Week in review: Jan. 10-14

Coverage of the NCAA Convention and postseason football issues dominated the national college sports discussion for the week. Last Friday’s Enes Kanter decision attracted attention as well.

NCAA Convention. The NCAA conducted its 105th annual Convention this week in San Antonio. Media attention focused on NCAA President Mark Emmert, for whom this was the first Convention, and several major legislative issues in Division I.

Here’s a rundown on coverage from the event. Additional coverage (for all divisions, but especially for Divisions II and III) is also available on NCAA.org:

NCAA Convention to open in San Antonio today (San Antonio Express)

NCAA president speaks out against ‘threats’ to college sports (Chronicle of Higher Education)

Emmert has full plate at his 1st NCAA convention (Mike Marot, The Associated Press)

Emmert: Clearly stating his mission (Jeff Rabjohns, Indianapolis Star)

NCAA likely won’t propose emergency legislation regarding Newton case at this week’s Convention (Birmingham News)

For NCAA, is relaxing rules on agents the best remedy? (USA Today)

NCAA talks shady agent contact (San Antonio Express)

NCAA president sees more conference realignment on horizon (San Antonio Express)

Finally, some good news for the WAC: Proposal 2010-100 passes (San Antonio Express)

NCAA president: Tougher parent rules needed (The Associated Press)

NCAA president answers critics (David Moltz, Inside Higher Ed)

NCAA president doesn’t shy from controversy (San Antonio Express)

NCAA president Emmert sets no-nonsense tone in address (USA Today)

NCAA votes to keep status quo on rules (San Antonio Express)

NCAA balks at efforts to loosen restrictions on athletes’ images in ads (Chronicle of Higher Education)

At many colleges, no health insurance means no playing time (Chronicle of Higher Education)

By the way, props to the San Antonio Express, the local newspaper, for its coverage of the Convention.

Enes Kanter. Those who believed Kentucky basketball player Enes Kanter should be eligible to compete this year were disappointed in last Friday’s final ruling that he is permanently ineligible.

Those who disagree with the decision of the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee − among them Kentucky President Lee Todd, Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart and coach John Calipari – certainly are entitled to their opinions.

Todd, a member of the Division I Board of Directors, was especially blunt: “As an NCAA Board member, I continue to be puzzled and confused by the reasoning behind the decision, which seems to be an inconsistent and arbitrary application of the rules.”

NCAA President Mark Emmert saw it differently. Speaking to Sports Illustrated’s Seth Davis, he said: “The facts are utterly unambiguous, the rule is utterly unambiguous and the intention of the membership is utterly unambiguous. The vast majority of people in collegiate basketball knew that this was an issue with Enes Kanter. Kentucky knew it. Everybody who talked with him knew it. So I’m amazed that people are shocked by the fact that he is ineligible.”

For my part, I’m going to put in a good word for the honorable individuals from the NCAA membership who volunteer their time to serve on the eligibility and infractions committees that are required to adjudicate matters such as this. The work is difficult and time-consuming. Abundant knowledge of NCAA regulations is required, along with good judgment and the ability to work with legal experts.

Occasionally, as with the Kanter case, the reward for service is a swirl of controversy. They deserve better, but I’m afraid that anger is going to be a constant companion for folks who serve in these roles.

Anyway, here’s a representative look at what was written in the wake of the Kanter decision:

NCAA president offers strong words on Enes Kanter (Sports Illustrated)

Calipari: Kanter ruling sets precedent (ESPN)

Kanter’s well-being foremost on Calipari’s mind (Lexington Herald-Leader)

Calipari, Todd and Barnhart ‘disappointed’ that NCAA denies Kanter’s appeal for eligibility (Lexington Herald-Leader)

Barnhart calls NCAA rules a ‘moving target’ (Lexington  Herald-Leader)

NCAA denies Kanter appeal; Kentucky center ruled permanently ineligible (Sporting News)

Enes Kanter still a top prospect (ESPN)

NCAA rulings hardly consistent [Sam Ellis, Daily Tar Heel (student newspaper)]

No consistency in NCAA rulings (Dick Vitale, ESPN)

RIP, 2010 football season. Auburn defeated Oregon on Monday in one of the greatest national championship games ever, but the game itself didn’t necessarily dominate media space. Writers were seriously wound up about eligibility matters and the structure of the postseason.

Although writers flail at the NCAA for not conducting a major-college playoff, it’s worth saying again that the NCAA is a membership association and that championships can be established only by votes of the member colleges and universities. I know there are those out there who believe that if the NCAA really wanted a playoff to happen, it would. Such statements, however, reveal a lack of understanding of what the NCAA is and how the Association is governed.

