Consistency. It’s the current buzzword regarding how the NCAA regulates college athletics. All anyone wants is consistency in the NCAA’s decisions.
Let’s ignore for a moment that consistency can easily be used as a substitute for “do what I want you to do.” Someone takes two decisions with different outcomes, and demands consistency, but often suggesting one is right and the other is incorrect. If consistency was most important, either decision could be “correct” as long as both are the same.
But consistency can mean many things. A simple demand of the NCAA to be more consistent is no different then simply demanding that the NCAA “do better” with no other direction. So let’s refine our demands for consistency.
The most important consistency is consistency with the rules
Decisions should be based on rules and processes. If your options are to have two similar decisions or have two decisions that are based in the rules, the latter is always better. That means technicalities happen. That means that different rules produce different outcomes even from seemingly (but not quite) similar situations.
Take the recently announced Ohio State suspensions, derided as inconsistent. Say what you will about the decision, but the NCAA followed its own rules:
- The student-athletes were given withholding conditions in line with the reinstatement guidelines;
- Some student-athletes were given additional withholdings based on a published bylaw;
- And the student-athletes met the requirements in a policies and procedures manual to have the withholdings delayed.
If you disagree with the process that produced that decision, that’s fair. But that doesn’t mean the process should be abandoned in a given case to reach the desired result.
The second most important consistency is consistency across facts
Assuming the processes are followed, we would like to know that similar situations produce similar results. The exact same situation should always produce the exact same result under the rule above. But the more similar two sets of facts are, the more similar the decisions should be.
Consider Enes Kanter and Josh Selby. The cases are similar because the two took impermissible benefits or compensation prior to enrolling in college. But there’s also two differences in the cases:
- The source of the benefit; and
- The amount of the benefit.
If you agree that the NCAA should follow their own rules, those rules state that those two differences matter. We can debate how much they should matter, if at all. But because the facts are different in some material way (according to the current rules), different decisions in the two cases would not necessarily be inconsistent.
The third most important consistency is consistency with morality
Which is worse behavior? A father attempting but failing to secure hundreds of thousands of dollars for his son to attend a specific school? Or a coach mistakenly providing money to someone with influence over a prospect? The NCAA regulations said the latter. Public opinion appears to be the former.
Prior to this year, that would have been a great theoretical debate. Now it’s two actual decisions that lead (or didn’t) to actual penalties.
Here’s where the greatest criticism of the NCAA regulations can be levied. Behavior that appears in some cases to not be “as bad” leads to more penalties than behavior that appears to be “worse”.
I’m not confirming some big conspiracy theory though. That’s a common result of trying to corral as many consituencies over as many years as the NCAA regulations have been growing. As someone who participates in the NCAA’s legislative process, I’m as frustrated as anyone else when we deregulate part of one area but not the entire concept. Or increase regulation in one area but deregulate in what appears to be a similar area.
But the NCAA membership cannot fix these problems by adopting this bylaw:
Bylaw 4.01.1.1 – No Conspiracies
The Association shall not operate in a manner that appears to be similar to a cartel, cabal, or other shadowy organization (Adopted: 12/30/10)
The idea of a sort of constitutional convention has merit. It would be a lot more productive but a lot less exciting than an inquisition.
Consistency doesn’t equal perfection
Any sort of system of regulation that seeks to produce decisions that are consistent with its rules and based on facts is going to get it wrong sometimes. If the attitude is “student-athlete friendly,” some wrongdoers are going to get off easy. If the goal is to clean up a sport or area of the rules, someone who just made a mistake might get caught on a technicality.
Whether the NCAA membership goes to one extreme or the other or somewhere in the middle, there’s a trade-off. We can’t have blanket rules without the blanket covering people it shouldn’t. And we can’t have a million exceptions without creating loopholes for ne’er-do-wells.
The charge is that far from being perfect, the NCAA is more often than not wrong. This year at least, that judgment is being made based on comparing the same set of five or six cases over and over against each other. But since August 1, 2010, the NCAA has issued over 1500 decisions in secondary violation and/or student-athlete reinstatement cases.
