Admitted rule-breaking doesn't lessen the crime

Sporting News, The, April 7, 1997 by Tom Dienhart, Mike Huguenin

If NCAA gumshoes are sneaking around your campus and you expect the gravel of justice to come hammering down, have no fear. There's a good chance good ol' State U. could get off with nary a scratch, if it plays its cards right. So throw away the business card of that Overland Park, Kan., law firm and follow Georgia's lead.

Admit you erred.

Everybody who's in the slightest bit of hot water does it. It's that simple. In fact, the forgive-me-I-am-a-sinner act seems to lessen the swiftness and force of the NCAA's hammer. The "I'm guilty" ploy helped Georgia--for 16 months, the subject of an NCAA investigation that concluded this winter--avoid major sanctions, such as a ban on bowls or TV appearances. And when you get right down to it, those are the only sanctions that matter. That's right: We don't think the loss of a mere handful of scholarship is all that severe.

If you recall, the Bulldogs were placed on two years' probation for recruiting violations and agreed to trim five new scholarships from its ranks in 1997 and '98, with the overall number not to exceed 79. In 1998 and '99, there will be no reduction in scholarships while overall scholarships can't exceed 82. A school normally has 85 players on scholarship.

Georgia also agreed to sever ties to a Palm Beach County, Fla., man who was the main figure in the recruiting violations, and imposed a two-year ban on itself from a recruiting in south Florida. Lastly, restrictions on expense-paid campus visits (from 56 to 48 next season, and to 52 in 1988 and '99) and the number of coaches who can recruit off-campus (reduced by one, to six, for next season) have been imposed.

"We are very pleased with the outcome," says attorney Ed Tolley, who handled Georgia's internal investigation. "The adoption of our self-imposed sanctions by the infractions committee makes us feel good. It is, I think, a recognition that we did all we could to investigate, report and implement corrective actions."

The NCAA nodded its head approvingly when it examined Georgia's penance, shut its note pad, put away it magnifying glass and drove back to Kansas in its four-door brown sedan. Case closed.

It was somewhat of a surprise that the NCAA ended its case with Georgia's recommendations, considering that in 28 previous cases in which schools imposed their own penalties, the NCAA ordered additional sanctions 27 times.

"They imposed the same kind of penalties we would have imposed," says David Swank, an Oklahoma law professor who heads the NCAA's infractions committee. "These are meaningful penalties, significant penalties and appropriate penalties."

Ah, if only we had an NCAA-like bureaucracy meting out justice in grade schools when we were kids. Imagine the scenario: Yes, teacher, Johnny threw spit wads, gave Billy a wedgie, threw food in the lunchroom and cheated on a test. But he says he's sorry and will stay after school today for 30 minutes, banging erasers.

This isn't an indictment of Georgia--or any fifth-grader--its investigative procedures or offer of restitution. We're sure the school acted appropriately and we applaud it for the detective work it performed and solutions it offered.

In fact, we're impressed that schools are willing to impose corrective measures for committing errors. That's commendable.

But is it right? What if, for instance, a newspaper launches an investigation into a school's alleged wrongdoing, but the school continually denies any crimes have occurred. The NCAA then decides to begin snooping around. That's when the school suddenly gets cooperative. And upon further review (this is where that self-investigation occurs), a school 'fesses up to some mistakes and devises a punishment plan. The NCAA has heard what it wants to hear and the school comes out looking like a fighter for truth, justice and the NCAA way. The NCAA responds with a slap on the back and a slap on the wrist.

The aforementioned scenario is all too familiar and convenient. (Remember the recent investigations into the Michigan State football program and the Louisville basketball program?) Why does it sometimes take the prompting of an external investigation (by a newspaper or the NCAA) to get a school to begin to look inward? And why isn't a school's initial reticence punished more than its NCAA-induced cooperation is rewarded? That appears to be the biggest flaw in the system.

As for the punishment most schools end up receiving because of the flaw, well, it conjures memories of that old joke from the 1980s: The NCAA was so mad at UNLV, it slapped Cleveland State with two years' probation.

Rambo ramblings

The Ken-Yon Rambo saga goes on (TSN, March 17). Anxious Ohio State fans are waiting for word from the star wide receiver from Long Beach, Calif., that he's Columbus-bound. According to Rambo, he has his ACT test score in order and will be eligible to play next season. That's great news for Buckeyes fans, but they may want to postpone ordering that Rambo replica jersey. Word has it he has signed a letter of intent but hasn't mailed it. Why? Who knows, but there's scuttlebutt he may end up at San Diego State. And don't count out USC, either. It appears the longer Rambo waits, the less likely it is he'll be a Buckeye. If for some reason his academic house isn't in order, look for Rambo--who reminds some of a young Tim Brown--to attend Long Beach (Calif.) City College.