‘Acts that are likely to demonstrate a lack of institutional control’ [Updated 2pm]

UNC Scandal37

There is just so much stupidity out there — in some pockets of the population — and so much misinformation….and so much biased personal opinion being shared as something close to fact and reality…

…that we thought we would do some folks the service of attempting to limit their embarrassment and ignorance by sharing a document with which everyone should be familiar. I recommend that our readers bookmark this entry to serve as their response the next time someone tries to pass off unintelligible personal opinions and wishes as reality, because it ain’t a reality in which the NCAA lives whether people wish it so.

You can click here to read for yourself – if you can – “The Principles of Institutional Control as Prepared by the NCAA Committee on Infractions.”

C. ACTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL

(#8) A head coach fails to create and maintain an atmosphere for compliance within the program the coach supervises or fails to monitor the activities of assistant coaches regarding compliance.

A head coach has special obligation to establish a spirit of compliance among the entire team, including assistant coaches, other staff and student-athletes. The head coach must generally observe the activities of assistant coaches and staff to determine if they are acting in compliance with NCAA rules.

Too often, when assistant coaches are involved in a web of serious violations, head coaches profess ignorance, saying that they were too busy to know what was occurring and that they trusted their assistants.

Such a failure by head coaches to control their teams, alone or with the assistance of a staff member with compliance responsibilities, is a lack of institutional control. This is not to imply that every violation by an assistant coach involves a lack of institutional control. If the head coach sets a proper tone of compliance and monitors the activities of all assistant coaches in the sport, the head coach cannot be charged with the secretive activities of an assistant bent on violating NCAA rules.

As we highlighted in this fantastic entry earlier in the week, the N&O’s Luke DeCock also highlighted the fine print also highlights:

Ignorance is no excuse. As the NCAA’s fine print states: “Too often, when assistant coaches are involved in a web of serious violations, head coaches profess ignorance, saying that they were too busy to know what was occurring and that they trusted their assistants. Such a failure by head coaches to control their teams … is a lack of institutional control.”

Sorry

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

UNC Scandal

37 Responses to ‘Acts that are likely to demonstrate a lack of institutional control’ [Updated 2pm]

  1. burnbarn 10/06/2010 at 1:39 PM #

    I think there is no question on this at this point. Also there is the academic probe.. they knew they had a problem in late spring 2009 with a tutor but did nothing about it until the NCAA discovered it a year later.

  2. baxter 10/06/2010 at 1:43 PM #

    7. A director of athletics or any other individual with compliance responsibilities fails to investigate or direct an investigation of a possible significant violation of NCAA rules or fails to report a violation properly.

    Wonder if the lack of looking into tutor violations results in this.

  3. ppack3 10/06/2010 at 1:59 PM #

    LOI is a given, in my eyes. I don’t see how anyone can see it any other way. But, is this unique (and far worse) case than any other seen throughout the history of College Football, enough to warrant skipping the probationary period altogether and to move straight to doing away with Football at UNC? At least, that way, we could get Notre Dame to play football in the ACC, and just keep UNC Basketball. Maybe I’m jumping the gun a bit, huh?

    Everyday, this thing keeps growing. First, you have the Tutor Prong that UNC should’ve looked into when they ‘let her go.’ Then you have the Blake Prong that UNC should’ve known about if what the Nebraska Head Coach says is true. Then you have the Agent Prong that everybody that follows UNX on Twitter across the country knew about before the compliance department, the athletics department and the Coaches at UNC. So, there could certainly be a case made in EACH prong, that there was a LOI! Again, there has never been a case with this sort of widespread violations at one time, at one institution, that I know of, and experts have said the same thing. So, is the punishment going to be just as groundbreaking? I hope so.

    I still think that there will be some heavy hitting recruiting violations that stem from all of this. That would be Prong #4! I had previously thought that recruiting violations would be Prong #3, but everyone is now referring to the ‘Blake as a runner’ situation as Prong #3. So, I’m just going to go with that! Hell, the more Prongs the merrier, I always say….

  4. wufpup76 10/06/2010 at 2:01 PM #

    I think they misremembered …

  5. tjfoose1 10/06/2010 at 2:07 PM #

    “LOI is a given, in my eyes.”