It’s a combination of small sample size and what’s available to be compared. The cases that get talked about are unusual or controversial decisions in two of the NCAA’s 30+ sports. Assuming the other 1490-odd cases are “right,” the attention and the difficulties are all focused on the same place: at the margins. This isn’t a fundamental failure of the NCAA model. It’s a debate about how to handle the most difficult and exceptional cases.
Say what you mean
The truest thing to say about consistency in the NCAA is that there’s more consistency in the decisions than people think and less consistency in the rules than anyone would say is ideal. But as long as the criticism is vague demands for “consistency” or “fairness”, it’s hard for any change to occur.
If your demand is for more consistency, narrow it down. Does the NCAA not follow its own rules? Are the rules focused on the wrong priorities? Is the enforcement/reinstatement process not good enough at determining relevant facts? Those are all things that can be improved, measures that can be used to determine success or failure. A simple demand for “consistency” isn’t likely to lead to anything.
The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.
About John Infante
The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.
The NCAA should be abolished. They are inconsistent and tyrannical. The NCAA should be considered in violation of anti-trust laws. It is all about the money for the NCAA and the athletes are their meal tickets. From dragging out UNCs football program to ruin a season with a league long retribution in contrast to letting all the Ohio State folks walk until next year. Yeah it is all about the money for the NCAA. How about the NCAA forcing renaming of mascots at the University of North Dakota. Next they should go after App St. and West Virginia for disparging mountain folks. Get real. A new collegiate athlectic association should be formed that competes with and replaces the NCAA. Long live college sports and a quick end to the money grabbing NCAA.
Forgive the collective raising of the eyebrow. Perhaps a little more transparency would do the trick. If the NCAA would simply reveal what percentage of the time it delayed implementation of its bylaw enforcement then maybe the public wouldn’t think that it delayed the Ohio State penalties until next year for some nefarious or self-serving purpose (i.e. TV ratings). I would think the only consistency that counts is that if I find that you break one of my rules and I say it’s serious then I would want to punish you immediately. You know what they say about justice delayed….
May be the worst officiating day in college football today. The cheap penalty to Kansas State and then no penalty to Tennesse after their showboating after touchdown. Talk about inconsistency. Also now ref at Ten. UNC ref fails to call obvious late hit by Tenesse on Carolina running back. Then the ref calls game over and has to call the teams back. Sillly refs and inconsistent refs. Just your average day in the consistent world of the NCAA
While talking about consistency and fairness, let’s also include officiating in the discussion. The unsportsmanlike call at the end of the Pinstripe bowl showed neither consistency nor fairness. The NCAA is quick to punish 18 to 22 year olds for mistakes in judgement. Stop trying to protect Schwarzel and Geerlings and recognize what is blantantly obvious to everyone else. These are grown men who have been trained and should know better. At a minimum, the NCAA needs to apologize to the two unversities and ensure those two men are never again placed in a position of authority over student athletes.
John,
You make some valid points in your assessment of the different cases you describe. And I would love to think that there is a way to legislate morality, but unfortunately, it has never been proven to be so. However, the question of the decisions being made by the NCAA of late are nonetheless valid. Fans are often unable to properly address or assess the goings on in the NCAA because of the lack of transparency in the very rulebook itself. I have tried reading the various laws and by-laws and interpreting their intent as written and it makes less sense than the US Tax Code.
What can, however, be done is this. The NCAA can determine that student-athletes willingness to comply with regulations. And by that I mean that it can be determined if there was intent to violate the rules. Intent of the student-athlete or their representatives must factor into the equation somewhere. The NCAA must also recognize that the fans are trying to educate themselves as well in these processes and in doing so, are finding that their ( the NCAA’s) interpretations of the regulations themselves are more often than not, leading to the behavior of the violators.
I cannot cite by-laws nor case history, but I do understand common sense and common decency, and these ideals seem at face value to be total non factors in the NCAA and their handing of current cases.
If the NCAA doesn’t want to hear the complaints and gripes of a concerned fanbase, that without which their functions would be a moot point, then they need to understand that the problem does not lie solely with the fans reasoning, but within the fans understanding of what is happening.
