Are secondary violations an exploitable recruiting loophole?
by Joel on Jun 8, 2009 8:00 AM EDT
32 comments
In case you missed it, ESPN featured Lane Kiffin on Outside the Lines yesterday. The feature included a happy thought from former Kiffin boss and Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis ("Lane Kiffin is a flat-out liar" and will poop on Pat Summitt any day now. And will eat your blue-tick puppies. And something else really, really bad, too.). The program also featured a recap of UT's recent spate of secondary violations (Five! And forget the fact that THE Ohio State University has apparently reported "more than 375" secondary violations since 2000 . . . (pause for math by lawyer) . . . that's something like 41 per year).
ESPN then concluded with a video postscript:
It is entirely possible that you just saw another one. Remember the scene where Lane Kiffin is speaking with a recruit? "Well, in the infamously thick NCAA rulebook, Rule 13.0.1, media members cannot observe recruiting contact by coaches. Tennessee tells Outside the Lines it is reviewing this matter. The NCAA is reserving comment until the story airs, so we look forward to hearing from them today.
Oh, the drama! It's the NCAA equivalent of a snuff flick -- a secondary violation CAUGHT ON TAPE! GET THE KIDS OUT OF THE ROOM NOW! THE FOLLOWING FOOTAGE MAY BE DISTURBING TO SOME VIEWERS. VIEWER'S DISCRETION IS ADVISED AND ALL THAT. BOO!
Vol fans with web sites (VFWW) are still weighing in. Gate 21's Home Sweet Home -- a journalism student -- says that it was shoddy journalism on the part of ESPN and gives the appearance of bias. The current tally on GVX's poll asking whether ESPN orchestrated the whole thing stands at 64% for "Of course. I think they've had it out for UT for years."
I doubt that there's any malicious conspiracy being baked at the ESPN studios, but you really have to wonder about the decision to both include that footage and then immediately follow it up with "Ah-ha! He did it again!"
Clay Travis suggests an alternate theory: that Kiffin knew exactly what was happening and did it anyway.
Maybe not, but . . . maybe so.
Consider a comment from SI.com's Andy Staples, who says that "[t]he secondary violation has become one of the best recruiting tools in a coach's arsenal because, thanks to an insatiable media, every secondary violation that comes to light offers a massive publicity boost." He notes several instances of programs who made national news only due to secondary violations and points out that Auburn's national publicity was limited to the stretch limo thing until the recent Big Cat Weekend . . . which was headlined by a secondary violation.
It is entirely possible that Kiffin in fact knew that a secondary violation was in progress when the recruits showed up and the cameras were rolling and simply wanted more attention for the program. Are we just now getting the picture that the secondary violation is the 2009 Recruiting Loophole, the recruiting strategy subject to exploitation by the most aggressive recruiters until the loophole's closed or the rules are equipped with a set of teeth next season?
Either way, rules are rules, and the problem with such a strategy is that at some point, it's entirely possible that we are going to reach a point of backlash, and forecasting when that time will arrive is difficult and may only be recognized in hindsight. Boomerangs often attack from the side. Why is it that the legal troubles of Florida Gator players didn't really backfire and become a Bad Thing until the count hit 24?
If indeed Kiffin's secondary violations are calculated, he may want to watch for signs of backlash. I think it's imminent.
0 recs |
32 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
You may be right, but I really hope not.
Either way, if the NCAA thinks schools are learning how to exploit the secondary violations category, they’ll do something insanely stupid by promoting all of them to primary violations.
Fortunately, the whole deal about secondary violations isn’t nearly so egregious as it is being portrayed. It’s a media fabrication more than anything else, really; if the whole ‘Urb cheated’ thing hadn’t happened, ESPN wouldn’t have bothered handling the story this way.
Oddly, this is one place where UT and Kentucky fans should feel at home together. Setting aside the current issues with Cal, the media is ready to make mountains out of molehills if the guy so much as sneezes right now.
by Hooper on Jun 8, 2009 8:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If it is indeed a secondary violation
I think that puts our number of secondary violations equal to the number of arrests UF has had this offseason. I’m OK with that.
by rblakeh on Jun 8, 2009 9:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You can't add teeth to secondary violations
There is no way to really enforce it. Schools commit them all of the time, and it largely goes unnoticed… not just by the media, but by the school as well. It’s no coincidence that Sark and Kiffin committed the same secondary violation after leaving USC. At USC, it wasn’t reported as a secondary violation. Orgeron also lamented the strictness of the Compliance Office in Meat Market.
by rblakeh on Jun 8, 2009 9:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Since when . . .
. . . does impossibility or impracticability stop the NCAA from doing something?
;-)
Rocky Top Talk
by Joel on Jun 8, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
None...
of this will matter if Kiffen wins…however if he does not….well you tell me.
by Destindune on Jun 8, 2009 9:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
K-I-F-F-I-N
Official MCM Hater!
