What Is HeinOnline?
HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
Log In
![handle is hein.journals/jncaac2023 and id is 1 raw text is:
January-February 2023
Journal of
NCAA Compliance
A sports law periodical by Hackney Publications
New Head Coach Responsibility
Legislation and its Implications
By Connor Glass & Todd Shumaker,
CCH+A
Late last year, the NCAA Division I Board
of Directors adopted key changes to the
NCAA infractions process, which were
conceived and developed by the Division
I Transformation Committee and the
Division I Board of Directors Infractions
Process Committee. As part ofthe NCAAs
key changes, the Responsibility of Head
Coach bylaw has been revised.
The NCAAs Responsibility of Head
Coach bylaw was initially adopted in
2005. The NCAA described the ratio-
nale behind the bylaw, stating that [a]
head coach should be presumed to have
knowledge and, therefore, responsibility
for the actions of those individuals as-
sociated with his or her team who the
coach directly or indirectly supervises.
Further clarifying, the NCAA stated the
bylaw does not imply that every violation
by a staff member constitutes a lack of
control on the part of the head coach.
The NCAA revised the bylaw in
2012. Instead of focusing on the head
coach's knowledge, or presumption of
knowledge, for violations within the
coach's program, the amended bylaw
presumed only responsibility on behalf
of the head coach. In the event of a viola-
tion, the head coach was then presumed
responsible as opposed to presuming to
See COACH on Page 10
Caring About CARA: The COI's Recent
Sensitivity to In-Person Practice Monitoring
By Dr. Joshua Lens
ABSTRACT
Recent cases involving legislated limita-
tions on coaching staff and/or countable
athletically-related activities (CARA)
suggest that the NCAA Committee on
Infractions (COI) is sensitive to both the
quantity and quality of compliance staffs'
in-person practice monitoring. Infact, itwas
a close call for the COI whether to find
a failure to monitor in a recent case where
the enforcement staff did not make the
allegation and the university asserted that
its policies and procedures aligned with or
exceeded industry standards.
This article underscores the COI's recent
emphasis on in-person practice monitoring
so industry professionals can make decisions
peer Reviewed
regarding resources and written policies and
procedures devoted to in-person practice
monitoring and implement them on cam-
puses. To do so, Part I describes the NCAAs
enforcement process. Part II analyzes and
provides takeaways and themes from recent
cases where the COI has provided com-
mentary regarding the appropriateness of a
university's in-person practice monitoring.
A brief conclusion follows.
INTRODUCTION
In a 2022 case involving The Ohio State
University (Ohio State), the Commit-
tee on Infractions (COI) unilaterally
New Head Coach
Responsibility Legislation
and its Implications 1
Caring About CARA: The
COI's Recent Sensitivity to
In-Person Practice Monitoring 1
SUNY Brockport Wrestling
Coach Claims University
Collusion Led to Flawed
NCAA Investigation 2
New York Student-Athletes
Benefit from Their Name,
Image, and Likeness Under
New Law 3
NCAA: Memphis Men's
Basketball Committed
Recruiting Violations 5
NAAC Launches Awards
Nomination Process 6
Sports Law Expert Podcast
Highlights Leading Sports
Lawyer Bart Lambergman 7
Compliance Digest 8
Journal ofNCAA Compliance is
a publication of Hackney Publica-
tions. Copyright © 2022.
i ~k
See CARA on Page 12](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jncaac2023&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)