Some chatter about a playoff:

BCS title game crowns a champion of a fraudulent system (Sally Jenkins, Washington Post)

College football playoff, not BCS, makes more dollars and sense (Monte Poole, San Jose Mercury-News)

NCAA won’t fix broken system (Lennox Rawlings, Winston Salem Journal)

Some other football issues:

Penalties, scandals highlight irregular college season (USA Today)

It’s getting harder for college football to outrun its seamy side (Bill Livingston, Cleveland Plain Dealer)

Take a tip from Cecil Newton and pay the players (The Associated Press, Tim Dahlberg)

The next step: academics in the BCS? (Gregg Easterbrook, ESPN)

On eve of BCS championship, a call for the NCAA to reform college football (Sally Jenkins, Washington Post)

Political heavy hitters take on college bowls (New York Times)

Ahead Of BCS championship, amateurism considered (National Public Radio)

Potpourri. A few other interesting stories and columns from the week:

Lifetime chits would allow athletes to be students, too (Bruce Smith, Chronicle of Higher Education)

UNLV athletics working to be independent of state money (Las Vegas Sun)

Expansion crunch time: UCF is the best fit for Big East [Central Florida Future (student newspaper)]

Finally Last week, I wrote about how it was inappropriate to compare modern-college athletics to 19th century plantations.

This week, the social-injustice comparison is sweatshops.

Is college athletics a sweatshop? (Bob Greene, CNN)

In a word, no.

Again, consider this an appeal to tone down the rhetoric. Just because a union boss says it, that doesn’t make it so. College athletics has nothing in common with sweatshops.

What Kanter Case Means Going Forward

At the NCAA Convention in San Antonio yesterday, President Mark Emmert discussed specifics about two issues he expects the NCAA Membership to take up in the near future. First, how to strength the bylaws in response to the Cam Newton case:

“It’s wrong for parents to sell the athletic services of their student athletes to a university, and we need to make sure that we have rules to stop that problem,” Emmert said. “And today we don’t. We have to fix that. Student athletes trading on their standing as star student athletes for money or benefits is not acceptable, and we need to address it and make sure it doesn’t happen.”

Second, President Emmert addressed a need for greater transparency in the reinstatement process, specifically as it relates to football and bowl games.

Emmert said the NCAA needs to review and make public who gets to play in bowl games when violations occur.

Another recent case, Enes Kanter’s permanent ineligibility, raises three issues that the membership should look at as well: penalties for some amateurism violations, the responsibility toward international prospects, and the nature of case precedent.

Considering that the NCAA now permits participation with professional teams, violations where compensation exceeds expenses are likely to be more common. In addition, the violations are likely to be the only violation, not layered on top of professional participation and delayed enrollment violations like many of the current cases. So its reasonable to ask if minimal expenses should result in permanently ineligibility or even significant penalties.

Any penalty structure the Division I membership is going to come up with would not help Enes Kanter. It would say “$X and above: eligibility not reinstated” and $X will be well below $33,000. But avoiding the potential nightmare “pocket money” scenario is not only a good idea but also can be done without allowing ex-professionals a path back to Division I eligibility.

Just as it’s important to not blame the NCAA for things that it isn’t responsible for, it’s important to not give credit to the NCAA for things it didn’t intend to do. Proposal 2009-22 never intended to help international student-athletes get eligible. Proposal 2009-22 recognized that you could no longer be sure that participation on a professional team was voluntary.

The NCAA membership has zero responsibility to accommodate international youth development systems. The responsibility is to not close our eyes to international youth sports and use it as evidence of whether the assumptions the NCAA regulations are based on are valid. Nothing has shown yet that receiving money is an involuntary act and thus should not be an amateurism violation.

Finally the University of Kentucky has raised significant concerns about how case precedent is handled. Specifically, the case has raised questions about how broadly high-profile and/or difficult cases can be interpreted as controlling on future cases. The current system right now requires a sort of critical mass. One case might not good as precedent, but multiple cases with roughly the same facts eventually start controlling cases more closely.

It’s something the membership should review, but I’m not sure there’s a better solution. If all cases gain value as precedent, expect slower and more complicated rulings that punish student-athletes more harshly. The Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement will be wary about opening a bunch of Pandora’s boxes. On the other hand, no precedent means the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement would have to republish the guidelines constantly. There would be no natural evolution of the reinstatement process, only a step-by-step process when the membership is absolutely certain it wants to take the next step.

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.

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·