    I agree. At this point, it is the less serious possibility. The principals either were not involved, but did not have the “institutional control” to prevent the violations, or they were involved, and played a role in effecting the violations.

  6. wolfbuff 10/06/2010 at 2:10 PM #

    The question I have – and had when DeCock wrote his piece – is whether to establish lack of institutional control, an institution needs only to meet one, all, or some number in between of these criteria/examples. Does anyone know how that normally works?

    Also, it looks like an institution has 10 possible get out of jail free cards. Does any one of those get them out of hot water, or do they have to meet some number of these get-out-of-jail criteria to escape the scarlet “L”? Thanks.

  7. apexpacker 10/06/2010 at 2:15 PM #

    In the interests of an unbiased appraisal, this section would seem to be fairly important:

    “If the head coach sets a proper tone of compliance and monitors the activities of all assistant coaches in the sport, the head coach cannot be charged with the secretive activities of an assistant bent on violating NCAA rules.”

    So far it would seem that Blake certainly was ‘secretive.’ Heck, he’s been lying to his own attorneys! So it may actually be that at this time a definitive LOIC is not a slam dunk – at least not simply as result of the Blake violations. However, the mounting problems of the UNC football program across the board may tip the NCAA’s analysis towards that final conclusion.

  8. Gowolves 10/06/2010 at 2:32 PM #

    He is not being secretive if he is calling on his UNC issued cell phone and his work phone. That is just plain stupid!

  9. erichack 10/06/2010 at 2:34 PM #

    apexpacker…you are right to look at the possibility of a very subjective review by the ncaa looking to bend the rules as they see fit in an effort to lessen the punishment; however, for me its about the amount of time the violations were taking place…which may be part of what is being investigated right now and could possibly lead to more problems that we are not aware of…however, even with what appears to be the situation with blake…there was a significant amount of time for the institution to see the problem and act…since the problem was not seen and/or no action was taken that would mean the institution is also partly to blame for ‘lack of institutional control’…at least IMHO…

  10. StateFans 10/06/2010 at 2:38 PM #

    apexpacker,

    Blake has been at Carolina for FOUR YEARS. Who has been paying his phone bills all of this time? Who has chosen not to monitor the phone logs, text messages and phone calls made on the University’s property?

    Even IF he wasn’t previously known as one of the shadiest characters in all of college football — it is obvious there were NO efforts at compliance &/or self policing when you have four years of phone records laying in your office that you could analyze and see what they guy has been doing.

    Does it get more obvious that the head coach did NOT set the proper tone and monitor the assistant coaches?

    ^That is just common sense on this one issue. It doesn’t even take into account the multiple ‘back channel’ stories we have heard related to Butch bringing in his own compliance guy and effectively ‘locking the rest of the compliance team in the closet’.

    If the stories are true…the compliance department was told many times that they didn’t need to know what was going on with football and that everything was taken care of.

  11. jrsr 10/06/2010 at 2:39 PM #

    I would bet there are currently negotiations with Davis and the Rams Club and the UNC AD to come to a agreeable departure plan for Davis.
    If he has a press conference and states that he admitts to no wrongdoing but is leaving for the ‘good on the university and the football program’ then it is a done deal.
    The only question is when this happens.

  12. ppack3 10/06/2010 at 2:54 PM #

    We all talk of LOIC as if it were the worst thing that the NCAA could find. To be sure, if a coaching staff, and/or an AD were complicit in multiple acts of violation, then this would be worse than the ‘Lack of Control.’ In fact, the act of knowingly participating would demonstrate control, would it not? Or, are we talking about a situation where the NCAA would then have to determine how far up the chain of command the LOIC goes, yet the situation would still be labeled as such?

    I guess what I’m getting at is… Is there a worse crime than LOIC?

  13. choppack1 10/06/2010 at 2:55 PM #

    Regarding LOIC – like tjfoose – I think that’s about the best they can hope for in Chapel Hill right now.

    It’s not enough to ask things be done a certain way – you have to have controls. Let’s look at what we know has occurred right now and ask what controls were in place and if UNC was vigilant in cleaning this up:

    Infraction # 1: Agent/Runner contact w/ players:

    Was UNC properly monitoring and educating their players. did they “sign out” when going on out of town trips. If so, were these investigated? Did UNC compliance personnell monitor social media to ensure nothing was amiss?

