← Ohio State Admits NCAA Violations and Wipes Out 2010 Football Season as Punishment

Recent NCAA Investigations Prompt New Approaches to Compliance

July 12, 2011, 12:57 pm

With several high-profile NCAA investigations in full swing—in addition to Ohio State, inquiries are under way at Auburn, Boise State, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee, for starters—a few colleges are experimenting with new approaches to compliance. As John Infante notes this week on his Bylaw Blog, such innovations could bring independence to compliance staffs and inject a bit of creativity into monitoring trouble spots. Or, he writes, they could “fail miserably.”

Infante, assistant director of compliance at Colorado State, cites Ohio State, Oregon, and West Virginia as examples of athletic programs that are considering or already have made major changes in how they oversee compliance with NCAA rules. The Buckeyes, for instance, are reportedly mulling the idea of moving athletics compliance into a central office that would also house watchdogs for medical and research areas. Oregon’s athletic department, grappling with allegations of recruiting violations, is searching for someone with experience in law enforcement and investigations to perform background checks on recruits, among other surveillance duties. And West Virginia has hired a new employee with government and legal experience to act as a liaison between the football team and the compliance and admissions offices.

It’s too soon to tell whether these new tactics will enable colleges to monitor coaches and athletes more effectively, or whether other programs will follow suit. The only way to know, says Infante, will be if the NCAA allows them “to run their course.” But if the experiments fail, the association shouldn’t punish the programs, he says: Innovation can be just as important as following the rules in the first place.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

rddennison

My assignment this quarter was 6 courses and, because I am nontenure track, that was within the limit set by our current workload policy. These are master’s and doctoral level courses AND online courses. Our college faculty has developed a new workload policy which is being held by the provost’s office because they cannot provide the number courses with the number of students and the number of faculty that we have (empty positions that they will not release for hire) with a humane workload. The result in teaching mediocrity and faculty members frantically looking for new jobs. This is at an Ohio university.
softshellcrab

Excellent observations in this post, and well put.
old nassau’67

Why not follow the European model. Clubs play; universities educate. The twain never meet.
Or the minor league baseball model.
Or some other method of separating athletics (not the athletes, not clubs, not intRAcollegiate competition) from academics.
mhigbee

Very good article on a possible worthy reform of a frequently failed system. Improving compliance standards is very much in order, and reforms are needed. Compliance officers need to be more like auditors: Independent. Not reporting to their bosses. Of course, the temptation to break or bend the rules is widespread when winning is the only thing that matters, and the chance of being caught seems to be slim.

But the real crime of college athletics is how removed it has become from the academic life of, and how much money it bleeds from, the universities. Hundreds of millions per year in subsidies to athletics programs, coming straight out of the general funds. The NCAA has rules for all kinds of things, but none that regulate or limit the harm that growing athletic expenses, unmatched in most cases by revenue that is truly earned by athletics (as opposed to merely transferred from academic revenue to athletics), does to the academic mission of higher ed.
greeneyeshade

Like the General Accounting Office, many university internal audit offices have expanded their quiver of expertise to include IT specialists, federal contract and grant specialists and fraud examiners. If the group is properly placed in the organization, i.e., a direct reporting line to the board’s audit committee, there’s no reason why an NCAA compliance specialist couldn’t be effective in that office. Invariably NCAA violations require someone capable of “following the money,” so why not let such specialists work within a group that also has that expertise? It’s a slam dunk.
schen24

I’m glad to see that universities are starting to get their act together. After all, collegiate athletics is as much, if not more, about developing young men and women as persons as it is about winning championships and going professional. That being said, the NCAA should take a few notes from these universities and begin getting their own act together. They can begin with answering questions about why certain schools or students get off the hook (Cam Newton, Auburn) while others don’t (Perry Jones, Baylor or even Reggie Bush, USC) for similar offenses. (In the case of Cam Newton vs. Perry Jones, it appears that Newton’s offense was much more substantial.) After all, collegiate athletics is indeed much more about developing young men and women as persons that it is about winning championships…or ratings.
cwm4c

Ohio State’s potential move to put all compliance together, including medical, research, and athletics, is a worthy one, especially given the high profile problems each area is experiencing now. As others have rightly mentioned, they must ensure the neutrality and a reporting chain that doesn’t work for any of the areas though.
fullprof99

