DIII Runner Not Going to Nationals Because of Clerical Mistake by His Coach

The NCAA is supposed to exist FOR THE ATHLETES. Nick did nothing wrong, he ran the qualifying time fairly and he deserves to run at nationals. If this was a situation where other athletes could be at a disadvantage because of "breaking the rules" I would understand.

I'll bet if you asked every single athlete, coach and parent involved in that race, they would all agree that Nick deserves a spot at nationals. That the NCAA blindly uses the argument of "rules are rules" is ridiculous. I am disgusted at the level of complacency on the NCAA's part. Everyone involved in the decision making process to keep Nick out should be ashamed.

Bingo. In an alternate reality, where an organization which exists only because of student athletes, the NCAA would be looking for a way to INCLDUE student athletes, not exclude them.

Someone needs to remind them why they exist.

the ncaa did nothing wrong by following their procedure, but mistakes are made by humans all the time and when you have a chance to correct a mistake rather than say, "oh well", you'd think any organization or individual would try to make that correction. this was an opportunity to do that and the ncaa let it go by. that in my mind is wrong.

your hypothetical is a good point. i agree that the ncaa should maintain the rule in place, but each case should be looked at individually. just looking at nick's situation, the solution is ridiculously easy. he was either going to enter and race the 10k at d-3 nationals or not race at nationals. those were his only options. his choice obviously wasn't to skip nationals. there's no cheating going on here. no behind the scenes scheme.

ljkdfld wrote:

The NCAA is supposed to exist FOR THE ATHLETES.

Here's the NCAA's core purpose (from their website):

Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

Nick's education in this case is that life is not fair. How does the NCAA have any obligation whatsoever to let Nick into the meet when it was not their error?

Why did I present the hypothetical? To show that a situation like Nick's can be abused. Of course I used numbers that helped my case...why wouldn't I? If Nick is let into this meet, the coach in my hypothetical has every right to sue based on precedence if his athlete is not allowed in, but like I said before, we would all agree that letting in his athlete would be wrong.

Maybe I missed this but why does the coach have to declare the athletes to begin with...wouldn't it be easier to have coaches just let the NCAA know if they don't plan to compete??

A good try at a similar scenario but not the same. Nick actually qualified in an event and was mistakingly entered in an event he hadn't qualified in. Your hypothetical runner was trying to enter an event he had not qualified for but had the more likely chance of getting into. When it turned out he could have run in another event he was even less likely to get into, he made an illogical statement that that was the event he'd really wanted to try and qualify for.

The whole deal with the scrathes confues me. Are they filling out the field with other runners who put their names in the hat, who have slower times than Nick. Or are they going to run the race with less participants.

I love how everyone's talking about the NCAA like it's some huge conspiracy out to "get" the athletes. They're the same people who made varsity in high school but didn't run in college because the American collegiate system "ruins" runners. I can just picture their idea of NCAA HQ: a bunch of crusty old men in blue blazers and straw hats sitting around the RCA Dome scheming new ways to screw student athletes and doing backstrokes through swimming pools full of money a la Scrooge McDuck. Very few on this board have ever worked on the administration side of the sport. I'm not an employee of the NCAA, but did work at the high school state level. It's damn near impossible to judge everything on a case-by-case basis. If you do it once, you have every Tom, Dick, and Harry coming to you, wanting to make exceptions. It would be a mess.

Nick went to a lawyer who specializes in athletic cases, and even he said there was no case. Shouldn't this be a sign that the NCAA is not at fault?

Yes, to govern comptiton in a

1) FAIR

and

2) SPORTSMANLIKE manner.

I would call this situation neither fair nor sportsmanlike.

You know, I am starting to get annoyed by what is deemed important now adays in track and field.

For example - we had a girls 4x800 a couple years back that won the state title but got DQ'd because of different sports bras.

Another team got dQ'd because of an earing. apparently this earing had magical powers that made the girl run 20 seconds faster

It seems now that by god if something cosmetic that does not increase performance in anyway is there then you will be kicked out. Heaven forbid they don't look pretty enough.

However, I constantly watch athletes shove other athletes in front of judges during races. I have seen fist fights durign races, people tripping other runners during a race all in front of judges, and yet I have NEVER seen these called.

i think we spend too much time focusing on the small stupid things like an accidental clicking of the wrong button, and say sorry you cant run, rather than focusing on what is right and just. Nick should be allowed to run. So okay the NCAA did nothing wrong I get that, but they are in the position to make a strong moral decision: Nick runs-we acre about the athlete, Nick doesnt run- We care about the silly little things, screw the athlete that makes us rich.

