Quote Originally Posted by Really Clark? View Post
I understand that issue with the guidelines. My biggest point with the matrix guidelines use is how many keep trying to add all of the infractions for individuals with the part of the matrix that deals with the institution penalties. That is not what it was ever intended to do. What those infractions will do is help set the severity of the LOIC and academic fraud portion of the case. With so many different individuals involved you have to assume the LOIC is at least standard and usually aggravated Level 1. That in itself carries substantial penalties. The Fraud will tack on additional penalties to the school. What I want to see is if the HC responsibility charge is significant enough that the COI believes it warrant max or near max penalties of the LOIC to the school because the AD, compliance, and/or administration should have, at least after violations were found while an open investigation was under way, been more diligent with oversight of the program and its head coach. But by and large the infractions committed by the individuals themselves don't cause the school penalties it's what they do and how severe that moves the Failure to Monitor charge to a LOIC and moves the needle from mitigated to standard to aggravated. It is definitely the case for this generation and they are in uncharted territory.
I get what you are saying, but disagree. For example, a coach coordinates with a booster to give a recruit illegal benefits. According to the above, the school was not involved, just the coach and the booster. BUT, they are both representatives of the university so the blame also falls on it. The university itself never actually pays the benefits to the SA.

ULL got probation for the act of one coach who was doing what he did prior to being at ULL because the actions of employees and boosters falls back on the school.