The Mechanics of the Show-Cause

#1
kidbourbon

kidbourbon

Disgusting!
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
5,040
Likes
20
#1
As I understand it, the show-cause penalty is only relevant for a coach seeking employment from a member institution. In other words, before a school can hire a guy who has been hit with this penalty, they would have to "show cause" as to why they should be able to hire that individual without negative repercussion.

This penalty is therefore only going to be given to a guy who has already been fired. By definition, it doesn't apply to a guy who already has a job. So if Pearl doesn't get fired, the question of show-cause doesn't even come into play. And if he does get fired, none of us should really particularly care whether he gets hit with the penalty as it will be quite irrelevant to our program.

So why is it that everybody and their cousin on this board seems fixated on the "show-cause" vs. not "show-cause" issue? Why is it continually raised and discussed in seemingly every thread on this board?

What is it that I'm missing or misunderstanding about this particular penalty? Somebody please enlighten me.
 
#2
#2
I think people just use the term "show cause" as a sort of umbrella term since it is the most severe of the penalties that the NCAA can hit a coach with. The assumed fallout is that a show cause makes a coach radioactive and any school employing a coach saddled with that penalty will surely get nailed by the NCAA as well to the tune of scholarship reductions and a post season ban.
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
I admit I dont understand alot about it, so IF CBP doesnt get fired, the "show cause" doesnt really affect us? Or would there be other penalty such as a ban? If the NCAA doesn't think that CBP will be fired, would they use a different penalty? I am confused...
 
#5
#5
Show cause can be given to a coach who has a current job. The penalty will put them on probation/suspension and before being allowed to return to full duty the institution, UT, will have to show cause.
 
#6
#6
SpringBokVol said:
Show cause can be given to a coach who has a current job. The penalty will put them on probation/suspension and before being allowed to return to full duty the institution, UT, will have to show cause.
Click to expand...

Can you cite an example -- other than Tarkanian* -- of this ever happening?

*Who never ended up having to sit out a single game.
 
#8
#8
Bruce Pearl- Lied to NCAA about feeding cheeseburgers and potato salad to recruits at his house. After the cookout, Pearl called the recruits and begged them not to give up his wife's recipe for the potato salad, claiming it was a family secret.
 
#9
#9
Only one coach thats returned to coaching after being hit with the show cause penalty. I find that interesting.
 
#12
#12
I found this interesting on the Wiki show cause page when discussing Dave Bliss:
"Two of his assistants were also given show-cause penalties of five and seven years, respectively. The assistant who taped the conversations escaped NCAA punishment, but has been effectively blackballed by the coaching fraternity; his only coaching job since the scandal was one year as a graduate assistant at a Division II school."
 
#13
#13
The question I have is, what is a valid "cause" that a school can "show"?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
This whole thing has been blown out of proportion--and there is no disputing the fact that the NCAA sanctions are all over the map. They are usually quite lenient with just about everybody. Yea, Pearl lied and that's serious--but given the nature of the original offense, I'm not getting why they want to destroy his career. Good grief: Calapari takes a guy (Rose) who was fraudulently admitted to Memphis (somebody else took his SAT), then skips down and no sanctions at all! Calhoun commits major violations and he barely gets a slap on the wrist--program on probation for three years (meaningless), scholarship loss from 13 to 12, and a three game suspension. Please!
 
#18
#18
WeldVol said:
A little history of the NCAA's show cause rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show-Cause_Penalty_(NCAA)


hit the SHOW CAUSE PENALTY(NCAA)
Click to expand...

That page doesn't answer my question.

For one, it defines the penalty as:
an order saying that a coach involved in major rules violations at a university's athletic program may not be hired by any other NCAA member institutions without permission from the Infractions Committee for a set period of time. If a university seeks to hire such a coach, they must "show cause" as to why they should not be penalized for hiring him
Click to expand...

Secondly, in all of the examples listed, the coach was either fired or resigned.

One nugget of information I did pick up from that page was actually from the link at the bottom of the page to the article about the sanctions against Oklahoma State. It said this:
Included in the NCAA report is a 12-year coaching probation for Anderson. The NCAA infractions committee, which prepared the probation report, also indicated that had Anderson still been employed by OSU, he would have been dissociated from the school.
Click to expand...

The underlined portion is interesting because I'm fairly certain the NCAA doesn't have the power to fire a coach. Going back to the Tarkanian example, they tried to make UNLV fire Tarkanian, and that didn't work out so well for them.

So, again, if anybody has any examples of the show-cause penalty for a still-employed coach, please post.
 
#19
#19
Bassmanbruno said:
There isn't one and they can't basically.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. The reason schools historically haven't tried to "show cause" is simply that (a) it is a huge risk for them, and (b) it is likely an administrative nightmare.

Regarding (a), which is the more important of the two: assume University Y jumps through the NCAA's procedural hoops and shows cause to hire Coach X, and then hires Coach X. Assume further that a year later Coach X commits a recruiting violation. University Y is now screwed.

This is why they don't do it. Not because it isn't possible to pull off...but because it's just a huge huge risk.
 
#22
#22
kidbourbon said:
This isn't true. The reason schools historically haven't tried to "show cause" is simply that (a) it is a huge risk for them, and (b) it is likely an administrative nightmare.

Regarding (a), which is the more important of the two: assume University Y jumps through the NCAA's procedural hoops and shows cause to hire Coach X, and then hires Coach X. Assume further that a year later Coach X commits a recruiting violation. University Y is now screwed.

This is why they don't do it. Not because it isn't possible to pull off...but because it's just a huge huge risk.
Click to expand...

So - in other words - it's impossible.

It will never be tested or fought so it's moot and basically still what I said - I know there is "technically" a way around it.. but it just isn't going to happen.
 
#23
#23
Bassmanbruno said:
So - in other words - it's impossible.

It will never be tested or fought so it's moot and basically still what I said - I know there is "technically" a way around it.. but it just isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...


It's possible, but the fact that it is possible is essentially nullified by the fact that it is substantially impractical.

I realize that we don't really disagree and that I'm being a little bit anal in trying to correctly characterize it. So forgive me -- I'm a lawyer; I can't help myself.
 
#24
#24
So UNLV tried to buck the NCAA over Tark ?

UT could withdraw from the NCAA and keep Pearl.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top