I can appreciate the complexity of the NCAA’s work. And I also understand that no one hard and fast rule is going to apply to all cases. But when willfull offenders get by with short suspensions, or no penalties whatsoever, while kids who themselves as well as their families, are trying to comply with the spirit of the rules are left hanging, the complaints are going to be loud and many. As it should be.
Thanks for all that you do John, this work is a really great resource for us all.
I’m not sure about consistancy. At this point I’d settle for timely decisions. The Kantner decision has drug on forever now with no timeline as to when it may end.
I certainly understand the difficulty as each case is inherently unique. The difficulty for many, including myself, is that the results truly become inconsistent when you include the ‘morality’ piece of your argument. Why is it OK to assume Cam Newton is free and clear because he ‘didn’t know’ his father was acting on his behalf, when a 16 year old kid living across the globe in Turkey is not given the same benefit of the doubt. Cam Newton was a JUCO that had been through the recruiting process already and was well aware of the rules, whereas Enes Kanter would have very little if any understanding from Turkey of what does and doesn’t constitute a violation. The NCAA argument that money changed hands in one instance is a technicality given the small amount in question compared to the obvious riches that could have been garnered if desired. Obviously Kanter’s father was trying to keep his child eligible while Newton’s father was knowingly breaking the rules – yet Newton gets off without the slightest penalty while Kanter is ineligible for life. The NCAA can try to separate and spin these two decisions, but the reality is that they went out of their way to find Newton eligible, and gave no consideration for the ‘morality’ for the Kanter family.
I have no problem with a strict interpretation of the rules, even if that results in Kanter being ineligible. But the inconsistency is obvious regardless of your explanations in your blog. When the NCAA wishes it will search the database for any shred of precedent to support a predetermined outcome of their choice – and there is plenty of confusion to support any decision in any direction. But when you allow one group of students to move their penalty to the next season when they will be in the pros anyway so they can play in the all-important bowl game, accept some leap of faith that another student had no idea what his father was doing and ultimately accepted no money in the end (haha), yet give the death penalty to another family that was obviously working very hard to follow the rules then you have just that – inconsistency.
so documenting benefits received while communicating with the NCAA throught the procesess in order to retain your eligibility is somehow more egregious and less worthy of the opportunity to pay back said benefits then taking extra benefits from an agent an agents runner? and btw, based on the letter of your rules, intent is supposed to be taken into consideration. a minor takes $13,000 over three years (the amount for tutoring is immaterial) from admittedly a pro team while refusing a contract exceeding $1MM, all in order to maintain his eligibility to play college bball. is the intent not clear in this case?
there obviously is an agenda, whether that is the enforcement underlings attempting to curry the favor of their current boss (not so coincidentally that boss is past president at Washington, which was the scorned lover in the T. Jones and E. Kanter recruitments) or simply an institutional bias against Calipari or Kentucky. You cant argue letter of the law on one hand while allowing for intent on the other as intent by definition brings gray areas in to play.
So why is the ncaa not taking into consideration the money the Kanters used for his education? Players get scholorships for prep schools before entering college. Why is the ncaa wanting to be cut and dry on the Kanter ruling and give Duke a free pass on the Corey Maggettee ruling and OSU a free pass to play in the Orange bowl? Why don’t the ncaa subtract the money the Kanter’s used on education and make a ruling on the remainder?
I’m sorry the Sugar Bowl
Cam Newton= I didn’t know my father was negotiating
Enes Kanter = I didn’t know my father was negotiating
Please explain to UK fans the difference in the above statements. It doesn’t matter if money was received. The crux of the matter is that neither kid KNEW their father was negotiating. Why should the kid be punished if they didn’t KNOW? The NCAA took that stand with Newton, why can’t they take the same position with Kanter?
You do a very good job of prepping for a “cover your ass” situation which is surely to come in the NCAA’s ruling on the Kanter situation. All your posting does is reaffirm everyone’s belief that the NCAA is anything and everything but consistant.
