NCAA changes would be sweeping
By The Associated Press
Published: Monday, Oct. 29, 2012, 8:14 p.m.
INDIANAPOLIS — Rule-breakers are about to find out just how tough the NCAA can be.
After debating changes for more than a year, the board of directors is poised to vote Tuesday on an enforcement proposal that would streamline the infractions process, impose harsher sanctions on violators and expand the current two-tiered penalty structure to four.
NCAA president Mark Emmert has been pushing for reform since a spate of scandals hit college sports last year. If the proposal is approved Tuesday as expected, the changes would be sweeping.
Schools and coaches would have to contend with an infractions hearing and also may have to deal with accusations of aggravating circumstances.
Violators found in violation of a “serious breach of conduct” with aggravating circumstances could face postseason bans of two to four years and fines of millions of dollars from specific events or gross revenue generated by the sport during years in which sanctions occurred — just like Penn State earlier this year. In the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, the NCAA banned the Nittany Lions' football program from postseason play until the 2017 season and levied a $60 million fine on the school.
Another committee is trying to shrink the rule book. No formal proposal is expected before January.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.