but it is something that needs to be looked at carefully.
Set aside the Tennessee/UConn rivalry and its awkward end.
Set aside your disdain for that smart-ass, disrespectful Philly guy.
Set aside your impatience with the reverence of all things Orange.
And just look at what was said at the Southeastern Conference media day event (and day after interview).
“I’ve never compromised at all, and I wouldn’t. And if I did, they should fire me,” said Summitt. She was asked if she was talking about Bruce Pearl, Tennessee’s men’s basketball coach, who is currently under investigation for recruiting infractions.
“I didn’t have Bruce Pearl on my mind. I probably had Connecticut on my mind. There’s a reason we don’t play them,” she said.
Any way you cut it, Coach Summitt has accused Connecticut of recruiting violations.
A toss away remark, a poor attempt at humor, an attempt to clarify her support for a friend and fellow employee, a deliberate revelation of a known truth — however it got out into the world, there it sits.
The winningest and, easily argued, most respected, visible coach in ALL of women’s basketball has accused the coach of the second most storied program in women’s basketball, the current coach of the United States National team and the president of the WBCA, of cheating.
This is not about a fanbase’s outrage or Itoldyaso.
This isn’t about whether Summitt and Auriemma despise each other.
This isn’t about wondering whether this is “news” the national press should jump all over.
This isn’t about questioning whether the Chris Strobel and the NCAA enforcement crew is doing a thorough job of investigating.
This is about how women’s basketball has said it wants to self-regulate itself.
As they often say, there are some ways in which they don’t want to become like the men’s side. That is why the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association recently established their Ethics Committee which “assists in monitoring ethical standards, enforces appropriate action for any misconduct, and continues to positively influence and uphold ethics in women’s basketball.”
That is why, in September of this year, the following guidelines were laid out by the WBCA:
The WBCA Ethics Committee is comprised of coaching peers and was established in response to a membership perceived lack of communication and accountability among coaches regarding unacceptable behavior. The Committee has been directed to honor the mission statement of the WBCA, which is to develop and foster a reputable identity for the sport of women’s basketball.
In addition, in order to help cultivate a higher standard of conduct and self-regulation regarding recruiting, the Ethics Committee has created a mechanism to identify and act on emerging and/or continuing NCAA violations. Specifically, the procedures outlined below are designed to increase communication between the membership and their respective compliance contacts, and are intended to complement NCAA, conference and institutional systems that are already in place.
The process begins when a coach calls the WBCA to report a potential violation by another coach(es)
Step 1 The initial response from the WBCA will be to clarify the facts of the potential violation, educate/ remind the coach about the processes that are already in place, and to recommend that:
a. the involved coaches discuss the issue amongst themselves;
b. the complaining coach discuss the issue with his/her institutional compliance officer and/or
athletic director;
c. the complaining coach and his/her institutional administrator discuss the issue with their
conference office; and
d. the complaining coach and institution follow proper procedures to notify the NCAA Enforcement staff
Step 2 After receiving a report of a potential violation(s), the WBCA will call the head coach of the program that has allegedly committed the violation(s) (hereafter referred to as respondent coach). Note: the WBCA will call the head coach regardless of whether the allegation(s) was made against an assistant or associate coach. This courtesy call is intended to (1) notify the respondent coach that a colleague has reported a concern and (2) request a response to the allegation(s). The complaining coach’s name will be kept confidential, throughout the process. In addition, the WBCA will remind the respondent coach of his/her obligation to inform his or her own institution of the allegation. The respondent coach has ten business days to reply following the initial WBCA contact. During that time frame, the WBCA will attempt to reach the coach up to three times. If the coach does not respond, the allegation(s) will be forwarded from the WBCA to his/her institution, conference office and possibly the NCAA Enforcement staff.
Step 3 After speaking with the respondent coach, the WBCA will share his/her response with the coach that originally reported the potential violation. At that point, one of the following scenarios will apply:
a. IF AFTER THE EXPLANATION THE COMPLAINING COACH AND RESPONDENT
COACH AGREE THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION THEN THE PROCESS ENDS AND
NO REPORT GOES FORWARD.
b. If the respondent coach agrees that a violation has occurred and agrees to report the violation, then the process is complete. The WBCA will forward a letter to the respondent coaches’ institution and a summary of the case to the co-chairs of the ethics committee.
c. If the complaining coach continues to believe that a violation occurred and the respondent coach disagrees, the WBCA will forward a summary of the case to the co-chairs of the Ethics Committee as well as the ethics committee divisional or regional representative of the respondent coach. Note: In Division I it would be the regional representative, and in Division II and III it would be the divisional representative.) Ethics Committee members are expected to keep all matters brought to their attention confidential. If the Ethics Committee representatives become involved and determine that the nature of the case warrants review by a Hearing Panel (e.g if they believe an NCAA violation may have occurred), they will “Red Flag” the case and the following additional step applies:
Step 4 The Hearing Panel shall include the Ethics Committee co-chairs, the WBCA liaison and an Ethics Committee representative. The Hearing Panel may invite the respondent coach to participate in a conference call. The Hearing Panel has two options for disposition of a case:
a. The Hearing Panel may determine that a case warrants further review by the NCAA, the respondent coaches’ conference office, and/or institution. In such a situation, the full Ethics Committee would review the specifics of the case in order to determine the appropriate entities to be notified. In ANY situation where there is credible evidence to indicate that a NCAA violation has occurred, the WBCA will forward that case to all three entities.
b. The Hearing Panel may determine that the case warrants no further review and will close the case.
Okay, WBCA Ethics Committee (see members below), here’s your first test. And it’s a doozy.
Whatcha got?
| Position |
Name |
School |
| Co-Chair |
Tara VanDerveer |
Stanford |
| Co-Chair & WBCA Alumnae |
Jody Conradt |
Texas |
| Division I/Region 1 |
Harry Perretta |
Villanova |
| Division I/Region 2 |
Sue Semrau |
Florida State |
| Division I/Region 3 |
Sam Dixon |
Furman |
| Division I/Region 4 |
Audra Smith |
UAB |
| Division I/Region 5 |
Sherri Coale |
Oklahoma |
| Division I/Region 6 |
Pam Borton |
Minnesota |
| Division I/Region 7 |
Jane Albright |
Nevada |
| Division I/Region 8 |
June Daugherty |
Washington State |
| Division II |
Sue Ramsey |
Ashland |
| Division III |
Kris Huffman |
DePauw |
| WBCA Staff Liaison |
Shannon Reynolds |
WBCA COO |
Read Full Post »
Women's Hoops Blog 