The Chronicle of Higher Education reports today that West Virginia University’s men’s soccer program was placed on probation from unethical conduct stemming from a former coach.
According to the report, the NCAA has placed the Mountaineers on two-years probation and bared the team from off-campus and international recruiting during that time frame. The school had placed limitations on recruiting, but those were extended by the NCAA.
The violations stem from former coach Mike Seabolt who told international players to falsify information regarding professional experience, provided free housing, and encouraged players to practice or participate with an off-campus team that he was affiliated with. WVU’s compliance director Brad Cox blamed Seabolt who was let go in 2006 for the violations.
Marlon LeBlanc was named the head coach prior to the start of the 2006 season.
This, along with other violations the NCAA issues, raises an interesting question. Should coaches who are accused of violations and are fired or resign to take other positions take the punishment with them? In other words, should the punishment follow the coach and not the school.
In this situation, it appears that it was the coach and not the school that was involved in the violations. Yet, the school will pay the majority of the punishment in recruiting limitations. Though Seabolt is limited on what recruiting he can initiate at Missouri State University, where he currently coaches, West Virginia is left to clean up the mess.
Now you can take two lines of thought here, I believe.
The first is that the school, in this case, West Virginia, hired Seabolt and is this responsible for his actions while an employee of the university. Therefore, WVU would be responsible for any all infractions created by the former coach.
But, is that fair to LeBlanc and current team members who were not involved in the situation. The same can be said at Oklahoma where Jeff Capel has to live with some of the punishments handed down because of Kelvin Sampson’s recruiting violations. Though much of the punishment followed Sampson to Indiana, Oklahoma still reduced scholarships as a punishment.
That leads to the second argument which is that if the coach leaves, if the coach is the primary guilty party in the violation, then the school he moves to should carry the punishment. The flip side to that argument is that you are then punishing an institution for something that it had no involvement in other than hiring of a coach.
Perhaps the best solution is to punish the coach where applicable and punish the school where applicable. In this case, it appears, that Seabolt should have received the largest sum of the punishment. He told players to lie about professional experience and attempted to recruit players for an outside team.
If anything, West Virginia should be punished for providing free housing to students. That could be rectified through back payments by athletes and the reduction in scholarships.
The NCAA should take a look at punishment for violation and look at a more equitable way to punish violators to where it’s fair for all parties involved.