Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s opinion.
Bleacher Fan poses an interesting question – should the NCAA even bother with recruiting rules in the age of “self-reporting” and NCAA nonchalant governance. Of course they should! The NCAA must have some measures in place to protect against entities (and coaches, boosters, etc.) that are seeking to exploit athletically talented students for their own gain and fortune. Protection of the student-athlete is one of the primary reasons recruiting rules came to fruition in the first place – along with the need to comply with Federal law and level the athletic playing field between institutions. However, rules that are open to a wide array of possible interpretation and a general lack of strict enforcement has distracted from the real value these rules still contain. It’s time to close the loops and get serious.
What started (in 1890) as a basic set of instructions for how a college coach can seek an athlete’s talents for their various teams – and, lest we forget, their intellect for the institution they represent – has devolved into a secret battle where opposing coaches try any method possible to reach out to a high school student-athlete, make a connection, and secure their talent. If a coach goes to an extreme to get a student admitted into a school (such as complicity in faking SAT/ACT scores) or students knowingly cheating in class in order to maintain their academic eligibility (ahem, Alabama, ahem, Florida State… ahem), then those students and coaches involved should receive a penalty. A big penalty. They’re cheating. If a student is expelled for cheating in a class, why does an athletic program or coach get a pass for cheating? Because the rules are poorly written and improperly enforced, not because they aren’t good rules.
To play sports in college a student must adhere to certain academic standards. If those standards are not met (or completely ignored in some cases) then the athlete becomes a de facto professional athlete, not a student athlete, and the playing field is no longer level. Therefore, the rules must exist.
But, it is not the rules themselves that are an issue, rather the NCAA’s decision about when and how to enforce them, and when they choose to turn a blind eye. The so-called “Death Penalty” for athletic programs at an institution is losing the specter of intimidation because it’s never been effectively used. The first instance of the rule being invoked involved Kentucky men’s basketball got the Death Penalty in 1953 after a point-shaving scandal. Somehow, they managed to get back into the NCAA Tournament after two years, and win another championship before the decade ended. In fact, in each instance where the penalty was levied, the athletic program managed to resurface later. Kinda takes the “Death” out of the “Death Penalty” – doesn’t it?
The enforcement issue comes from a convoluted definition of the core NCAA recruiting rule – what constitutes a “lack of institutional control?” Here’s how the NCAA defines that term:
“In a situation in which adequate institutional procedures exist, at least on paper, a practical, common-sense approach is appropriate in determining whether they are adequately monitored and enforced by a person in “control.”
Huh? Something tells me the “practical, common-sense approach” is widely defined and applied when determining punishments for offending institutions. Also, why is the program always at fault? Why doesn’t the NCAA ban a coach, or this mysterious “control” person, if they break the rules?
The rules exist because they’re important. But, the NCAA is terrible at responsibly enforcing them. The consequences and bad press are going to continue to pile up until the NCAA gets serious. With increasing scrutiny and public outcry, the NCAA should step up and enforce the rules to prove they’re more than just window dressing.
Very good article!
Thanks!
Nice job on the radio show.
Mr Doots.
Thanks, Mr. Doots!