So one Warhol silkscreen isn’t enough for U Texas? What morons. They will lose in court since they won’t be able to prove O’Neill doesn’t own the piece, and they will look ridiculous in the court of public opinion.
socafish

“Catholic University of America would return to single-sex dormitories to discourage students from hooking up ”

I find this hilarious. Imagine all the future preists now in a single-sex dorm. I know, I know….
oagead1

You should have mentioned John Banzafs’ greatest accomplishment – through his clinic’s suits he was responsible for outlawing smoking on airplanes
willismg

Not so fast… No less a source than Richard Feynman (sp?) has stated categorically that light is not a wave.
http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

Has anybody explained to Mr. Banzhaf that CUA is a private university? And where are are his lawsuits against the scores of other universities in the country that have single-sex dorms? Notre Dame and BYU immediately come to mind as biggies, but then there are the many, many smaller religiously-affliated schools (Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc.), too…
11191774

I’ve long thought that yes, we should make the application process easier for students. But to treat the college application like an impulse buy of gum in the supermarket checkout line really does no one any good.
parora01

Can we please move away from the Cold War era logic of internationalization in higher education! We will continue to lose our way if we don’t think of systematic developmental processes that can result in the reciprocity of learning in international education, rather than its practice as academic tourism. The increasing numbers of Chinese students in the US, for instance, can be a source of expanded ways of thinking in addition to being a source of much needed tuition dollars.
bethryan019

I believe that understanding what global engagement means to higher ed is a key component to remaining relevant in the modern world.
kyushumntsphil

Let’s be very simple here. We educate as people, or as corporate appliances.

If we choose the former, then we no longer allow the silo practices of academic departments in mutual isolation from each other. We no longer allow the impersonality conceits that reign as expertise.

If we choose people, then in every department we quote people — quote them from concerns in the same classroom to concerns of apt linkage across campus in other departments. Quote — by direct quote, or indirect — the arts that may more aptly illuminate in one’s own larger culture, and in cultures farther off.

Internationalization? Eight syllables. That’s some heavy rhetoric. Can we please get priorities straight, lest all drift further and further into the corporate-speak, corporate silos, and corporate habits that strangle all too much everywhere now?

P.B., Prop., http://www.EssayingDifferences.com
lohtion

I mean it has always been about perspective has it not? Diverse backgrounds make for a more complete, engaging discussion on subject matters. Dialogue and debate are crucial to the advancement of student learning. Stress perspective. As an international business student, I’ve had great discussions in class. Our teachers have thoughtfully sought out and highlighted our differences in opinion and approach to various issues and problems. It’s all about putting more points on your thought map. Differences, accents, bias, chaos. We need it more in the classroom.
http://twitter.com/DanConnell Dan Connell

No, I don’t think it is. The government has taken away the foundations of higher education in the UK, and no-one really knows what this will mean but the omens aren’t good. A key example being PhD development.
In the US, a PhD candidate can expect close guidance, pertinent seminars and classes to make them better academicsteachersresearchers, and plenty of career development and advice.
My UK experience: having to fight for any teaching whatsoever, finally receiving some in the third year of study (this, by the way, constitutes the final year of a UK PhD); being offered no guidance on publication or research strategies; nothing on future careers; and finally, a short chat with one of my supervisors every three or four months (my second supervisor didn’t want anything to do with me). Oh, and some scribbled notes every six months or so.
This was my experience BEFORE the government withdraws funding. Many PhD students self-fund, and that may be nigh-on impossible at £9,000 a year. The area of most extreme damage, in my opinion, will be to the development and scope of doctorate programs. And hence, the continuation and progress of academia & advanced research in the UK will be seriously stunted. The US, although not without its own problems, is suffering a contracting academe rather than a disintegrating one.
bscmath78

Dan Connell, how does the following match with your UK Ph.D. experiences?

In the UK, the odds of a UK Science Ph.D. becoming a professor are worse than 200 to 1 according to the 2010 Royal Society report “The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity” at:

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf

Figure 1.6 on page 14 shows 0.45% of Sciences Ph.D.s become professors (in the UK there is no tenure for university professors). 53% of Science Ph.D.s go for NON-science work right off the bat, maybe because they realize they should finally cut their losses.

