The NCAA was under what seemed a blizzard of negative publicity over the Camby/Maggette cases some years ago regarding a strict liability standard and a knowledge standard, and that has continued to this day. Within the past month I’ve read an article about that very issue in other cases. When members of the press (and public, such as I) can’t find the rule where such standards come from and don’t understand when and how the standards will apply, then the NCAA begins to appear arbitrary and capricious. Parrish’s articles have talked about “executive regulations” being the basis, but these appear to be unpublished. Similarly, if the Appeals Committee guidelines, which are mentioned in the NCAA selby press release, are publixhed, I cannot find them.

In the latest news, we have Newton who is excused under a knowledge standard (presumably he did not know and should not have known what his father was doing), but with Maggette, the kid testified under oath (after recanting earlier testimony) that he knew he was getting impermissible benefits, explaining that’s why he earlier had lied about them under oath. It’s little wonder that Parrish and others are giving the NCAA negative publicity over the “strict liability” and “knowledge” standards.

Also in recent news, we have Sidney, Selby, and a host of others who knowingly took impermissible benefits and were excused, but then we have Kanter who took them out in the open, but he is declared permanently ineligible. It’s little wonder that you have Vitale, Katz, and others giving the NCAA negative publicity over the Kanter decision.

Without clear and concise published rules that are followed consistently, and without explanations sufficient to allow the educated portions of the public to understand the bases for decisions, the NCAA is inviting the very publicity that it does want and the ridicule of which it complains above with respect to the Washington Post article. Vague statements about different cases warranting different treatment are not satisfying those who are writing the articles the NCAA does not like, and they don’t satisfy me either. Transparency is a good thing, and can be accomplished in most cases easily without releasing any confidential information about the student-athlete.

This speaks volumes. Enes Kanter didn’t know about the activity in his situation either. Will the NCAA afford him the same courtesy which they did to Cam Newton? In the interest of fairness, let’s hope so.