NCAA might not hit WVU very hard
by Jack Bogaczyk
Daily Mail Sports Editor
Charleston Daily Mail


In its entanglement with the NCAA over allegations of wrongdoing in its football program, West Virginia University is to be applauded for its transparency and public disclosure of what's there and not there.

Apparently, everyone involved in the process - including coaches Rich Rodriguez and Bill Stewart and their lawyers - must be satisfied with the potential outcome several months down the road.

In a public statement Thursday, WVU said that its NCAA case would not go through the formal Committee on Infractions hearing process as scheduled for mid-February in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

This is good news for WVU. It is not great news. When you're in the NCAA doghouse, there is no such thing as great news.

However, there obviously has to be some sort of agreement between the school's former coach, Rodriguez, and the university. That, in itself, is newsworthy. Likely, the parties are most anxious to put as much of this as possible behind them as quietly as possible.

The university was to have provided its formal response to the NCAA by the end of the workday this afternoon. Instead, the charges of five major violations and one secondary violation over a span of five football seasons and two coaches will advance through the NCAA's summary disposition process.

Summary disposition is used when there is agreement among the school, the NCAA enforcement staff and all involved parties on the facts of the case. The Committee on Infractions obviously has reviewed the agreement and the self-recommended penalties by WVU.

No in-person hearing takes place. Together, the school, individuals involved and enforcement staff compile the violations of NCAA rules and the proposed penalties. The Committee on Infractions reviews the report in private.

That committee can accept the findings and penalties or conduct an expedited hearing before announcing any sanctions. WVU said completion of the process is expected in the spring, likely shortening the time frame it would have taken to get a response following a formal hearing.

Think early spring practice. That's about when WVU will probably learn what kind of probation it faces.

One thing about the summary disposition is it removes the possibility that Rodriguez and Stewart would have to go before an NCAA Committee on Infractions hearing and answer questions. Let your imagination run wild on that one.

And if WVU had gone with the formal response mode and released it publicly today - as a stand-up, state-run institution might have - the Mountaineers would have risked letting more questions with no hard answers hit the fan with three weeks left in the football regular season.

That would not have been fair to those in particular that the NCAA and a school would want to and should protect - the student-athletes on an affected team.

Still, all of the above doesn't shed any light on what WVU may or may not do with its head coaching position in the next couple of months. It's also interesting to see how two major programs with infractions cases intertwined had them handled differently.

Rodriguez is the lead character in the cases. His current employer, Michigan, handled its disclosure on NCAA no-nos differently. Michigan's decision was to announce its formal response (late May) when it delivered it to the NCAA. The Wolverines' infractions hearing took place in mid-August in Seattle.

The Committee on Infractions handed down its decision on Nov. 3 - accepting that UM's self-punishment was sufficient, while tacking on a third year of probation for practice and training violations, but agreeing with UM that Rodriguez wasn't guilty of failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance with NCAA rules.
Some observers seem to think WVU's punishment will be similar to Michigan's because of the similarities in the allegations. Maybe not through the formal hearing process, but perhaps now. The Mountaineers seemed destined to take a bit bigger hit, but the summary disposition route suggests that's not the case.

The time frame for the Wolverines' violations was quite short, after the Detroit Free Press story unearthed irregularities in Rodriguez's first UM year and the NCAA quickly followed up.

The allegations at WVU span Rodriguez and his successor, Stewart, and run from the 2005-06 school year through the fall semester of 2009-10 (last football season, basically).

Although Stewart had made a marked point of changing much about the operation of the WVU program, his apparent mistake was continuing down some of the same staff personnel roads Rodriguez traveled, in terms of allowing non-coaching staff members (graduate assistants) to perform tasks that are permitted only for full-time assistants, etc.

I'm not so sure the move to summary disposition - if West Virginia pushed for that and expedited the case as much as you can twist NCAA arms (very little) - isn't rooted in the uncertainty about an impending decision about Stewart's coaching future.

Many of the big-money natives, so to speak, are beyond restless about a program that Rodriguez raised to somewhat unrealistic perennial expectations (with three consecutive 11-win seasons).

Here's an issue to bounce around: WVU cannot (well, it can, but likely won't) say in its summary disposition report that Stewart failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance with NCAA rules (as is charged by the NCAA against WVU head coaches past and current).

If West Virginia admitted that Rodriguez and Stewart both turned a blind eye, the school could be hit big-time with sanctions for "failure to monitor" and a "lack of institutional control" that charges a more systemic failure in the athletic department, not just a single program breaking rules.

WVU wouldn't go for that. If that were the case, there would be no summary disposition, believe me.

However, if WVU defended Stewart in its NCAA response and then wants to release him in December or January, it would seem much easier for the coach to collect a buyout for his final three contract years (a total of $2.475 million).

If the school didn't defend Stewart on compliance, it could perhaps seek to terminate him for cause (breaking NCAA rules), per his contract (article 5-A-1):

The commission by Coach of a serious or major violation, whether intentional or negligent, or a pattern of violations, of the written rules, regulations, policies, procedures or standards of the NCAA, the University or the Big East Conference ... or the allowing or condoning, whether directly or by negligent supervision, of any such violation by a player, coach, or other individual subject to his control or supervision, or otherwise soliciting, directing or condoning such violation by any person;

Maybe the university administration and Athletic Director Oliver Luck still have an open mind on Stewart's future. Stewart and the university obviously know what's ahead in the summary disposition process. They had to agree on it.

Either way, it remains one of those sticky wickets ... whether the revised NCAA process as it involves WVU is related to Stewart's future or not.

Contact Sports Editor Jack Bogaczyk at ja...@dailymail.com or 304-348-7949.