The chart with its arrows is somewhat unclear but it appears that the 30% arrow is postdocs, 3.5% is “Permanent Research Staff” (in academia) and then 0.45% become professors. Note other arrows going to non-academic research. And just a reminder that “permanent” just means no guaranteed end date like a postdoc. Also, the chart is based on 2005, 2008 and 2009 documents which, of course, are based on earlier, happier times.

On the same page 14, the Royal Society states in the context of complaining about failures to recruit sufficient science and math school teachers:

“The Royal Society’s own research suggests that without excellent teachers there is little hope of inspiring children to stick with science”

No connection seems to be made between poor prospects, poor rewards and a search for better non-STEM alternatives.

The Royal Society report makes no mention of the stats for Cambridge and Oxford Ph.D.s. The story might well be different for Oxbridge Ph.Ds, which might mean the odds for the rest of Ph.Ds might be worse than 1,000 to 1.
bscmath78

Dan Connell, your description of a UK Ph.D. sounds like what they have been doing in the UK since WW II, if not earlier. My impression was that the UK Oxbridge system traditionally did the undergraduate degree in 3 years. From that 3 year degree you were now expected to do research. There were no prelims/quals exams like the US because you were already supposed to know all that, so no need for classes or seminars to prepare you for that. You were supposed to be finished in 3 years, but you could apply for an extension if you needed a 4th year.

You had passed the Tripos at Cambridge, so now you did your research with no time “wasted” on other stuff. Since your research was supposed to be original and yours, and you were supposed to be self-sufficient. That’s the impression I get from reading about UK scientists (this may be why Robert Oppenheimer attempted to murder his supervisor with a poisoned apple).

Oxbridge undergrads not going into research, in the olden days, typically became high Civil Servants, joined the family firm, waited to inherit the family title or otherwise joined the British ruling class. Though, the scholarship girl Margaret Thatcher took an undergraduate Chemistry degree at Oxford before becoming an industrial research chemist. Apparently, she developed a technique to increase the amount of air that could whipped into ice cream. The Wikipedia entry says 4 years, so maybe they took longer at Oxford what with their individualized tutorial system than at Cambridge.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048960/Margaret-Thatcher-invented-soft-scoop-ice-cream-.html

I wonder if this due to the UK not having vast amounts of funding for STEM Ph.D. students that allows the US to use them (and postdocs) as cheap labor teaching undergraduates and working in labs, but not to provide that many tenured positions.

Does any of this match your observations?
bscmath78

Dan Connell, do you think it odd that the article makes no mention of the 2010 Royal Society report “The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity” which on the surface would seem directly related to the author’s concerns?

I noticed you didn’t mention it either, is that because no one paid any attention?
Well, except for some publications with a vested interest. ;-)

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410690
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410732
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41938

Though the poor prospects of postdocs in the Royal Society study got some notice:

“UK postdocs appear to have even more reason for pessimism: according to the Royal Society’s 2010 report The Scientific Century: Securing our Future Prosperity, 30 per cent of science PhD graduates go on to postdoctoral positions, but only about 12 per cent of those attain permanent research jobs.”

Along with interesting reader comments:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416341

Another article notes:
“. . . in the UK, only 30 per cent will go on to postdoctoral posts and just 12 per cent will get permanent jobs, according to the Royal Society. Educating so many people so expensively for so few possible positions is not only depressing for the people involved, it is also an incredibly inefficient use of taxpayer cash.”

Along with interesting reader comments:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416358

I didn’t notice mention of the UK Ph.D. issues that you mentioned, instead people seem to focus on too many Ph.D.s, too many postdocs and too few permanent positions for them. So is it possible that what you observed in the UK is exactly what UK students expect in a UK Ph.D.?
bscmath78

Dan Connell, in response to a previous mention of the Royal Society report’s report of poor prospects for a Sciences Ph.D., ellenhunt wrote in part:

“Curious, don’t you think, how many STEM PhDs the UK hires from outside the UK? This is curious indeed given the supposed oversupply.

What I have heard through the grapevine in the UK is that the quality of the vast majority of those obtaining STEM PhDs there is outlandishly awful. I have been told that this is due to a university system which makes it virtually impossible for a professor to fail or otherwise get rid of a grad student. Consequently, professors move trouble out the door the only way that they can. To do otherwise is just too much trouble and could likely result in being fired.

