As the NCAA readies its case, Arizona should brace for the worst (just ask USC)

The NCAA hammer was officially raised this week when Stan Wilcox, the VP for regulatory affairs, told CBS Sports that six programs are expected to receive notices of allegations this summer for major rules violations stemming from the corruption scandal.

That hit list could very well feature Arizona and USC — both employed assistant coaches who pleaded guilty to federal bribery charges — but almost certainly will include at least one.

Arizona is our betting favorite.

And if you’re wondering exactly which NCAA rule former assistants Book Richardson (Arizona) and Tony Bland (USC) might have violated, Bylaw 10.1 is a good place to start.

It defines unethical conduct as including, but not limited to:

“(d) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., “runner”)”

Yes, Arizona: The bribes accepted by Richardson constitute grounds for punishment even though there’s no evidence the players received a dime and no definitive proof coach Sean Miller paid players or was attempting to pay players or knew anything about Richardson’s actions.

That punishment is likely to be severe given the NCAA’s practical and political needs at the moment.

After so much talk of reform and the moral high ground staked out by the Rice Commission, NCAA president Mark Emmert cannot let programs go unpunished when there is irrefutable proof of violations.

If Arizona and USC (and others) aren’t sanctioned for assistant coaches committing federal bribery, why bother with a rulebook in the first place? Emmert might as well dismount from the high horse, hand in his sheriff’s badge and enter the transfer portal to irrelevance.

Add the potential for penalties against Miller and USC’s Andy Enfield, and the sanctions could take on greater severity as they roll through the NCAA’s system of justice.

Both head coaches will be evaluated by the infractions committee on a number of issues:

What did they know?

What should they have known?

Did they create an atmosphere of compliance?

Are they responsible for the actions of their assistants under Bylaw 11.1.1.1?

For our purposes, however, let’s assume the NCAA finds no proof that Miller paid players, attempted to pay players or knew his longtime assistant was on the take.

How harshly could the Wildcats be sanctioned for Richardson and Richardson alone? The Hotline has been pondering that issue for weeks and always reaches the same conclusion:

Presuming the outcome of any NCAA decision is dangerous, whether it’s the severity of sanctions or the ruling on a request for immediate eligibility.

Far better to establish the extreme, then work back to what seems reasonable given the circumstances.

And for the extreme, let’s examine how the NCAA adjudicated the case against USC — the case against USC and Reggie Bush.

After re-reading news reports and comments by NCAA officials during and after that lengthy ordeal, one thing became immediately clear: the NCAA has far more proof against Book Richardson than it did against Todd McNair, the former USC assistant who was a central figure in the Bush case.

McNair’s perceived involvement served as the primary justification for the NCAA to hammer the Trojans with a two-year bowl ban and the loss of 30 scholarships over three years.

The NCAA concluded that McNair “knew or should have known” that Bush and his family were receiving cash and benefits from a prospective sports marketing agency.

The basis for that determination? A two-minute phone call, and a photo.

* The infamous dead-of-night conversation between McNair and would-be agent Lloyd Lake used to link the Trojans to the violations was anything but conclusive. Lake changed his account during an interview with the NCAA and offered no proof — only his assumption — that McNair knew that Bush and his family were accepting cash.

* The photograph shows McNair, Lake and two other men. McNair isn’t holding a wad of cash earmarked for Bush. He isn’t burning the NCAA rulebook. It’s a picture of four guys posing for the camera in a nightclub.

With that call and photograph as the launchpoints, the NCAA steamrollered USC.

Meanwhile, here’s what was shown in federal court in April:

“Videos of the coach taking envelopes full of cash on two separate occasions. Richardson received $5,000 in cash on June 20, 2017 in a New York City hotel and $15,000 the following month … Richardson said on tape that he needed the money to recruit (Jahvon) Quinerly, a point guard prospect, to play at Arizona.”

There’s zero doubt that the USC case got personal for NCAA officials — in part because the Trojans refused to cooperate — and that dynamic helped push the sanctions to levels that far exceeded the evidence.

There’s also little doubt that the basketball corruption scandal is personal for Emmert, who has staked his legacy on reforming the sport that generates 75 percent of the NCAA’s revenue.

With the issuance of notices of allegations fast approaching, the prudent approach for Arizona is to buckle up, bear down and prepare for anything.

Why we need your support: Like so many other providers of local journalism across the country, the Hotline’s parent website, mercurynews.com, recently moved to a subscription model. A few Hotline stories will remain free each month (as will the newsletter), but for access to all content, you’ll need to subscribe. The good news for Hotline faithful: I’ve secured a discount: 12 cents per day for 12 months. Click here to subscribe. And thanks for your loyalty.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline

*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.

Share this: Print

View more on The Mercury News