As some of you may know, UCONN basketball received some sanctions today as a result of some Level III violations that occurred under Kevin Ollie. The link below contains more details. Ollie actually got hit harder than the school. He received a three-year show-cause penalty, essentially banning him from coaching for the next three years. I found the NCAA's reasoning for this interesting.
From a CBS Sports article: (https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-cause-penalty-huskies-avoid-major-sanctions/)
A show-cause penalty for lower-level offenses is unusual; Ollie's three-year show-cause ruling was prompted, in large part, due to him supposedly deceiving NCAA investigators and additionally opting out of being interviewed a second time by enforcement staffers.
"This case illustrates the importance of full candor and cooperation in the infractions process, as well as head coach control," the NCAA's statement reads. "The former head coach faltered in both respects, increasing the severity of his violations and allowing violations within the program to occur for most of his tenure."
While I admittedly don't know more about this situation than I've read today, I like the idea of punishing the responsible individual more so than the program. However, the real reason I thought it was worth posting here is because a big part of Missouri's appeal, at least according to what Jim Sterk has said, is that the NCAA is creating a "chilling effect" by punishing Missouri so severely even though it cooperated fully. The NCAA seems to be addressing that here, explaining why it's still important to cooperate with investigations. I have absolutely no idea if this language was actually influenced by Missouri's appeal or if it impacts Missouri's chances of getting sanctions changed, but just thought it was worth sharing.
From a CBS Sports article: (https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-cause-penalty-huskies-avoid-major-sanctions/)
A show-cause penalty for lower-level offenses is unusual; Ollie's three-year show-cause ruling was prompted, in large part, due to him supposedly deceiving NCAA investigators and additionally opting out of being interviewed a second time by enforcement staffers.
"This case illustrates the importance of full candor and cooperation in the infractions process, as well as head coach control," the NCAA's statement reads. "The former head coach faltered in both respects, increasing the severity of his violations and allowing violations within the program to occur for most of his tenure."
While I admittedly don't know more about this situation than I've read today, I like the idea of punishing the responsible individual more so than the program. However, the real reason I thought it was worth posting here is because a big part of Missouri's appeal, at least according to what Jim Sterk has said, is that the NCAA is creating a "chilling effect" by punishing Missouri so severely even though it cooperated fully. The NCAA seems to be addressing that here, explaining why it's still important to cooperate with investigations. I have absolutely no idea if this language was actually influenced by Missouri's appeal or if it impacts Missouri's chances of getting sanctions changed, but just thought it was worth sharing.