I have heard stories of PhDs in science unable to handle exponents and similar deficits that should get them a failing grade as a freshman undergrad.”

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/just-dont-go-the-sequel/30693#comment-353978906

I replied at: http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/just-dont-go-the-sequel/30693#comment-354019805

What do you think of ellenhunt’s comments?
bscmath78

The UK historian of science David Edgerton has written a series of books that suggest that government science and technology “investment” has repeatedly been a massive waste of money in Britain.

In “Science, technology, and the British industrial ‘decline’, 1870-1970″, he argues there was no decline, but instead lots of continuing investment, he notes:

“These are important conclusions: Britain would have been richer had its government not
subsidised civil aerospace and its nuclear programme. Grave as these losses were, they were almost certainly small by comparison to the losses incurred in defence R&D and procurement programmes.”

http://books.google.ca/books?id=dIpPPshxj0sC&pg=PA46&dq=%22Britain+would+have+been+richer+had+its+government+not%22&hl=en&ei=VabGTo7rAqTf0QHz95wb&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Britain%20would%20have%20been%20richer%20had%20its%20government%20not%22&f=false

Most recently, in his 2011 “Britain’s War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War” we learn how by almost every science and technology measurement, Britain far out classed Germany, let alone Japan, during the lead up to war and the first part of the war. It has been relatively well known that in May 1940 Rommel was outnumbered and outgunned by all measures, facing British and French tanks with armor that his tank shells bounced off of. Yet, the British were repeatedly defeated by the Nazi and the Japanese. The British did sink the Bismarck, but it took much of the British fleet to do so. Edgerton’s book provides much detailed explanation of the British technological and numerical advantage.

So you might ask, how did Rommel do it? One tactic was to improvise by firing his 88 mm anti-aircraft guns at the Allied tanks. It cut through their armor like butter even when fired out of the range of enemy tanks. The better known answer was the superior strategy, of Von Manstein and Guderian (using some concepts of Fuller, a Brit), of massing most of the force of the Blitzkrieg at one point in the line, a point in the line that the Allies felt was impenetrable, the Ardennes.

“By nearly every standard the British army was much better equipped than the German army from the beginning to the end of the war.”

http://books.google.ca/books?id=e6Vjp8qmYNIC&pg=PA219&dq=%22By+nearly+every+standard+the+British+Army%22&hl=en&ei=s67GTsLtLsHq0gGAy_38Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22By%20nearly%20every%20standard%20the%20British%20Army%22&f=false
bscmath78

The author writes, “A similar muddle over investment versus debt . . .” in the context of paying off credit card bills. Let see, paying off credit cards with an average UK APR of 18.8% (Feb 2010)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/feb/16/credit-card-interest-high
sounds like something good for consumers, but bad for the profits of credit card companies. It’s probably bad for all the importers of foreign consumer products. An 18.8% tax free return seems like a lot better return than I can get from a non-Ponzi investment these days.

There is a confused idea of “investment” when someone wants to produce something that is in massive oversupply, especially since if there was any shortage among Brits, it would be easily solved by the vast army of Eurozone college-educated unemployed young people, an army that looks like it will gain lots of recruits. And let’s see, all those holding Greek sovereign debt get a 50% haircut, if they are lucky. PIIGS sovereign debt what an investment that was. Too bad MF Global went bankrupt they might have some to sell you.

It is fascinating when the media say 7% for sovereign debt is “unsustainable”, but this article thinks it is good for consumers to keep paying credit card interest through the nose.

Face it, the most likely reason to herd them into school is to reduce the increase in the official unemployment rate, keep them off the dole and keep them off the streets.
bscmath78

As a side note, typically people who run credit card balances are the ones who live “paycheck to paycheck” so it is likely that only those who have chosen to live above their means due to high self-esteem are likely to be in a position to cut back and reduce their balances. But given their high self-esteem they are unlikely to respond to such appeals.

And looking at Greece and the rest, some may think that going out with a bang and going bankrupt is the way to go. Especially if you owe a fortune.

