Guilt by silence?

This Sunday's Los Angeles Times contained a couple stories highlighting the NCAA investigations into possible infractions at USC; one is an investigative piece while the other is an opinion.

The implication from the pair of LA Times stories is that USC has been both silent and uncooperative with the NCAA, which indicates guilt or a lack of care for the rules. I find that to be both simplistic and misguided.

Given the way the NCAA has responded when Florida State, Oklahoma, Alabama have self-reported sometimes serious violations, or how it treated Jeremy Bloom and Mike Williams, one might be inclined to be less than forthcoming or less-obliged towards self-implication of wrongdoing. Even without serious infractions, silence may in fact be far more productive for an involved school.

After all, the NCAA hardly seems to be the arbiter of fairness in how their compliance committee doles out penalties.

There is no due process in a committee that sits in a room to discuss matters without affording adversarial intervention. If you don't like the penalty, you can appeal it...to the same people that handed you the penalty. How often do people all around you, openly and willingly admit a mistake? How often do we read with aghast, the NCAA's response to schools who self-reported, or athletes who asked for leniency? Leniency is not in the lexicon of the NCAA's compliance committee's language.

Of course, the reporters seem to have selective memory when it comes to USC's participation with the NCAA. After all, it was USC that voluntarily disqualified players for poor academic progress, then filed appeals (after summer classes) to get those athletes reinstated. USC also voluntarily gave the NCAA full details on the 'extra benefit' violation of Dwayne Jarrett, at the time that Matt Leinart's father had paid for the shared apartment between the two players. It is clearly not USC's policy to be silent on matters of infractions, but the LA Times is certainly piling on this guilt by silence!

Regardless of the motive for keeping silent, and to the contrary of the direction of the LA Times stories, I think USC may have a unique opportunity. If the NCAA comes down hard on USC, the school may be able to use this unfair process to go to Congress and press for changes in how the NCAA works. I suspect a lot of university presidents would sign on to testify against the NCAA, in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for change. Everyone understands that there is no accountability within the NCAA for making mistakes or for perpetuating ambiguity of policy ("lack of institutional control" rule). Now, if only the NCAA would see the light and change themselves to provide for greater involvement without risking unfair treatment.