Head Coach Responsibility

[Cappy3]

The NCAA recently added NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.1.1.1 which states that a head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. The head coach will be held accountable for violations in the program unless he or she can rebut the presumption of responsibility. A head coach may rebut the presumption by showing that he or she: 1) Promotes an atmosphere of compliance within the program. AND 2) Monitors the activities of staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.

With several assistant coaches having plead guilty to what must be NCAA violations, it will be interesting to see whether this bylaw has any real teeth.

 

[Zepharus]

as it should be. If you're out of touch its on you. If I don't know what my people are doing its because I didn't trust but verify.

 

[AlaskaSU]

This should make some assistants think twice before going to the dark side. However, an Asst. with a vendetta now has a clear avenue to take down his HC. The newt effect might be more in-house hires on the theory that those are who can be trusted.

 

[kcsu]

This should make some assistants think twice before going to the dark side. However, an Asst. with a vendetta now has a clear avenue to take down his HC. The newt effect might be more in-house hires on the theory that those are who can be trusted.

Every head coach knows what his assistant coaches are doing. Especially when it comes to paying players.

 

[SBU72]

Every head coach knows what his assistant coaches are doing. Especially when it comes to paying players.

I don't necessarily agree. The triangle of player(or parents or crew) and coach and shoe company/ benefactor might more easily go thru the assistant recruiting the player than the head coach and do do without the hc knowing about it.

 

[kcsu]

I don't necessarily agree. The triangle of player(or parents or crew) and coach and shoe company/ benefactor might more easily go thru the assistant recruiting the player than the head coach and do do without the hc knowing about it.

Come on. Of course the head coach knows. Some are just better at it than others. Do i think that SU has "helped" athletes yes of course they have. Has SU been limited via the decade long investigation and subsequent sanctions? Thankfully yes we have.
I played at a D2 school about 40 years ago and i was given money for BS school jobs. This has been going on forever. I wish they would give every athlete regardless of sport a school a stipend per month. Equal amount regardless of sport or gender. These kids need some spending money and deserve it.

 

[Sherman20]

The NCAA recently added NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.1.1.1 which states that a head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. The head coach will be held accountable for violations in the program unless he or she can rebut the presumption of responsibility. A head coach may rebut the presumption by showing that he or she: 1) Promotes an atmosphere of compliance within the program. AND 2) Monitors the activities of staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.

With several assistant coaches having plead guilty to what must be NCAA violations, it will be interesting to see whether this bylaw has any real teeth.

I hate this bylaw and have always hated it. It goes against the fundamental idea of the burden of proof being on the prosecution.

 

[Cappy3]

I hate this bylaw and have always hated it. It goes against the fundamental idea of the burden of proof being on the prosecution.

No, it eliminates the shady “plausible deniability “ defense. Let the underlings take the fall. Bottom line, if the assistants are crooks, who hired them?

 

[Cheriehoop]

The NCAA recently added NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.1.1.1 which states that a head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. The head coach will be held accountable for violations in the program unless he or she can rebut the presumption of responsibility. A head coach may rebut the presumption by showing that he or she: 1) Promotes an atmosphere of compliance within the program. AND 2) Monitors the activities of staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.

With several assistant coaches having plead guilty to what must be NCAA violations, it will be interesting to see whether this bylaw has any real teeth.

Wasn’t this provision enacted in 2013 right before SU’s NCAA investigation and how they made JB responsible for everything, saying it was a lack of institutional control taking all those wins away. Supposedly the punishment was groundbreaking and unprecedented all based on the NCAA’s new rule they passed right before the investigation ended. New NCAA rule puts premium on head coaches’ accountability

So I’m confused how the NCAA needed a new rule because otherwise the Arizona’s, USC’s etc head coaches would escape culpability of their assistants actions otherwise. Didn’t they make that a rule years ago making JB accountable for the academic advisor, AD meeting etc regarding Fab Melo even though he wasn’t personally there? How was JB responsible for actions of other staff members but the current group of head coaches needed another ‘rule’ to be responsible for people who report to them?

 

[Eric15]

This feels similar to the passing of the RICO Act in 1970 which finally enabled the government to go after crime bosses who would insulate themselves from their subordinates wrong-doing.