I'm going to steer relatively clear, with a couple of quick comments:
- regarding academic fraud, it is a simple term covering a lot of possibilities. To a certain degree, it probably does go on quite a bit, but there is a big difference between a legitimate, if not very useful course with fairly easy grading that athletes might be directed to take versus a non-existent course, tutors writing papers, etc. I blame the NCAA for bringing this issue on themselves for allowing the relaxing the standards for admission for athletes.
- I'm one of many who thought Paterno, in particular, got slammed on, as I've never seen evidence he personally was involved in a cover-up, although there were certainly employees at the school who did.
- To the extent that the NCAA thinks that coaches should not investigate and just pass it on to superiors, that sounds correct. As a former operational auditor working in conjunction with a security department, I was extremely limited in employee fraud investigations. I wasn't limited from examining evidence but I was limited in who I could discuss it with and in dealing with the suspect(s). The last thing you want is a non-expert messing with a potential criminal investigation.