    Infraction #2: Academic Fraud:

    did UNC properly monitor work done by athletes to insure it was their own? A tutor was dismissed for allegedly becoming “too friendly” with athletes – was her work reviewed? I’ve heard that there is now software that can be used to detect the likelihood of cheating – if so, was this used for their papers, especially after the work being done by the tutor.

    Infaction #3: Illegal contact by a coach w/ other athletes at another NCAA school.

    Were the assistants calls on company cell phone reviewed? If so, was anything found incorrect?

    Now, I’m not sure if it’s an infraction for an assistant Head Coach to take money from an agent – but you certainly might want to run a credit report on your coach to see if this is the case.

    Perhaps the biggest proof of an almost willful LOIC on behalf of UNC is that the NCAA notified them – not vice versa. If Dick Baddour, Thorp and Butch Davis came to them in July and said – “Uh, we’ve got some pretty big issues – tell us how we should proceed” – it could be argued that they had effective controls in place and that those controls worked…after all – part of having good controls is that you find out wrongdoing pretty quickly when it occurs AND you act quickly to clean it up.

    did UNC report this themselves? Heck, you already pretty much have Baddour admitting (when the academic scandal broke) – that they probably wouldn’t have found this out if it weren’t for the investigation – or as they were calling it then – the review.

  14. 89BSBA 10/06/2010 at 3:16 PM #

    “but you certainly might want to run a credit report on your coach to see if this is the case”

    I’d think that the possibility of tampering due to organized crime (gambling) would warrant routine credit checks of key coaching staff – at any D1 institution. (If not all coaching staff.)

    I mean, many companies are doing this for routine hires. To lessen the risk of theft, embezzelment, or kickbacks.

  15. Alpha Wolf 10/06/2010 at 3:17 PM #

    They’re twisting like a 12 lb fish on the end of a 25-lb test line right now. In time, they will get theirs. Slowly but surely the NCAA is reeling them into the boat.

    What’s entertaining is listening and reading Carolina fans and supporters parse things out and try to minimalize the facts. To hear them tell it, they did nothing more than double-park and then they pull out the good ole “but everyone does it” defense.

    Even more entertaining are the ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares say anything negative about it. Charles Robinson hates Carolina because he went to Michigan State, for example. Yeahhhhhh, right.

  16. hball57 10/06/2010 at 3:20 PM #

    I think the fact that there are three sets of issues is enough for a finding of a LOIC. One could argue that, with what we know in public, there is not a lot of proof to exactly what Blake has done. We from the outside like to connect the dots, but that doesn’t make proof. However we have a program that has players suspended for extra benefits, interaction with agents before allowable, benefits from agents and academic fraud. When you have several issues going on that, by definition, is not foster an atmosphere of compliance hence a LOIC.

    My only disappointment is when many of us like to extrapolate the actions of people over at UNC-CH (Crap Hole). We can make the supposition that Davis knew of these actions, but proof to that has not been provided. Now we can argue He SHOULD have known and I think that is totally fair.

  17. hoop 10/06/2010 at 3:35 PM #

    StateFans,

    You had me right up until you said ‘Sorry’. There is nothing to be sorry about. They made their bed. Now they have to sleep in it.

    Also you wrote:
    It doesn’t even take into account the multiple ‘back channel’ stories we have heard related to Butch bringing in his own compliance guy and effectively ‘locking the rest of the compliance team in the closet’.

    This thing has more hits than “Now That’s What I Call Music!”

    And if it turns out to be true, it goes straight from LOIC into what I’ve called Institutionalized Fraud. I wish there were another step up that ladder of NCAA non-compliance.

  18. choppack1 10/06/2010 at 3:36 PM #

    hball – I think most State fans on this site think that Butch probably didn’t know, but should have.

    And what it really comes down to is this – you are given 2 choices – Butch was incredibly naive and trusting or stupid OR Butch did do what a lot of leaders have done – he brought in someone of questionable character who IS known for producing and made a conscious decision to not ask a lot of questions.

    I mean that’s what it basically comes down to. When you break it down to its essence – those are the options.

    And being that this isn’t Butch’s first HC job – nor his first entry into big-time football and highly recruited athletes – I think it’s perfectly logical to include that he brought Blake in to do exactly what Blake did – let Blake bring in great talent and stay the *&(( out of the way.