“He was once the richest man in Ireland. Now he’s bankrupt and owes £2.5bn”
Read more at : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060323/Sean-Quinn-Irelands-richest-man-declared-bankrupt.html#ixzz1e5aewVqr

As the article state, “Bankruptcy laws in the UK, which apply in Belfast, are more lenient than those in the Republic of Ireland, where it can take 12 years to run a business again after being declared legally bankrupt. In the UK it is just one year.”
What a deal!
bscmath78

“Pupils were subjected once again to a more rote/mechanical means of teaching which drilled them in the techniques of test-taking”

“This meant that grants could be allocated to schools taught largely by untrained teachers because they would be cheaper than trained teachers and therefore might seem a better business proposition for the managers.”

“‘If it is not cheap, it shall be efficient; if it is not efficient it shall be cheap.’” – Robert Lowe

This was the promise of the Revised Code of 1862 (“payment by results”) as stated to the British House of Commons. It was a system that resulted in the elimination of all subjects that weren’t subject to testing and the elimination of anything above the standard of the testing, the lowest common denominator. With no escape for the clever, since fast advancement would reduce the income of the school.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=2FiCvLK4ox0C&pg=PR20&dq=%22drilled+them+in+the+techniques+of+test-taking%22&hl=en&ei=f8rGTq-WMuXm0QGPtvj4Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22drilled%20them%20in%20the%20techniques%20of%20test-taking%22&f=false

This was just one part of a long British tradition of expending much time and effort (and sometimes money) on counter-productive educational activities. Rote memorization having a long and hallowed tradition in UK education, exams and perceptions of merit. Helping to produce that lack of imagination that sent junior officers kicking soccer-balls towards the German machine guns, leading thousands to their deaths, on the first day of the Battle of the Somme.
bscmath78

The following is attributed (disputed) to two German officers during WW I:

Field Marshall Erich Ludendorff: The English soldiers fight like lions.
General Max Hoffmann: True. But don’t we know that they are lions led by donkeys.”

Another version is, “The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys.”

http://www.archive.org/stream/englishwifeinber00bluoft#page/211/mode/1up
http://whytheology.wordpress.com/ Trey Medley

@chronicle-15bf71a93d53f3fa044dd3b5f99a7a58:disqus , quit spamming the comment section. Please try to keep comments and replies to a respectable minimum, putting in so many comments merely discourages conversation
maxbini

I think it may be worthwhile to add a consideration of what happened in Australia back in 1988 when the Government there decided to move from a completely Government funded higher education system and introduced student fees.
Although Australia had free university education before this, it was not well respected and few took the opportunity – the preference seems to have been for either employment or unemployment benefits. The introduction of student fees was done with a system that allowed the majority of students to pay the debt in future years out of tax increases (this was then called The Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) but is now called FeeHelp). Surprisingly, this lead to a large take-up of university places, which has been maintained ever since.
Also the fees charged for courses have exponentially risen over the years but this has not lessened the demand for places.
It would not surprise me if politicians in Britain have not looked at the Australian situation and not tried to take similar advantage of the moving of the funding burden. This also fits in with the current British Governments “small Government, big community” push.
The shame is (to my knowledge) that few seem to have looked closely at the detrimental impacts of such moves – falling standards, loss of academic freedom, a focus upon full-fee paying students (whether International students or the wealthy being able to by-pass merit standards and purchase a place in a course), generalist staff outnumbering academics, untenured staff outnumbering tenured staff, etc…
Whilst academics may grieve such losses, a politician will more likely glory in the cost savings.
pgteach

Higher education is an expensive undertaking for which we hope our effort, time, and money invested will yield positive outcome. If Britain is selecting to boycott support for higher education because they have too many students and too many university graduates, the may find they have too little offer to a globally competitive market. Unemployment is not going to be fixed or solved by reducing the number of university graduates, but by creating jobs, resourcing internally rather than outsourcing externally, and providing tax incentive for businesses and employers to name a few ideas. Let us hope that Great Britain sees the light and realize an educated nation is a competitive one, or they may not lose the “Great” and be the “Less” Britian.
lenard

Just as in the US, a college education is a large investment and it seems as though that investment will not be paid off. Just like the article states, it must be difficult for prospective students and parents to follow the economic logic for investing in an education. It is the same case as in the US and along with this comes the topic of motivation towards education. If getting an education is so expensive, what can motivate students to get an education in the US or abroad?