By the by, if this happened to say Bairu -would he be aloowed to run?

There are some saying the NCAA is at fault - because of their bureaucratic approach to the situation.

Others say Nick's coach is at fault.

First and foremost, Nick's coach is at fault (admittedly) for clicking the wrong box.

Second, Nick's coach went to the NCAA immediately upon finding his mistake (much prior to the meet).

Third, the NCAA COULD HAVE made a revised heat sheet, with all competitors + Nick, and cited "clerical error".

That would have been the end of this story IF the NCAA was a non-bureaucratic organization.

However, the NCAA decided in its infinite wisdom to be a donkey here and dig in its heels.

The only person here being punished is Nick. That's the injustice. Nick's most likely legal case would be against the coach (which is ridiculous), not the NCAA. But if you sued the coach, it doesn't get you into the NCAA meet.

You could get a lawyer to file an injunction to get the NCAA to put Nick on the starting line (it's been done before at a different level) - then upholding their "DQ" of him later.

In the end - the best course of action for the NCAA would've been for them to issue a new heat sheet immediately after being notified of the error, and cite "clerical error".

Now that opportunity is gone - and I doubt Nick will be on the starting line.

To anyone who says that the NCAA did nothing wrong because they followed procedure... Did any of you at all stop to think that maybe something is wrong because the procedure is wrong? If we just blindly followed laws and procedures that were already in place, because they aren't wrong, just following procedure, where would we be now? Sometimes you have to take a stand for a rule that is wrong. And I think that this is a case for that here.

Fine...what procedure should be changed? What should it be changed to? What "rule" is wrong? Find me the specific rule in the NCAA handbook that we should all take a stand for.

15min wrote:

To anyone who says that the NCAA did nothing wrong because they followed procedure... Did any of you at all stop to think that maybe something is wrong because the procedure is wrong? If we just blindly followed laws and procedures that were already in place, because they aren't wrong, just following procedure, where would we be now? Sometimes you have to take a stand for a rule that is wrong. And I think that this is a case for that here.

I'm going to disagree iwith you here. I think that this is a situation that warrants looking at the specifics. They've probably already wasted more time trying to keep him out of the meet.

By the way, regarding you first comment, I'm a 6 time NCAA all american and i've run sub 1:50. What have you done?

15min wrote:

To anyone who says that the NCAA did nothing wrong because they followed procedure... Did any of you at all stop to think that maybe something is wrong because the procedure is wrong? If we just blindly followed laws and procedures that were already in place, because they aren't wrong, just following procedure, where would we be now? Sometimes you have to take a stand for a rule that is wrong. And I think that this is a case for that here.

Exactly.

I just e-mailed this story to Rick Reilly of SI and Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports. Not that it will help Nick run his race, but it may spotlight the inflexibilty of the NCAA and encourage them to adopt newer and better procedures. Change CAN happen, if enough people speak up about it and if the organization sees how embarrassing it can be to have situations like this happen over and over again. Even the most entrenched bureaucracy will be forced to change in the face of overwhelming negative publicity ... I've seen it happen many times.

As both an All-American and a former CMU athlete and teammate of Nick's, I think the point that was made a few threads back makes the most salient point. Knowing both Nick and Coach Donatelli in this case, it's a shame that the athlete is being punished for something out of his control, and its a shame that Coach is taking heat for something that no more than a simple mistake. It's totally asinine that there was already a scratch in the 10k and STILL no action was taken.

At what point does simple common sense take over in situations like this? The expense is not an issue. Overcrowding the heat is not an issue. There appears to be no real constricting factor keeping Nick from competing other than the NCAA being totally inflexible, which is unfair because Nick deserves it - I've seen him bust his ass for four years while the rest of the sprinters and I sat around in the shade.

ivy plants wrote:

Say a runner is 12th on the 1500 list and 15th on the 800 list for a fictional national meet. The meet historically takes 10 in an event, so the coach figures the 1500 is his runner's best shot, so he doesn't bother entering him in the 800. Now let's say six runners don't declare in the 800 while everyone delares in the 1500. The runner is out of the 1500, but would be in on time in the 800 had he entered. The coach can now use the CMU coach's defense and say "Oops, entered him in the wrong event by accident...can I get a do over?" If you let Nick into the meet, you'd have to let our fictional mid-distance runner in as well, which I think everyone would agree is shady and wrong.

