NCAA Head Coach Responsibilities Legislation

Abstract

A relatively recent change to NCAA legislation has placed increased responsibility and accountability on head coaches for NCAA violations within their programs. The legislation has caught numerous well-known and successful head coaches and universities in its crosshairs.

This Article examines the reasons for and ramifications of these revisions, particularly the legislation’s rebuttable presumption of responsibility conferred on head coaches for actions of staff members. Based on NCAA documents and Committee on Infractions cases, the Article suggests action items for head coaches to undertake to help mitigate the likelihood of a head coach responsibilities allegation and finding. The Article explores procedural changes to the infractions process that would result in increased transparency about the NCAA Enforcement Staff’s expectations of head coaches. This increased transparency would provide valuable information to head coaches that would assist them in promoting a compliant atmosphere and monitoring their staff members. Next, the Article compares head coach responsibilities legislation to the legal theory of respondeat superior. The analysis reveals that, while head coaches may be held vicariously liable for the actions of staff members, the ability to rebut the presumption of responsibility results in a more lenient standard than respondeat superior’s imposition of strict liability on employers. Finally, the Article suggests removal of the legislation’s rebuttable presumption and imposition of a strict liability standard as a means to increase the deterrent effect of head coach responsibilities legislation.

Keywords: NCAA, Committee on Infractions, Head Coach, Vicarious Liability, Respondeat Superior, NCAA Violation