Full Disclosure
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:40 am
July 2, 2005
Chattanooga Times Free Press
NCAA ought to show how telling done
Allan Taylor
Commentary
Full disclosure.
Those are the scariest two words facing the NCAA as it aligns with Phillip Fulmer in an attempt to keep private all the dealings and exchanges that lubricate the capricious wheels of intercollegiate justice.
You can overlook the hypocrisy of an organization that criticizes the influence of money on college athletics even as it auctions off March Madness to CBS for $6.2 billion over 11 years. But there’s no getting past the fact that when it comes to probing and punishing, the NCAA slashes with an arbitrary sword. Some wrongdoing programs are severely admonished with high-handedness, while others are allowed to skate despite seemingly egregious transgressions.
Put aside the Tennessee-Alabama scrum for a moment and consider how Ohio State’s football program skirted major allegations despite claims by Maurice Clarett and other teammates that boosters gave players payments and professors gave fraudulent grades. Is Ohio State football a sacred cow, or were Clarett and his crew cooking up a vendetta?
Fans could draw their own conclusion if the NCAA’s investigative process were brought to light.
When programs are branded as cheaters, it’s a severe detriment to tradition and revenue. Yet the timeline leading up to those impactful penalties is too shrouded for observers to determine whether the outcome was fair or not. From the first seeds of suspicion to the formal inquiry of charges to the leveling of penalties, the NCAA should be made to clarify and illuminate its methods.
Part of that illumination begins with unmasking testimony that coaches such as Fulmer make against opposing schools such as Alabama. The NCAA wants such comments to remain confidential, suggesting that publicizing them will make coaches reluctant to report violators.
This argument flounders on two counts.
First, it would reduce gossipy assertions like the one Fulmer made in suggesting that a former Crimson Tide assistant was sleeping with a recruit’s mother. That little dose of innuendo, of which Tennessee’s coach lacked firsthand knowledge, has Fulmer facing a defamation lawsuit from Kenny Smith (the recruit) and Vicki Smith Dagnan (the mother).
Second, given the hypercompetitive nature of recruiting, where signing-day hauls can impact careers, it’s ridiculous to think that the specter of public scrutiny would prevent an honest coach from reporting a serious allegation.
Would these guys not come forward if they witnessed a hit-and-run incident for fear they’d be called to testify in court?
In a separate lawsuit, former Alabama assistants Ronnie Cottrell and Ivy Williams are seeking $60 million in damages from the NCAA, alleging they were defamed by the investigation into Albert Means, whose sordid recruitment landed the Tide on five years probation. And if you believe the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions, Memphis businessman Logan Young approached such briberous extremes as to foster threats of the "death penalty" for Bama’s football program.
Cottrell and Williams argue that the NCAA paid legal fees for recruiting analyst Tom Culpepper, a secret witness in the case against Alabama. If that happened in this or any other investigation, the NCAA should be made to disclose it.
As for the NCAA’s defense against Cottrell and Williams, it argues that coaches are public figures, which raises the criteria for proving defamation. That’s an ironic stance, considering the NCAA — which is comprised of schools who employ the coaches — considers itself a private organization and vigorously guards all sensitive documents. It’s quite a parlance of double-talk, the NCAA claiming its members are public figures even though it isn’t.
It’s really not important whether you think Fulmer’s actions against Bama were those of a good citizen or a jealous tattler. What is important is that college sports fans gain a comprehension of how and why the NCAA does what it does.
E-mail Allan Taylor at ataylor@timesfreepress.com
Chattanooga Times Free Press
NCAA ought to show how telling done
Allan Taylor
Commentary
Full disclosure.
Those are the scariest two words facing the NCAA as it aligns with Phillip Fulmer in an attempt to keep private all the dealings and exchanges that lubricate the capricious wheels of intercollegiate justice.
You can overlook the hypocrisy of an organization that criticizes the influence of money on college athletics even as it auctions off March Madness to CBS for $6.2 billion over 11 years. But there’s no getting past the fact that when it comes to probing and punishing, the NCAA slashes with an arbitrary sword. Some wrongdoing programs are severely admonished with high-handedness, while others are allowed to skate despite seemingly egregious transgressions.
Put aside the Tennessee-Alabama scrum for a moment and consider how Ohio State’s football program skirted major allegations despite claims by Maurice Clarett and other teammates that boosters gave players payments and professors gave fraudulent grades. Is Ohio State football a sacred cow, or were Clarett and his crew cooking up a vendetta?
Fans could draw their own conclusion if the NCAA’s investigative process were brought to light.
When programs are branded as cheaters, it’s a severe detriment to tradition and revenue. Yet the timeline leading up to those impactful penalties is too shrouded for observers to determine whether the outcome was fair or not. From the first seeds of suspicion to the formal inquiry of charges to the leveling of penalties, the NCAA should be made to clarify and illuminate its methods.
Part of that illumination begins with unmasking testimony that coaches such as Fulmer make against opposing schools such as Alabama. The NCAA wants such comments to remain confidential, suggesting that publicizing them will make coaches reluctant to report violators.
This argument flounders on two counts.
First, it would reduce gossipy assertions like the one Fulmer made in suggesting that a former Crimson Tide assistant was sleeping with a recruit’s mother. That little dose of innuendo, of which Tennessee’s coach lacked firsthand knowledge, has Fulmer facing a defamation lawsuit from Kenny Smith (the recruit) and Vicki Smith Dagnan (the mother).
Second, given the hypercompetitive nature of recruiting, where signing-day hauls can impact careers, it’s ridiculous to think that the specter of public scrutiny would prevent an honest coach from reporting a serious allegation.
Would these guys not come forward if they witnessed a hit-and-run incident for fear they’d be called to testify in court?
In a separate lawsuit, former Alabama assistants Ronnie Cottrell and Ivy Williams are seeking $60 million in damages from the NCAA, alleging they were defamed by the investigation into Albert Means, whose sordid recruitment landed the Tide on five years probation. And if you believe the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions, Memphis businessman Logan Young approached such briberous extremes as to foster threats of the "death penalty" for Bama’s football program.
Cottrell and Williams argue that the NCAA paid legal fees for recruiting analyst Tom Culpepper, a secret witness in the case against Alabama. If that happened in this or any other investigation, the NCAA should be made to disclose it.
As for the NCAA’s defense against Cottrell and Williams, it argues that coaches are public figures, which raises the criteria for proving defamation. That’s an ironic stance, considering the NCAA — which is comprised of schools who employ the coaches — considers itself a private organization and vigorously guards all sensitive documents. It’s quite a parlance of double-talk, the NCAA claiming its members are public figures even though it isn’t.
It’s really not important whether you think Fulmer’s actions against Bama were those of a good citizen or a jealous tattler. What is important is that college sports fans gain a comprehension of how and why the NCAA does what it does.
E-mail Allan Taylor at ataylor@timesfreepress.com
