NCAA delay in Mizzou ruling is absurd and unconscionable... with chaotic ramifications
In late September, already weeks after the NCAA’s Infractions Appeals Committee typically would have ruled on an appearance before the group in mid-July, Missouri athletic director Jim Sterk heard the verdict on MU’s case was “close.”
“But nothing — no indication of what or when,” Sterk said at halftime of MU’s game with Florida last week.
The NCAA’s dawdling on a case that was preposterous to begin with — severe and stifling sanctions despite MU’s prompt and thorough response to the actions of one rogue tutor and the university’s model cooperation with the NCAA — now has gone from annoying to baffling to unconscionable.
Particularly when it comes to the implications for Mizzou’s most visible and revenue-producing sport, football, left stranded in limbo and bound in a straitjacket for good measure by the NCAA’s neglectful approach.
Now, imagine these potential messes we are verging on with this fresh tidbit of information provided by the NCAA:
“If the timing of the release of the decision is after the time that the penalty would have applied, it is applied at the next available opportunity,” NCAA spokesperson Emily James said in an email to The Star’s Souichi Terada. “Generally, an appealed penalty is stayed during the appeal process. If the penalty is affirmed by the committee, the stay is released when the decision is publicly announced.”
So let’s say Mizzou becomes bowl-eligible with a win in either of its last two games (and, yes, that’s hardly assured with the way this team has been trending) and the ruling hasn’t landed before bowl invites are completed on Dec. 8. MU would figure to be invited to a bowl because the appeal effectively maintains the status quo until ruled upon.
But the NCAA hasn’t clarified for Mizzou or The Star in a follow-up email whether that invite would stand if MU’s appeal were shot down on, say, Dec. 14.
“They’ve told us nothing that way,” Sterk said with what might be called an incredulous laugh. “Now, I know (Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey) has told the folks that run the appeal that they’re getting into critical time here as far as … the implications of the delay and what it means.
“So … I don’t know what could happen with that. You would think at some point in time, it’s, ‘OK, our appeal is stayed and you make a decision and move forward and go to a bowl.’ ”
By any logic, which may or may not apply here, it would be too disruptive to the conference and the bowls and all schools and fans involved for the NCAA to try to execute a bowl ban after an invitation has gone out and been accepted. But it’s also unclear how the SEC might view any vagueness with the NCAA when it comes to bowl invitations.
Then there’s this: This entire situation could boomerang into a double-down on injustice for MU.
Meaning if the appeal is denied after a bowl bid has been accepted or however long down the road, MU evidently would face its bowl ban in the 2020 season, compounding the initial penalty.
Anticipating the question ahead about the effective impact, Sterk interjected that it would in essence be “a two-year penalty.”
Which would make this even more of a farce.
While Tigers coach Barry Odom did a commendable job retaining all MU seniors who could have transferred with a bowl ban looming, this ever-lurking cloud has obvious current and future recruiting consequences in football, softball and baseball:
All are facing scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions, along with perception issues because of the stigma that comes with the uninformed sound-bite versions of what’s happened.
“You always have to have a balance of the numbers and projections moving forward,” Odom said during an SEC media teleconference on Oct. 30, later lamenting the lack of “clarity of not knowing what exactly that’s going to look like.
“We’ve looked in a number of ways at the best-case scenario and what that would be the worst-case scenario. Try to come up (with) for us the balance of somewhere in the middle. We know that we have to adjust one way or the other once we finally, whenever that point is, receive the final word.”
If upheld, the penalty also has substantial financial repercussions, from reduced budgets in all three sports to $8 million-$9 million in lost bowl revenue since the SEC mandates that schools banned from bowls give up their share of the conference’s windfall.
More immediately, who’s to say this waiting game hasn’t had some impact in what we’ve seen on the field from a Mizzou team that started the season 5-1 only to suddenly veer off-track and lose four straight entering its game Saturday against visiting Tennessee?
You could call it an excuse, but you could also call it human nature.
“Even though Barry and the team, nobody’s trying to focus on it, it was easier to set aside in September,” Sterk said Saturday. “Because you felt like it was going to be done, and we’d know one way or another by the end of September (or early) October.”
The loss to Florida left Odom 24-24 overall in his fourth season at MU, leaving some grumbling about the program and prompting Sterk to issue a statement this week to PowerMizzou.com that was verified to The Star.
“Coach Odom, his staff and student-athletes have worked incredibly hard since beginning their journey together back in January, and I know they are disappointed in their on-field performance over the last four games after a 5-1 start vaulted Mizzou into the AP Top 25.
“It is important to note that in The Associated Press Poll era, only two Mizzou coaches, Dan Devine and Warren Powers, have won more games in their first four seasons in Columbia than Coach Odom.
“He has not allowed the still unknown outcome of Mizzou’s NCAA appeal or key injuries stop him, the staff or players from continuing to build a positive locker room culture within our program, which includes record-setting academic success the past two semesters, and I remain supportive of his efforts.
“I look forward to the Tigers becoming bowl-eligible for the third straight year, something Mizzou hasn’t accomplished in nearly a decade, and sending our 18 seniors out on a high note in our final two regular-season games.”
With this absurd burden still lurking, more than four months after what is typically a four- to eight-week process.
To some degree, MU understands why the ruling has taken time.
“It’s impactful for not just Mizzou but for the landscape of intercollegiate athletics and the way things have been done, the way they’re supposed to be done and the way that they will be done from here until the end of time,” Odom said at his news conference earlier this week. “So I know it’s an impactful decision that they’ve got to make.”
But it’s impact on MU has been unduly problematic already, especially considering the NCAA praised the school for its transparency and cooperation only to render that virtually meaningless with this ongoing delay.
“Now, into November,” Sterk said, “it just continues to get bigger as far as the NCAA kind of losing credibility daily with the longer it takes.”
KC Star Mizzou beat writer Souichi Terada contributed to this report.