With your Selby/Kanter example, you fail to point out 2 huge facts. The source of Selby’s money was from an agent, I mean “family friend”. With Kanter it was money received for education from the basketball team for which he played.
How is the Kanter situation, receiving money for expenses and educaton, different than what happens with prep schools here in the states? This is, as you know, the only way for euro players to participate in organized basketball.
I’m guessing your response, after reading your article about the current rules in place, would be since Kanter received money from a pro team that he should be ruled ineligable. But didn’t the NCAA come out about changing a troubling rule, Cam Newton “not knowing”, so that they could right a wrong. I’m pretty sure this Kanter situation would fall under that same umbrella of troubling rule that needs amending. We all know that there will be no rush in making these changes though.
Too bad Kanter didn’t sign to play for Duke because we would all be watching a great young euro talent on the court right now. That would only help with the NCAA’s “desire” to get some exciting European players into college basketball .
At the end of the day, the most important issue should be “Are we considering the student athlete’s best interest, all the while doing so in a rational and logical manner?,” rather than “Are we consistently applying our (often times archaic) rules?” Intent should thus play a very large role in that.
Take the Enes Kanter situation you mentioned; he took expenses you deemed “excessive,” yet his intent was clearly to remain an amateur. He did not, at any point, intend to violate any of the NCAA’s “rules” it set out. Yet, those who did have such intentions (Cam Newton’s father, the Ohio State team and maybe even Selby), receive a punishment far less than that of Kanter.
The NCAA’s decision is clearly not in the kid’s best interest because it had led him into a false sense of hope by dragging out the process. By doing so, it cost his family millions of dollars (turning down the Turkish national team), all the while killing a child’s dream of suiting up and representing a higher institution of learning on the basketball court in the process. And might I ask, all over what? Some goofy and clearly archaic rule that states that a player can’t receive money for educational expenses? How petty!
The NCAA’s decision was further illogical because it failed to take into consideration anything but the letter of the rules. Fairness and logic should prevail over what it deems as “consistent” solely according to the rules. Rules should be in place to guide a process, not to define the process. Just because they feel justified in saying they are staying in accordance with their own rules, doesn’t mean that they are being consistent. Its blatantly obvious to anyone who subjectively looks at this situation (without taking into consideration by-laws put in place originally for situations with little to no relevance to Kanter’s) that there is an element of hypocrisy in the rules in place. That is what is not consistent.
The NCAA needs to worry less about its own rules (as nearly anybody outside of its committee would agree they are flawed) and more about what is reasonable (which is a much more intellectually honest way of looking at a situation; something a body representing universities should understand). Common sense should rule the day.
The NCAA does what is best for the bottom line, consistently. Having Auburn and Ohio State at full strength makes bowl sponsors happy and earns ESPN higher ratings which makes the NCAA more money. Likewise, having Kansas win games is good for ratings and earns the NCAA more money. The one exception with Kanter seems noble yet he signed a contract with a professional team; the NCAA would open the flood gates to European professional players if they didn’t rule him ineligible.
When has a student-athlete ever been allowed to play in a bowl game or NCAA tournament before this? When has punishment ever been deferred before this? The illegal benefit was in 2009, but there are no penalties at all for the 2010 season? No vacating games, nothing?
The idea of the NCAA accepting the explanation of “we didn’t know the rules” is ludicrous. The recent statement from the NCAA says:
“In relation to the decision last week involving rules violations with football student-athletes at Ohio State, several current student-athletes were interviewed as part of our fact-gathering process. They indicated they were not aware there was a violation and learned of the issue based on later rules education, which was confirmed by OSU through interviews and supporting documentation.”
This is contradicted by statements from Ohio State players, including Terrelle Pryor himself! “I already knew what I shouldn’t have done back two years ago.” Plus, anybody familiar with college football saw Georgia WR AJ Green get suspended by the NCAA at the beginning of the season for selling his jersey.
