Could NCAA compliance policy send athletic directors to prison? It’s ‘a little scary.’
Could college athletic directors face prison time under new NCAA policies?
Reforms that were adopted in the wake of the federal probe into widespread corruption in college basketball are raising real concerns about athletic directors being criminally prosecuted for NCAA rules violations. The NCAA’s attestation of compliance policy, adopted this past spring, shifts more responsibility to athletic directors for compliance.
Athletic directors have until Oct. 15 to sign the document. Failure to do so could preclude an individual or team from competing for NCAA championships.
Tom McMillen, the CEO of Lead1 Association, a professional organization for many of the nation’s top athletic directors, told NCAA officials that athletic directors are concerned that amid the push to clean up college sports, they could find themselves in legal trouble if a staff member violates NCAA rules.
The NCAA’s chief legal counsel has said athletic directors’ worries that they could be exposed to criminal and civil liability were overstated. But McMillen, who has unsuccessfully sought to delay the new rules, told CBS Sports that numerous athletic directors are “up in arms” over potential liability issues and won’t sign the attestation.
There’s no question that lax enforcement and a “win at all costs” mentality have made a mockery of the NCAA’s amateurism rules. But athletic directors have raised legitimate questions about whether NCAA rules violations now could lead to prosecution.
Will athletic directors in Kansas and Missouri sign the attestation document before the October deadline? Most aren’t saying.
Kansas State Athletic Director Gene Taylor understandably has concerns about the new mandate.
“(Athletic directors) have always been responsible for compliance within the athletic department,” Taylor said. “I’m fine with it. I will probably sign it. But to be held criminally liable is a little scary.”
So far, Taylor is the region’s only Division I athletic director to publicly declare his intent to sign the document.
KU athletic director Jeff Long, Mizzou’s Jim Sterk and University of Missouri-Kansas City athletic director Brandon Martin did not respond to several messages seeking comment.
The NCAA’s new standards are one result of the work done by the Rice Commission on College Basketball, which was appointed in 2017 after a college basketball recruiting scandal led to multiple federal indictments, guilty pleas and prison sentences.
Assistant coaches, top-level executives from shoe and apparel company Adidas and handlers for some of the country’s top young basketball talent were ensnared in the federal probe. The commission recommended expanding individual accountability for rules violations from chancellors and presidents to include directors of athletics.
Kansas was among the schools named in a wide-ranging FBI investigation into cheating in college basketball. Jim Gatto, a former Adidas executive, was linked to payments made to the families of KU basketball players Billy Preston and Silvio De Sousa. Gatto eventually agreed to pay restitution to KU.
De Sousa was suspended from competition for a year before being cleared to play, and Preston never played in a regular season game for the Jayhawks after questions surrounding his eligibility were raised.
Mizzou is still reeling from a NCAA-mandated postseason ban enacted after the Tigers’ athletic department self-reported a rogue tutor who completed course work for several student-athletes. A ruling on MU’s appeal of the ban and other punishments is expected soon.
The Rice Commission was right when it decried a “crisis in college basketball” fueled by a lack of accountability. The buck should in fact stop with athletic directors, but should they face hard time for failing to comply with NCAA rules? If exposing athletic directors to criminal prosecution is not the organization’s intent, then the NCAA should clarify its policy before anyone signs on the dotted line.