CanesAreAble
All-ACC
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 9,029
http://www.athletics.illinois.edu/compliance/pdfs/institutional/Principles-of-Institutional-Control.pdf
The article goes on to outline examples of lack of institutional control, and I thought this part was most germane to us:
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.
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.
Supposedly our compliance department was/is top-notch. I only have rudimentary comprehension in bull**** legalese, but it seems to me the only way we get hit with LOIC is if the NCAA decides that Corch didn't establish a proper tone of compliance, and he turned a blind to the dealings of Hurtt, Stoutland, Hill, and Pannunzio.
Based on what we know about Corch, he was a stickler for the rules, and he allegedly had a network of snitches on the team. I think it's reasonable to assume he established a proper tone of compliance. The second part is tricky. How is one supposedly to effectively monitor the dealings of assistant coaches? IIRC, he told people to stay away from That Guy. In fact, That Guy hated Shannon because he was ****ing in his Cheerios.
This is a bit of a tangent, but when the NCAA hands down its rulings, do they cite specific examples of how schools should've had better monitoring protocols in place? How are you supposed to monitor this ****? Pull phone records and bank statements? Have a PI follow the coaches around?
The only way you can really stop coaches from doing dirt is by taking food off their table. For every secondary violation you commit, you forfeit x amount of dollars. For every major violation, it's y amount. That **** will dry up quick.
The article goes on to outline examples of lack of institutional control, and I thought this part was most germane to us:
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.
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.
Supposedly our compliance department was/is top-notch. I only have rudimentary comprehension in bull**** legalese, but it seems to me the only way we get hit with LOIC is if the NCAA decides that Corch didn't establish a proper tone of compliance, and he turned a blind to the dealings of Hurtt, Stoutland, Hill, and Pannunzio.
Based on what we know about Corch, he was a stickler for the rules, and he allegedly had a network of snitches on the team. I think it's reasonable to assume he established a proper tone of compliance. The second part is tricky. How is one supposedly to effectively monitor the dealings of assistant coaches? IIRC, he told people to stay away from That Guy. In fact, That Guy hated Shannon because he was ****ing in his Cheerios.
This is a bit of a tangent, but when the NCAA hands down its rulings, do they cite specific examples of how schools should've had better monitoring protocols in place? How are you supposed to monitor this ****? Pull phone records and bank statements? Have a PI follow the coaches around?
The only way you can really stop coaches from doing dirt is by taking food off their table. For every secondary violation you commit, you forfeit x amount of dollars. For every major violation, it's y amount. That **** will dry up quick.
