Perspective: NCAA Self-Reports

[Taj79]

Just for information's sake ... yeah, yeah, I know, I couldn't let it drop .... under section 6 of the NCAA bylaws, bylaw 6.3 deals with sef-reporting issues. Under this bylaw, it is the requirement of every NCAA member institution to do a self-examination report once every ten years. To me, that's not much. We've had three coaches in the last ten years ... seems to me that you might want to do self-checks more often. But I guess this is the NCAA's way of saying do it at least every ten years to ensure all of their guys are doing it. Kind of a checks and balance thing. I would not lay credence to the fact that anyone is doing any more than they have to ... I know I wouldn't.

The NCAA's web page on major infractions and probations only goes back to 1996 so I couldn't exactly check on the probation the Bills got under Ekker and just what it was for ... officially. I seem to recall again that it was for unsanctioned practices. I ran out of patience looking under Saint Louis-specific areas. But as broy has pointed out, if the infraction is seen as giving the infractioning school an advantage over the others, then the infraction is considered major and the probation naturally occurs. Is having early practices with your team considered an advantage? I'd say so.

So that would lead me to believe that most of the major infractions come from folks tattling on the other guy. Someone out there saying "hey, he's cheating", a player who feels he was lied to and is seeing his pro dreams go poof and wants someone to fall with him and making an anonymous call to the NCAA's version of the fraud, waste and abuse line. I could see someone recruiting Paulding and Johnson making that call over Mizzou's use of the private jet and their mothers. I can see that with Clemons' 24 summer credit hours. I can certainly see it with Dollar and Romar and the number one recruit in the state of Washington. This isn't to condone it ... Dollar has no excuse for not knowing the rules and I agree with broy that he should have been fired.

My only point here is that the term "self-reporting" sounds great, but I'm willing to bet that no one does it any more than they have to. Additonally, no one is going to talk about it any more than they have to. Public universities spending public tax dollars have the requirement to report under the open book laws. Private institutions do not. Same with public entities (the governemnt) versus private entities (Joe Blow's Donut Shop).

[bonwich]

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

© 1985 St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Saturday, May 11, 1985

BAKKEN VIOLATES AN NCAA RULE

By Dave Dorr Of the Post-Dispatch Staff

St. Louis University Athletic Director Jim Bakken has learned the hard way how easy it is to become entrapped in the web of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules. Bakken said Friday he violated a rule by attending high school basketball games. He is not allowed to do that in an official capacity as an athletic director. He has detailed in a letter what took place in response to a request from the NCAA and is awaiting a reply from the NCAA.

It is an NCAA infraction if anyone from a school other than the head coach or a full-time assistant coach attends a game. The line can become fine, but that's ho w the rule reads.

''If we'd have known the rule, we would have disguised him in a Groucho Marx nose,'' said St. Louis U. Coach Rich Grawer, who took Bakken with him to two McKinley High games in February.

''I even introduced him to recruits,'' said Grawer.

But, said Bakken, the bottom line in what appears to be an act of negligence is that the NCAA was informed of Bakken's attendance by someone after the Billikens successfully recruited McKinley's Monroe Douglass and Roland Gray, two of the state's top players.

''We were turned in,'' said Bakken. ''If we were recruiting players of lesser stature, nothing would have been said.''

Bakken said he received a letter from the NCAA asking him to document his attendance at games Feb. 22 and Feb. 27 (both McKinley) and any others he may have seen.

{snip}

Because St. Louis U. was handed a year's probation during the Ron Ekker era for conducting illegal summer basketball practices, the current SLU staff has bent over backward to pay close attention to the NCAA rulebook.

''Not only do we call (the NCAA) to check on a rule, but we identify ourselves,'' said Bakken, alluding to the fact that the NCAA often receives anonymous calls reporting that a coach or school may have been guilty of a rules violation.

{snip}

new article

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

© 1982 St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Friday, March 19,

EKKER ASSAILED; BILLS CAGERS PUT ON PROBATION

The National Collegiate Athletic Association has added a final footnote to the controversy and turmoil that marked Ron Ekker's last months as basketball coach at St. Louis University by placing the Billikens on probation for one year.

In announcing the punitive action -- at a time when St. Louis U. is in the process of naming a new head coach -- the NCAA's Committee on Infractions cited Ekker and others for providing the university with 'false and misleading information' during its investigation.

The penalty bars the basketball Billikens from postseason play and any televised game next season.

{snip}

The NCAA said that Ekker conducted summer practices with members of the team on numerous occasions in 1979, 1980 and 1981 and that an assistant coach conducted illegal practice sessions on two occasions during the summer of 1981.

Charles Wright, chairman of the NCAA's infractions committee, said that in determining the penalty against St. Louis U. the committee 'noted that the university did not take immediate action in the fall of 1981 to terminate the employment of its head basketball coach when the institution discovered he had reported false information.''

The penalty was not unexpected, but it was ironic, coming on the eve of the Midwest Regional at the Checkerdome, the basketball home of the Billikens.

Two weeks ago, the NCAA informed unversity officials that sanctions would be imposed against the basketball program. Indications are that the university will not contest the sanctions.

Larry Preo, recently hired as athletic director at St. Louis U., had these comments on the probation:

'My reaction is, well, let's just get it behind us, 'Preo said by telephone from Milwaukee, where he is finishing his job as director of physical recreation at Marquette. 'I was aware of the NCAA investigation during my interview process. The university and Charles (Schroeder) were very honest with me.

{snip}

[billiken_roy]

the ekker violation is actually a little amusing if you think back to that time period and realize what an awful team we had. i was a student at slu at the time, and i seriously think that if burns wasnt allowed to play, a group of select students at large on campus might have been able to give the remaining team a tussle. to even think that those extra practices gave us an "advantage" is laughable. all the practices over time couldnt have helped.

[MUTGR]

About one year ago I also got on the NCAA's website and checked out its major infractions database. At least at that time, the reports did go back several decades. I was suprised and somewhat pleased to discover that SLU's basketball team actually made that database twice: once under Ekker and once in the late 50's for recruiting violations. Granted, that's all ancient history, but I did take some satisfaction in seeing that SLU was on that database twice, and Missouri only once--so far.

[Schasz]

With Q at the helm, I'm glad you put that "so far" disclaimer.

[Taj79]

.... thought you got tired of picking up for me back in the late 70's? Good to see old habits die hard.

After reading Joe's old PD accounts, isn't it interesting that Bakken thought someone blew the whistle on him AFTER Douglas and Gray were in the fold. Hmmmmmmm .... I could be on to something here.

[Taj79]

So we got nailed in the 50's and then the 80's. Means we're due in the 10's. We got time.

Gosh .. I wonder what we did in the 50's. Let a recruit watch Ed Sullivan on a black-n-white TV. What?!?! C'mon ... that HAD to be illegal at the time. What else could it be? Paying for the kid's pinball game? Loaning him a nickel for a Coke?