You are exactly right ivypants...maybe this is an extreme situation, but this was what I was thinking as well...there will be some ass hole somewhere out there that'd be more than willing to abuse the precedent set by this.

I feel horrible for Nick...the NCAAs were all I cared about, and if I didn't get in my senior year, I would have been crushed, but still, he doesn't have a leg to stand on...the coach made the error.

Can any coaches at the collegiate level answer this:

1) When you register online for a meet, are you not given an email confirmation of your entries so that you can in fact double check that everything is correct?

2) Does the NCAA handbook have a rule in place for this? The NFHS handbook clearly states that meet management has the right to set a reasonable deadline for entries. A deadline is just that....I hate to be harsh, but welcome to the real world.

3) How long is the registration period open for a meet like this?....ie, how long does one have to verify the marks/entries of their athletes?

Commentary: I think this absolutely sucks for the athlete, but I really have to side with the NCAA on this. It does in fact set a precedence if they allow him into the meet that can be used every year after...guess what, we live in a litigious society (unfortunately). To set the rule aside at this point is unethical. The only solution that I see, as stated in an earlier post, is to levy a large fine on the school for the mistake and allow him in. This solution would be filed under "late entries or declerations" and could in fact be the change that is necessary.

Yes, this is exactly the right perspective. Nobody is arguing that the NCAA shouldn't enforce rules and live by certain procedures. But, in life, there are always cases that need special consideration. Your wife just had a massive heart attack and you are racing her to the hospital. A police officer pulls you over for speeding. Does he/she: A). Look at your sick wife, ignore the circumstances, and proceed back to his/her patrol car to write you up a ticket ORB.) Give you a high-speed, siren-blaring escort to the hospital? For those of you arguing for procedure, I assume you would fall into the A category. For those clamoring for a look at the specifics of the situation, I'll assume you fall into the B category. The NCAA (and similarly the USATF) has a reputation (fairly or unfairly) of being totally inflexible and falling into the A category. From my perspective, athletes and coaches clamoring that this has to change, can have an impact and can drive change to consider situations and "make the right call." Again, I doubt any of this will help Nick. The NCAA had a chance to not punish an athlete for an honest coach's mistake, but has chosen not to do so. However, if enough people complain and the issue gains enough exposure, maybe next time things will play out differently.Hoovis

15min wrote:

To anyone who says that the NCAA did nothing wrong because they followed procedure... Did any of you at all stop to think that maybe something is wrong because the procedure is wrong? If we just blindly followed laws and procedures that were already in place, because they aren't wrong, just following procedure, where would we be now? Sometimes you have to take a stand for a rule that is wrong. And I think that this is a case for that here.

Exactly.

I just e-mailed this story to Rick Reilly of SI and Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports. Not that it will help Nick run his race, but it may spotlight the inflexibilty of the NCAA and encourage them to adopt newer and better procedures. Change CAN happen, if enough people speak up about it and if the organization sees how embarrassing it can be to have situations like this happen over and over again. Even the most entrenched bureaucracy will be forced to change in the face of overwhelming negative publicity ... I've seen it happen many times.[/quote]

Yes, this is exactly the right perspective. Nobody is arguing that the NCAA shouldn't enforce rules and live by certain procedures. But, in life, there are always cases that need deeper consideration. For example, let's assume your spouse just had a massive heart attack and you are racing him/her to the hospital. A police officer pulls you over for speeding. Does he/she:

A). Look at your sick spouse, ignore the circumstances, and proceed back to his/her patrol car to write you up a ticket OR

B.) Give you a high-speed, siren-blaring escort to the hospital?

For those of you arguing for procedure, I assume you would fall into the A category. For those clamoring for a look at the specifics of the situation, I'll assume you fall into the B category.

Now, I realize I used an extreme example (one of life vs. death), but the NCAA (and similarly the USATF) does have a reputation (fairly or unfairly) of being totally inflexible and falling into the A category. From my perspective, athletes and coaches clamoring that this has to change, can have an impact and can drive change to consider situations and "make the right call."

Again, I doubt any of this will help Nick. The NCAA had a chance to not punish an athlete for an honest coach's mistake, but has chosen not to do so. However, if enough people complain and the issue gains enough exposure, maybe next time things will play out differently.

Hoovis