Summer 2009 Troll Call: Bedazzlers(2), Ratbirds, Squeelers(2), Rosencopters, Cardinals
by gramsey712 on Jun 8, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops...
I ment kiffy kins, kiffy kat, or douche.
oh yeah, K-I-F-F-I-N
I guess this my secondary violation for this blog.
by Destindune on Jun 8, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"douche"
Did you think of that yourself? Good one.
Official MCM Hater!
Summer 2009 Troll Call: Bedazzlers(2), Ratbirds, Squeelers(2), Rosencopters, Cardinals
by gramsey712 on Jun 8, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ohio State
I don’t doubt that secondary violations are a nearly-weekly occurrence at big-time football schools, but do we not have a more reliable source of Buckeye info than a Michigan blog?
Lou Brock loves Lamp.
by birdjam on Jun 8, 2009 9:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Following the links . . .
. . . we end up at the Columbus Dispatch.
Rocky Top Talk
by Joel on Jun 8, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(You gotta love blogs)
If you’re ever forced to describe the difference between a blog and the MSM in one word, say “links.”
Rocky Top Talk
by Joel on Jun 8, 2009 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, thanks...
I wonder if there is any way to get info on all of the major conference schools by sport?
Lou Brock loves Lamp.
by birdjam on Jun 8, 2009 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is..
if you commit the violation on purpose or by design, it’s not a secondary violation.
Richard Pittman
by Richard Pittman on Jun 8, 2009 12:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The question is then by whose design.
The ESPN piece really appears to be designed by ESPN to highlight the violation. Yet was it a violation premeditated by UT? That part has not yet been discussed anywhere that I’ve seen.
by Hooper on Jun 8, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Catch-22
First of all, it’s not ESPN’s job to keep track of what is a violation and what’s not. I would find it more likely that the film crew didn’t know it was a violation because they are a film crew, not NCAA rulebook experts. Their job is simply to get tape of anything that looks interesting, and if it’s difficult for coaches to keep track of all the NCAA’s arcane rules, then you can forget about the camera staff knowing them.
I generally subscribe to Occam’s razor, and the simplest explanation in this case is that the camera techs didn’t know it was a violation and an editor at ESPN later found out it was during post production. After all, the camera guys film just about everything around them and then editors go through and decide what’s interesting enough to air.
Regardless, it’s a Catch-22 for ESPN. If they air the footage, then it’s a premeditated hit job. If they don’t, it’s a cover up. In the end I think it’s better for Tennessee that it did get aired because that way people can see it’s just a “hey, how ya doing?” kind of conversation. Withholding the footage would only lead to wild conspiracy theories speculating on what scandalous dealings went on this time.
Team Speed Kills
SBNation's SEC Blog
by Year2 on Jun 8, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be willing to give the camera crew more credit than that.
I’m not saying they necessarily knew what was going on, but it’s not like they’ve ever filmed coaches talking to recruits before. Both sides of that coin are viable.
But that’s not what I was really talking about. If there is indeed intent behind the violation, it’s either the fault of Kiffin or of ESPN (or both). If Kiffin intended this, there may be more for the NCAA to work on than a simple secondary. If ESPN asked for the shot as a part of the feature, then they were looking to play the Kiffin-violation angle because it’s good for cheap and easy views. Given how strongly they played the violation thing up (with all that lead-in, then the hammering-home afterwards) it’s a reasonable interpretation.
And I don’t want to risk overthinking this. It’s a secondary at least. If Kiffin orchestrated it, it may go primary. As far as the NCAA is concerned, that’s all that matters.
by Hooper on Jun 8, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just a strange coincidence
that the editing went from Coach talking about secondary violations to AD to Coach committing a secondary violation?
I think not.
Official MCM Hater!
Summer 2009 Troll Call: Bedazzlers(2), Ratbirds, Squeelers(2), Rosencopters, Cardinals
by gramsey712 on Jun 8, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When a film crew is assigned to do an all-access piece like that, they’re going to film everything they possibly can whether they’ve done it before or not. And again: it is not ESPN’s responsibility to be out of the room when recruits are around.
The reason the lead up was so long was because Kiffin has had a long list of controversies since he’s been hired. In addition, throughout the lead up Mike Hamilton is giving the Tennessee side of the story, so that didn’t exactly get hidden. The whole piece closes with positive comments from Layla, Pete Carroll, and Lane. He and two of his biggest supporters got to have the last word.
And in response to memphispete below: I will not deny that individual members of the media can and do have agendas sometimes. In this case, I can’t see anything in Wendi Nix’s background that indicates a bias-related red flag. The big media corporations as a whole though have only one agenda: make money. They are not out to build some teams while destroying others. All they want are eyeballs; nothing more, nothing less.
