The NCAA Has Ways Of Making You Talk
by SMQ on Apr 23, 2007 10:30 AM EDT
in News
Email
PrintActually, most of the time, it doesn't. Which according to USA Today is a serious problem when individuals under investigation - like, say, Reggie Bush - refuse to sing:
But that does not address the fundamental problem in the Bush case.
"We have the ability to require certain people to talk to us or face an unethical-conduct charge ... primarily school personnel, people who are directly under our jurisdiction," says David Price, the NCAA's vice president for enforcement services. "But when you go outside that group, we generally are trying to get people to operate in good faith in telling us what happened."
The NCAA can and does enlist schools to coax reluctant witnesses. "But in the end, if they refuse to cooperate, there's not a whole more we can do about it," Price says.
Perhaps further complicating the Bush investigation is a settlement reached recently between the running back's family and the would-be agent, who claims to have plied the family with rent-free housing and cash gifts in what turned out to be a futile effort to land Bush as a client. Yahoo.com reported the agreement includes a confidentiality clause precluding the businessman from talking to the NCAA.
I wonder in my non-lawyerly way about that statement, "There's not a whole lot" the Association can do about its lack of subpoena power. The NCAA isn't a government organization, obviously, but it runs college sports in essentially the same way, establishing rules, investigating reports of transgression and meting out punishment (and raking in citizen-generated cash). When the actual government wants someone to talk in a criminal prosecution, it holds the individual in contempt and denies them most of the rights of a free citizen until they spill their guts or until the prosecution gives up for whatever reason. Witholding information is a crime in itself. What is the risk to the NCAA of doing the same thing, meting out minor probation or scholarship penalties for schools that don't show some effort to cooperate with the Association's version of a prosecution, or striking eligibility to players who won't come forward?
Make 'em squeal!
- - -
That's draconian, and I don't really care about the NCAA's far-reaching powers to coerce its member schools into assisting its enforcement efforts. There are fundamental issues of competition at stake in keeping the field level - competition being the commodity here, after all - but it seems to get along just fine without strongarming anyone to that extent, and if it doesn't, well, screw The Man, I guess. But it's an academic, dare I say Machiavellian question about the structure of an essentially political authority: if NCAA investigators really want to know about Reggie Bush's extremely incriminating relationship with a start-up sports agency, what's stopping them? An institutional revolt?
Are they just too nice? I doubt it. My guess is the inherently heavy-handed, adversarial tone of that approach would create more problems via discord than it would solve in the way of enforcement. But if he really wants to, it seems to me Myles Brand holds the vice of sanctions - apply the squeeze and those nuts'll crack.
- - -
Do not click here. You have been warned.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Bring the NFL into it
by Bear from Sacramento on Apr 23, 2007 11:57 AM EDT reply actions
Because they'd get sued?
Plus, think of the opportunities to create havoc for die-hard fans - Alabama would be on probation in a minute based on various calls from concerned citizens from The Plains, etc. It could become a war of all against all.
As for bringing in the NFL: behavior prior to being an NFL player is surely outside the scope of their conduct clauses. I can't see where they would be able to actually claim that it was relevant to the player's NFL performance / status, and I'd bet that's another lawsuit waiting to happen, and justifiably so. To create a bad analogy, it would be like my current employer going after me for my abuse of internet access at my prior employer - they have no cause to care and no basis for sanction.
Lest I be accused of homerism, I certainly would agree that there is a strong and unpleasant odor around Mr. Bush's actions as a college player. I tend to think though that coming up with an enforcement plan with an aggressive reach, in order to get Bush and / or USC, would turn into a weapon that could take down any university, because it would be manipulable. Rather like the current set-up.
I like the current setup, too, Trojan
I'm also a Reggie Bush homer because he's with the Saints. Don't fine our first real supahstah!
Speaking of which
And who would you LIKE them to be thinking about drafting?
REGGIE F-IN NELSON!
But I've talked myself into coveting Nelson. I always want really good college players, and Nelson was probably the best last year - I don't trust these Lawrence Timmons types who have all the measurables but weren't all that notable in college. Nelson was going to play CB for Florida before Ryan Smith transferred in from Utah and he's flashed some really nice speed in workouts, so I think he's worth a shot there. Maybe even moving up for, because I doubt he lasts until the Saints' pick at 27. If you get him, worst case, he winds up playing safety. Knocking heads either way.
setting straight?
FWIW, I usually don't bother watching NFL games, but I did catch a few Saints games last season because of young Mr Bush. Well worth it in the case of the shellacking of the Cowboys. If the Saints can make some improvements on the defensive side esp. in the secondary the 07 season should be pretty interesting also.
Duke Phillips' House of Chicken and Waffles
VOTE FOR DUKE!!!
by Jack on Apr 23, 2007 3:25 PM EDT reply actions