This is why the public has had such an adverse reaction to the NCAA ruling. Dan Wetzel’s column on the situation is informative:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AseMPzU2Pd_e1oM0blNNS0ocvrYF?slug=dw-pryor010311
Uhhh in regards to the selby – kanter decision this is the inconsistancy….as you mentioned the cases are similar, very similar with the results contrasting from few game suspension to being perminantly ineligible. HUGE difference in results. Every case will be differenent, but the resulting enforcement should still remain consistant. The ncaa should be dissolved and another organization developed…one that supports a football playoff system. My kids could manage this with more fairness.
I think people have a right to be a little upset over the way the NCAA handles things. You have a done a nice job attempting to defend the NCAA, but when Brandon Spikes attempting to gouge the eyes of a defenseless player whom is wrapped up as he lies on the ground, and this gets a 1/2 game suspension, but selling one’s own property gets a 4 or 5 game suspension.
yes I get that if not punished, selling these things opens the door to worse, but appropriate punishment is not suspensions. Think about this for a minute. What if the 5 players suspended were the entire offensive line? What if you are going into a big game and your QB who has a promising future in the NFL, gets blindsided because he has an inept line blocking for him. So he suffers a career ending injury because some kids sold THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
I’m sick of the NCAA rushing to suspensions when other punishments might be more appropriate. For instance, when you can establish what an item was sold for, why not fine the player the amount the item cost the university, plus the amount the item was sold for, plus an additional fine on top? This can be collected after the student graduates.
A year of eligibility can be taken away.
Scholarships can be removed for years already received. In other words, make the player pay back money for a year of education they received.
Boosters caught could be banned from NCAA events. In other words, they can’t go to the games.
The thing here is that suspending players hurts not only that player, but everybody else as well, especially the other, innocent players. Bowl game suspensions are the worst. The NCAA should do something about that right now. Create a rule that states suspension, except for the most egregious violations, will not take place during bowl games. Egregious being defined as things that actually break the law. How would you feel as a fan to buy tickets, pay for airline tickets, make reservations, etc. for a bowl game, then find out your team, or the other team now has some of it’s key players suspended. Now you aren’t getting what you paid for, since what you paid for was seeing your favorite team play it’s best game against an opponent playing it’s best game. I’m not talking about the lawyer’s definition of what you actually paid for. I’m talking about what a fan expects when they pay their hard earned cash for it. They certainly aren’t expecting to see a game between two teams, one of which is depleted by suspensions.
Of course, there can be a bright spot to this. I have a friend who was spared the agony of seeing the beat down his MSU Spartans took at the hands of Bama. He refused to pay to go see that game because he had to witness too many bowls where his team was depleted by suspensions, and he wasn’t going to do it again.
Pulease consistency? It is sad that a coach–an adult only gets suspended for 8 games for violating NCAA rules and asks players to lie for him, 5 OSU football players get to play in a bowl game but suspended 5 games next year, and the Auburn ?Cam Newton aka Heisman trophy winner gets zero penalty. He gets to play in the bowl game and keep his Trophy. I see a double standard being played. Really this 18yo ballplayer cannot play ever in college. I am glad the NCAA was fair. They need to re-evaluate their standards and uphold them for all not just when they see fit. We wouldn’t want to tarnish the Heisman trophy or cause schools, advertisers or Organizations to lose money because Cam Newton doesn’t play in the bowl nor the OSU players not play against Ark. The NCAA needs to be re-evaluated. I need to add the inconsistency in the refs during the KY vs GA game in the SEC opener. It seem to be one-sided.
When I was growing up my father always told me that perception is often more important than reality and that if I appeared to do some that was unethical or illegal then I would be perceived to be that kind of a person. The reality is that the perception of the NCAA is that it IS inconsistent and that big money drives that inconsistency. This past year the Southern Cal decision positioned against Scam Newton, the tattooed five from O$U and to a lesser degree the Jeremiah Masoli decision that helped another $EC school (Mississippi) has greatly added to that perception.
Out here in the real world I have not talked with one person who views the NCAA as an honorable, consistent and credible entity. I believe, personally, that your reputation is so damaged that the NCAA can never recover. In short, y’all are in big trouble and you don’t have a clue.