When South Carolina head basketball coach Frank Martin was fined $25,000 on Monday for his weekend comments on the SEC’s officiating decisions, there was no element of surprise.

It’s been the league’s policy for years to reprimand coaches or ask for a payment when a coach decides to publicly question decisions made in games by officials, or the conference’s decisions in assigning said officials. It’s even somewhat of a running joke among the league’s coaches to make light of potential fines in post game press conferences if asked about the way the game was called.

Yet the league cannot even enforce that policy with any semblance of consistency; women’s head coach Dawn Staley was not fined recently for her comments questioning official assignments after a road loss to Missouri. That inconsistency has bled over to an area that’s of much greater importance than perceived official biases or calling a block versus a charge.

That type of irregularity in making decisions is exactly why the situation between Missouri and South Carolina has been festering for two weeks.

Missouri athletics director Jim Sterk has not had to break out the check book; fortunately for him in leveling his accusations two weeks ago he did not dare cross the line of questioning the league’s officials.

What he did do was accuse South Carolina women’s basketball coach Dawn Staley of “promoting” an environment inside Colonial Life Arena that included spitting on players and racial slurs. For that, nothing has been done on a public basis.



South Carolina immediately launched an investigation that turned up no proof of that fan behavior, certainly no evidence that Staley encouraged or aided it, and there’s been no evidence proffered by the league office or Missouri.

Had it happened, a strong argument could be made that South Carolina’s administration should be reprimanded as well; it is the university’s responsibility to ensure those things do not happen.

It’s also obvious that USC athletics director Ray Tanner would have no tolerance for, to borrow a term he popularized, shenanigans of that sort. Tanner once suspended his own men’s basketball coach for “inappropriate verbal communication as it relates to the well-being of our student-athletes.”

Tanner has not hidden anything; it's the league office that has tucked its tail and chosen to run.

The thing is, it does not matter if that behavior even happened, although it should be addressed swiftly if evidence comes to light that it did. It would not even matter if Staley did foster that environment, although there is not even an argument to be made that she did. It does not even matter that many Carolina fans are peeved and many Missouri fans think this is all much ado about nothing.

It carries no weight that some USC fans think Ray Tanner should be raising almighty heck about this publicly; there’s one man with the power to do something on a conference level and it’s not Tanner.

Even if one gave Sterk the benefit of the doubt that the alleged fan behavior took place, Sterk took it to another level by calling Staley’s character into question, in essence stating that she encouraged a place where fans could treat opponents in that manner.

It could be that nobody will ever know why Sterk’s comments were made. Maybe he was personally upset with Staley for previously commenting on Missouri’s style of play. Perhaps he had not seen the type of raucous environment created by fans inside the Gamecocks’ home arena, given that South Carolina averages four times as many fans per home contest as Missouri.

There have been conversations and a meeting between conference officials, Sterk and Tanner, but no public apology, no announcement of a fine, no public reprimand. The league office is surely not happy about the situation, and if Sankey’s indeed said something strong behind closed doors, fine. Why does that policy not apply to other far less serious matters of league discipline? What is said in private is of little consequence because there has been no real remedy, no resolution.

The conference does not need multiple meetings and two weeks to determine when coaches cross the line of criticizing its officials. Why does the conference need multiple meetings and two weeks to decide that an administrator's taking this public (firstly) and (secondly) accusing a conference head coach of promoting racism and attacks on opposing players is a clear violation of the rules and unacceptable behavior worthy of discipline?

It's just one of many examples, but Frank Martin broke the rules and was held accountable. Jim Sterk broke the rules, and he’s since toured the media with talk of moving on and quotes from Forrest Gump.

When Greg Sankey released his statement accompanying the news of Frank Martin’s fine on Monday, it was accompanied by a pat on the back of what the conference has done to improve its officiating practices, but also the reason that Martin was being disciplined: SEC Bylaw 10.5.4, which prohibits public criticism of officials.

When Sankey released a statement in the aftermath of the Missouri/South Carolina flap, it noted: “competition among SEC teams is highly intense but can never compromise the expectation of respect between our institutions.”

In saying that, Sankey indirectly gave the language of other conference bylaws, but chose not to attach a bit of action to that statement. From that same section Sankey pulled from in Martin’s reprimand, section 10, (labeled “sportsmanship), 10.5.1 states that “coaches and administrators shall refrain from public criticism of other member institutions, their staffs or players. Coaches and administrators shall also refrain from making public statements and accusations with regard to infractions concerning member institutions and their personnel.” 10.5.2 reads: “Coaches and administrators shall make every attempt to promote the Conference and its members in a positive manner.”

Section 4.4.3 grants Sankey the power to fine, suspend, publicly and/or privately reprimand institutions, coaches, and athletics directors for indiscretions – without limitation. The SEC’s bylaws almost comically protect officials, but there are also clearly protections built in for institutions and their coaches, players, and administrators.

If Sankey likes to talk about institutions respecting one another, why is he not making decisions that show he’s serious about it? Why is he selectively enforcing rules? If he's taken no action on Sterk because he believed something negative happened inside the CLA that day, why not address them both with appropriate action?



The one man with the power to hold Sterk liable for his behavior has thus far bent over backwards in an effort to stand pat. Sankey could have fixed this quite early, and very simply. Yet his inaction could lead to more action, and a mess that he would be wise to avoid. It’s a miscalculation, one that carries no rhyme or reason. Both of these fine institutions are worse off because of these decisions, or lack thereof.

By doing nothing Greg Sankey is saying everything. In this league, protecting the officials and how the conference’s officials are perceived is more important than protecting member institutions, its coaches, administrators, and players, safeguarding how they are perceived, and "fostering" good relations between the league's 14 schools.



To the SEC, college basketball official Lee Cassell's reputation is apparently worth $25,000. College basketball coach Dawn Staley's is apparently worthless.

Enough of the statements: instead of just talking, Sankey needs to take action.

It just means more.

*** Not a Gamecock Central Subscriber? Learn why you should subscribe from our members themselves ***