  19. bradleyb123 10/06/2010 at 3:43 PM #

    I like that websites like SFN are helping to hold their feet to the coals, so to speak. But I’ve been following this stuff closely for a while now. Unless the NCAA is not paying attention, they already have MORE than enough to convict Carolinx of anything they want. I’m convinced of that. And truthfully, they surely know a LOT more than any of us know.

    Keep up the good work. No need to let up. Keep bringing things to light. I’m just content that Carolinx has their judgment day coming, and it’s not going to be pretty. I believe the NCAA already has the goods on them to nail them to the wall. The question is, will they?

    And I think Butch being gone is a foregone conclusion. It’s just a matter of when. What concerns me is that I want their sanctions to begin asap. If the NCAA drags this on another year or something, BMFD may be able to hang on to his job until that point. If they’re going to get hurt, I want it to start NOW. They don’t need to have a couple of good football years while serving their time. I want their recruits to drop like flies so they go downhill that much sooner. That’s really my only concern — that they’ll maintain respectability on the football field while they serve out their sentence.

  20. ShavlikLeague 10/06/2010 at 3:51 PM #

    “We can make the supposition that Davis knew of these actions, but proof to that has not been provided. Now we can argue He SHOULD have known and I think that is totally fair.”

    I speculate that Davis didn’t actually know specifics of what was going on…but he intentionally kept it that way to insulate himself in case anything were to ever go awry. An extremely effective strategy while in sunny south Florida in the 80’s…not so much today with FaceBook, Twitter and the series of tubes known as “the Internets”.

  21. McCallum 10/06/2010 at 3:58 PM #

    As long as we don’t invade any innocent countries over this mess I can live with tar heal pain.

    McCallum

  22. choppack1 10/06/2010 at 4:04 PM #

    bradleyb – I think you have a good point, and IMHO, that’s part of the reason UNC is taking the path they are taking.

    On one hand – to their credit – they’ve suspended A LOT OF PLAYERS – I can only recall FSU suspending more than UNC. OTOH, they are sticking w/ Butch – and it’s not just Baddour and Chancellor – but evidently most of the faculty is 100% behind Butch as well.

    It’s as if they are taking their shot at big-time football while they can – and hopefully they can win some big games before judgement is passed. They’re thinking if they do good enough – UNC can somehow maintain some momentum and come out of the sanctions still strong.

    They certainly aren’t following the NC State – “let’s try to really suck for several years because we didn’t follow the rules” – playbook.

  23. tuckerdorm1983 10/06/2010 at 4:07 PM #

    a good friend today and die hard heel said “hey we won the last two games and everything is going to be fine. Butch Davis is staying put as head coach of UNC for many many more years”. She really meant it. I mean she really meant it. How many more over there are just like her? Is she F$%@#*^# crazy?

    for those tarheels living in such a delusion they need to watch this little clip about Chief Davis

  24. graywolf 10/06/2010 at 4:23 PM #

    I hope the NCAA brings back burning at the stake for corrupt football programs. I would gladly pay to watch.

  25. Hungwolf 10/06/2010 at 4:40 PM #

    All the evidence suggests this was not a lack of control, instead UNC very well knew what it had in Davis and Blake. Their actions were with purpose and only wrong at other schools not at UNC.

    Their arrogance suggests they never thought the NCAA or anyone would dare to suggest UNC was engaged in wrong doing.

    They never thought the media that has so well protected their actions and looked the other way while rooting for UNC would write a negative article about UNC or investigate in any way. Partly they were right about this, the national media forced the hands of the local media.

    UNC never imagined the NCAA would dare come to Chapel Hill. Lets face the ACC commiss is UNC true and blue. As UNC AD, he personally tried to get ACC schools to band against Clemson during their troubles and pushed the UNC System BOGs to punish Valvano and NCSU. UNC really thought for the NCAA to take on UNC is to take on the ACC.

    This is the same school that its long time coach Dean Smith never reported even so much as a minor infraction in 20 plus years. While at the same time suggesting other schools were shady or players didn’t qualify at UNC when he lost a recruit.

    No lack of control. This planned, excuted, and covered up. UNC still does not think much will come of this. They are above the law and the NCAA will not dare deal with them harashly.

1 2

Leave a Reply