Article from the Arizona Republic:
Months, or even years, might pass before the FBI's investigation into college basketball translates into potential NCAA violations.
But Arizona has already begun stating its case.
The claims last week by Arizona coach Sean Miller, athletic director Dave Heeke and president Robert Robbins that Miller has acknowledged his responsibility to foster compliance — and statements by Miller and Heeke that the UA coach has long been doing so — demonstrate the university is prepared to defend Miller under an NCAA rule that can penalize head coaches even if they aren't aware of violations involving their programs.
Miller was not implicated in the federal complaint that resulted in the Sept. 26 arrest of UA assistant coach Book Richardson and nine other college basketball figures, but NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1. states that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their direct or indirect reports unless they can "rebut the presumption of responsibility."
That rebuttal possibility, which is not mentioned in the NCAA manual but is in a supplemental guide for head coaches, can take head coaches off the hook.
Instituted in 2013, Bylaw 11.1.1.1 essentially eliminates plausible deniability and puts head coaches under a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard. In order to rebut the presumption of responsibility, head coaches must prove they have fostered an atmosphere of compliance and have actively monitored their direct and indirect reports.
“They’re making sure the coaches are engaged, so they can’t turn a blind eye to it,” said Christian Dennie, a Texas-based attorney who specializes in working with schools on NCAA issues. “If they can make sure the coach is doing the right thing, they’ll probably be OK.”
So even if the NCAA finds Richardson was guilty of taking $20,000 in bribes as alleged in the federal complaint, Arizona and Miller might not be punished if the school can prove Richardson acted on his own and repeatedly misled Miller when asked repeatedly about compliance. (There are, of course, other allegations Arizona could face as a result of the complaint.)
But it’s a difficult standard to prove. Dennie said he recommends head coaches keep emails or other written records of their monitoring efforts, having been on campuses where the head coaches “don’t fully have their heads around what the requirements are.”
The exact standard of “promoting and monitoring” is also somewhat unclear itself, according to Stuart Brown, an Atlanta-based attorney who also works with schools involving NCAA issues.
“They are supposed to do both,” Brown said via email. “It is a case-by-case evaluation by the NCAA enforcement staff and then the (NCAA Committee on Infractions). Even if a coach does most or all of the ‘checklist’ coach control items, it might not be enough.
Read the whole article here: http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...iller-potential-ncaa-investigation/748816001/
Last edited:
