The University of Southern California's (USC) football program has been placed on probation for one year following an agreement with the NCAA. The agreement acknowledges that eight of the program's analysts "impermissibly participated in" on- and off-field coaching activities during the spring and fall of 2022 and the spring of 2023. While the university will have to pay a $50,000 fine, head coach Lincoln Riley will not face suspension, as the NCAA found he was not personally involved in or aware of the violations at the time they occurred.

Navigating the Complexities of College Football Compliance

Analysts' Role and the Challenges of Oversight

The use of analysts in college football programs has become increasingly common, as they provide valuable support to coaching staff without being subject to the same restrictions as full-time coaches. However, the line between their permissible and impermissible activities can be blurred, as it is often challenging to police their involvement in on-field instruction and coaching. The NCAA's decision to penalize USC for these violations highlights the need for rigorous compliance measures and close monitoring of all personnel within a program.

Institutional Control and the Lessons of the Past

This is not the first time USC has faced significant NCAA sanctions. In 2010, the university received one of the harshest punishments in recent memory, including a two-year postseason ban, four-year probation, and the loss of 30 football scholarships. That penalty was levied due to a lack of institutional control, a finding that has guided the university's approach to compliance and risk management in the years since.

The Balancing Act of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)

The USC case also sheds light on the university's relatively conservative and risk-averse approach to NIL spending, which has at times frustrated a portion of the fan base. This approach, however, is likely a direct result of the lessons learned from the 2010 sanctions and the university's desire to avoid similar missteps in the future.

Collaborative Investigations and the Importance of Transparency

The NCAA described the investigation into the USC violations as "collaborative" with the university, indicating a willingness on both sides to work together to address the issues. This collaborative approach, coupled with USC's proactive measures to enhance its compliance efforts, may have contributed to the relatively lenient penalties imposed. The case serves as a reminder that transparency and cooperation can be key factors in navigating the complex landscape of NCAA compliance.

The Evolving Landscape of College Football Coaching

The NCAA's recent decision to lift restrictions on the number of coaches allowed on a staff has led to the promotion of several analysts to full-time coaching positions at USC and other programs. This shift highlights the ongoing evolution of the college football coaching landscape and the need for programs to stay vigilant in their compliance efforts as the rules continue to change.

The Importance of Accountability and Continuous Improvement

While the penalties imposed on USC may be seen as relatively minor, the case serves as a reminder that even the most successful programs are not immune to compliance issues. By taking responsibility for the violations, implementing additional compliance measures, and demonstrating a commitment to continuous improvement, USC has the opportunity to emerge from this situation as a model of accountability and transparency in college athletics.