The Oregonian’s Andrew Greif:
After the pages detailing [Oregon head coach Dana] Altman’s potential earnings is a new section requiring him to meet annually with the university president, athletic director and compliance director to discuss his team’s progress in sticking with the rules. Altman also must “create written procedures to ensure that the men’s basketball staff, including assistant coaches, is monitoring” compliance.
All of these are part of the NCAA’s suggestions for head coaches to prove they are promoting an atmosphere of compliance and monitoring their staff. Proving these two elements is required if a head coach wants to rebut the presumption that he or she is responsible for the violations of a subordinate. Putting this into Altman’s contract gives him a strong incentive to take the NCAA’s advice, if he did not have one already.
It also makes sense for Oregon to make sure Altman is taking care of his head coach responsibilities. The NCAA is moving toward a philosophy of holding individuals more accountable than institutions. But that is much easier to justify for the violations of an assistant coach whose head coach proved he or she was not responsible than a violation where the head coach could not prove adequate monitoring or promotion of an atmosphere of compliance. A head coach found responsible for an assistant’s violations will raise questions of the institution’s monitoring and control procedures. Those are exactly the questions an institution is looking to avoid when a violation occurs.