be based on their seperate infraction (showcase, suspensions, etc.).

[spbdawg]

#

[Really Clark?]

For the record, I believe this amount of discretion will ultimately lead to more bullshit penalties/decisions than the past scheme and fail to give us the consistency that we want.

The discretion will be within the matrix guidelines. Now for example they may decided to go max with one penalty and min with another but it will be inside the matrix. Or it is suppose to be. Now maybe with a historic case they want to make a precedent level of penalties. But they are suppose to be within the guidelines.

[spbdawg]

#

[Really Clark?]

I understand that but this matrix was not sold that way to the public. We were led to believe if a school commits 1 Level One infraction the penalty would be "X" and if a different school commits 25 Level One infractions then the penalty would be near/close to 25 times "X". Big time cheaters would be punished with big time penalties and schools that don't want to be blown away by sanctions shouldn't cheat.

Did you read the link I posted above? It was never sold as a cumulative penalty matrix. Harsher more stringent guidelines to deter the risk/reward and give a better standard to apply penalties, yes. But not cumulative.

[Johnson85]

I understand that, but when the COI actually go to the penalty portion they will take the case as a whole and issue the Level and severity of the case against the school. The COI will adjust to where they think the appropriate penalty structure should be and they have room to be subjective. The penalties to the individual will be based on their seperate infraction (showcase, suspensions, etc.).

They will definitely take the case as a whole. If they assign a Level I, II, or III to the case and then assign either a standard, mitigated, or aggravated label to the entire case, then the matrix is completely useless as far as providing guidance. All it says is if the COI thinks its bad, they will give out heavy penalties, and if they don't, they won't (which I assume is kind of the way people thought it worked before?).

If the penalties are for each violation, the matrix provides meaningful guidance and the discretion is in deciding whether each violation is a level I or level II, etc.. But it's much easier to compare a single violation to another single violation than it is to compare an entire case to another entire case, so the discretion would be more limited.

Obviously in hindsight unless they are going to hand out penalties that are functionally the equivalent of the death penalty, the matrix still doesn't provide any real guidance, as they have to have a ton of discretion in the penalties for each violation to avoid that.

I'm not sure which is the case, but it seems a tad bit more likely to me that they just didn't contemplate a case like UM's when they came up with the matrix as opposed to them going through all that trouble just to add a step into the process where the discretion of the COI is moved from setting the penalties, to where they classify the case as "bad" or not, which then dictates a range of penalties they choose from (and likely will work backwards where they figure out what penalties are appropriate to determine how it should be calssified). The NCAA is obviously a bureaucratic organization though, so the latter is definitely possible.