I’ve seen way too many fan bases way too many times try to make the argument that some media outlet is out to get them. Big Ten fans say that ESPN loves the SEC too much, while SEC fans say that ESPN loves the Big Ten too much. Or, take a look at how USC fans see an agenda in the Reggie Bush/O.J. Mayo investigation at Yahoo! Sports while UCLA fans see it as justified, while the L.A. Times’ relative lack of reporting is seen as bias by UCLA fans but justified by USC fans. In general, media conspiracies are overblown.
Team Speed Kills
SBNation's SEC Blog
by Year2 on Jun 8, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who cares if the camera crew knew?
It’s not only not ESPN’s job to know the rule book, but it’s also not ESPN’s job to educate Lane Kiffin about them. I don’t care what ESPN did, unless they hit a camera in a potted plant without Lane Kiffin’s knowledge, it is KIFFIN’S job to know the rules and to follow the rules. If an ESPN news crew asks you to commit a recruiting violation, the only sensible and proper answer is, “No.”
Richard Pittman
by Richard Pittman on Jun 8, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and if you don’t answer “no”, it’s your own damn fault.
Richard Pittman
by Richard Pittman on Jun 8, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One more thing..
It’s not like this is an obscure rule. It belongs to the common class of rules that can go under the rubric, “Don’t publicize the specifics of your recruiting.” It’s only a bad rule if you think it would be perfectly OK for Nick Saban or Urban Meyer or Mark Richt to have a press conference to tell the world, “We are really going after [player x]. We think he’s great and here’s what we’re going to do to convince him to come to our team. And all you other people who think he should come to our team should get out there and let him know about it.” Because that’s the logical end result of doing away with those kinds of rules.
Richard Pittman
by Richard Pittman on Jun 8, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I sense anger in this one. ;-)
Nobody’s disputing that Kiffin should have kept that from occurring. He’s completely to blame for the actions which he had control over. There’s really nothing more to say about that point than to continue acknowledging it.
Beyond that, I am actually curious whether ESPN was hoping to have something like this happen. It’s not a hey! my school! ARR come to defense! type of thing for me at all. It’s more of a are they looking for news or looking for scandal question, where the former reports scandals if they happen to occur while the latter goes out specifically trying to find/generate a scandal. (Using scandal for lack of a better term.)
by Hooper on Jun 8, 2009 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I buy that "innocent camera crew"
Editor assigns story. Reporter goes on assignment. Camera crew does what it’s told.
The reporter hypothetically researched the story beforehand. She had a specific story line and things she wanted to cover laid out in advance. After all, it isn’t like the whole secondary violation thing with UT has been under the radar.
There is always an agenda with the media. Please do not think that the gotcha angle, from an experienced ESPN reporter, was a surprise.
Also, when the NCAA says ‘secondary violation’, don’t they really mean ‘something completely trivial’?
by memphispete on Jun 8, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like someone said earlier...
If Kiffin wins this year, all this nonsense about these insignificant violations will fade. The only reason they get headlined by ESPN and elsewhere is because he ran his mouth at Urban and Spurrier and others. The media is all over him now because he’s a story…
And Mike Hamilton mentioned this in the piece, but I think that if you’re UT you make sure to self-report these little things so if a big thing does happen, you more or less have that on your side should you need it.
by Home Sweet Home on Jun 8, 2009 1:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Alternate theory
I wonder if the explanation could be as simple as this: ESPN is setting up a shot of Lane in his office. While there, Monte drops off a couple of recruits. Lane says, “Hey. How’s it going?” and then, “Turn off the cameras.”
If it happened that way, though, you’d think UT would have said so immediately.
Rocky Top Talk
by Joel on Jun 8, 2009 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's a violation that the media is present
Even if they weren’t rolling the cameras.
I don’t know if it was orchestrated by CLK or not, but I am sure he asked Joyner (the recruit) if it was all right if ESPN was present.
“Uh… yeah.”
by rblakeh on Jun 8, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's time.
Only a violent overthrow will rid us of this menace known by it’s acronym. N.C.A.A. I’m sharpening my pitchfork right now!
Seriously, why do we allow these effin morons to control athletics? Where’s Vince McMahon when you need him?
by wvvol on Jun 8, 2009 8:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And what exactly is wrong with the rule?
Richard Pittman
by Richard Pittman on Jun 8, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest, nothing is necessarily wrong with the rule itself.
It’s derivation is faulty – a misappropriation of the Privacy Act – but that doesn’t mean that the rule itself is necessarily bad. It just means that their underpinning is susceptible to challenge. Not that anybody necessarily will.
by Hooper on Jun 8, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like when you use those big words hoop!
derivation, misappropriation, underpinning, susceptible
by wvvol on Jun 11, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Animated Drive Charts
RTT Classics
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
