What penalty could the NCAA actually levy on Kiffin?

[armchairqb]

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2011/02/02/ncaa-to-smack-tennessee-lane-kiffin/

The NCAA, despite their selective approach to enforcing their rules, according to this article could cite the University of Tennessee and former head coach Lane Kiffin for recruiting violations.

What could they actually do to Kiffin for the nature of these violations, if proven true?

[donovan]

Another on the ongoing saga of penalizing the kids for the sins of their fathers......I was hoping Emeret would make a difference but just more of the same. Talk about an organization out of control.

[Spence]

I think the punishments should follow the coaches, if they were involved. Then see how many people want to hire them.

[GoBoilers]

I think the punishments should follow the coaches, if they were involved. Then see how many people want to hire them.

I agree with the penalties should follow the coaches but, the institutions are often culpable too. When SMU got the death penalty, many on the board of trustess/regents knew about athlete payments.

[donovan]

But it is the same thing. Penalize the coaches when they are at fault...follows them. Penalize the institution but not the athletes and their program when the school is at fault. So how do you do that, you ask? Well, one way is. You ban the school from conference and bowl records...etc, like you do now. BUT...You unconditionally release all athletes to transfer without penalty or waiting. You require the school to honor scholarships if student decides to stay and not play the sport. You punish the school, but not the students.

[Spence]

I agree completely with that. The only time the kids should be punished is when they themselves break the rules.

[billybud]

Oh BS.

The students aren't being punished, nor the "scholar athletes" to any great extent. So they may not play in as good of a bowl? How hurt, really, are the athletes at USC?

If you want punishment, take the stance of credentialing agencies when a school loses its accreditation. Your education and diploma becomes seriously devalued and sometimes becomes worthless for your discipline...now, that is punishment.

[Spence]

Oh BS.

The students aren't being punished, nor the "scholar athletes" to any great extent. So they may not play in as good of a bowl? How hurt, really, are the athletes at USC?

If you want punishment, take the stance of credentialing agencies when a school loses its accreditation. Your education and diploma becomes seriously devalued and sometimes becomes worthless for your discipline...now, that is punishment.

Most players choose a school to achieve athletic goals. If they can't do that, through no fault of their own, they should be able to leave without penalty. Especially if coaches can not renew scholarships after each year. If that is going to be the case, then students should have the same right of not renewing their scholarship and being able to sign with another school without penalty. Once a athlete signs at a school today, he is at their mercy unless he decides to transfer and even then, the school can refuse to let them out of their LOI or refuse to let them out to play at a school their current school doesn't want them to go to play their sport. Students have next to no rights once they sign their LOI. That shouldn't be the case if coaches can leave whenever or cut players after a year or two to sign the next great thing out of high school.

I'm not sure a school should lose their accreditation unless they are caught with widespread school sponsored academic fraud. Then, the kids who weren't cheating should have the right to leave with no penalty.

[billybud]

All a school has to do is fall behind accreditation requirements...no fault of the students. No cheating...just a myriad of things...

[billybud]

Most coaches can not leave without fulfilling their contractual obligations....pay a buyout fee, etc.

[Spence]

All a school has to do is fall behind accreditation requirements...no fault of the students. No cheating...just a myriad of things...

Yes, but losing their accreditation would be a good way to stop widespread cheating. There really hasn't been a case of widespread school sponsored cheating for a long time, that I am aware of, but I think Oklahoma State would have been gulity during the Dexter Manley era.

[billybud]

Losing scholarships and bowl appearances also is a good way to stop football recruiting cheating....huh?

[Spence]

Losing scholarships and bowl appearances also is a good way to stop football recruiting cheating....huh?

Yes, I think that is a good way - I just think the athletes already on the team should get to leave with no restrictions if they want, as long as they weren't involved in the cheating. I don't have a big problem with the way the NCAA punishes the schools, I just think the athletes should be able to opt out for free if they choose.

[billybud]

And that was the option given to those USC kids...five star Sentrael Henderson transferred without penalty among other USC players (he played immediately for the Canes last year). Byron Moore, Malik Jackson, and others jumped ship.

[Spence]

And that was the option given to those USC kids...five star Sentrael Henderson transferred without penalty among other USC players (he played immediately for the Canes last year). Byron Moore, Malik Jackson, and others jumped ship.

That is the way it should be every time - as long as the players weren't breaking the rules.