This leads to more problems and an ineffective overseeing body. Schools commonly give “under the table” incentives to its athletes in order to develop their programs into powerhouses. Academic violations are also rampant. Schools often booster an athlete’s grades allowing them to focus on their prospective sport and ensuring eligibility. In order to uphold its values of producing a well-rounded student athlete and an equal playing field across college athletics the NCAA must punish these violators consistently and effectively.
The question of how strictly the NCAA punishes academic or amateurism violations is something that it is instantly facing and trying to figure out. In a recent case that involved the Nana’s very own star child, Johnny Magazine, the NCAA was placed in a rather difficult position of upholding their own rules in the face of public scrutiny while also maintaining its influence over college football. It was presumed that Magazine had signed memorabilia which he then sold for a profit and was thus in violation of the NCAA amateurism rules.
According to the NCAA, the student-athlete cannot use his or her athletic ability for pay. I The NCAA had to decide how hard to pursue this case and owe strictly to enforce its own rules. This is a great example of the type of cases that the NCAA is faced with. In the end, Magazine was let off with a slap on the wrist and a half game suspension. This was a win for Texas A&M and the SEC. The NCAA was skating on thin ice due to other recent cases which is why it expedited Magazine’s case but even this slight back off shows a weakness in the governing body of the NCAA which was criticized nationwide.
Athletic programs have consistently used methods that violate NCAA amateurism rules to booster their programs. Managing these locations is messy and difficult for the NCAA. A famous example of such a violation is the scandal involving Southern Methodist University. In order to develop a big time program SUM created a slush fund program used for “under the table” payments to players from the mid-sass to 1986. Ii From 1980 to 1984, SUM enjoyed its most successful era since the sass and early sass.
They posted a record of 45-5-1 and won three Southwest Conference titles. Iii According to the 2010 ESP. documentary film “Pony Excess”, many of these violations took place with the full knowledge of school administrators. Iv The big business involved with college football drove the school to push its football program to success even if it meant crossing ethical lines. This created an uneven advantage for SUM and allowed it to be incredibly successful. After these egregious violations, the NCAA issued the death penalty which prevented SUM from fielding a team in 1987.
This was a strict penalty but sent a clear message through the football community that these violations cannot be tolerated. Athletes choose to compete in the NCAA and must adhere to their rules. The Supreme Court in NCAA v. Board of Regents characterized NCAA amateurism restrictions as “Justifiable means of fostering competition” necessary “to preserve the character and quality of the [Nana’s] product. “v These rules are meant to foster an equal playing field and emphasize the importance of being a student athlete.
The case against SUM strengthened the Nana’s power as an enforcer and a governing body, but other recent cases have left people to question the effectiveness of the NCAA. In 2011 the NCAA investigated the University of Miami for multiple rule violations alleged to have taken place from 2002 to 2010. These allegations were centered around booster Nevi Shapiro who was giving improper benefits to coaches and athletes. Shapiro, through his support of Miami, violated at least four major NCAA bylaws involving: impermissible compensation to coaches, amateurism of athletes, improper recruiting activity and extra benefits to athletes.
The case against Miami was dragged out for two and a half years and resulted in only minor punishment for the school. This was much less harsh than other cases and has resulted in people questioning the actual power of the NCAA. In Greg Couch’s article, “More Proof the NCAA is powerless”, he dates that the result of the Miami case shows that “There is no governing body in college sports anymore. No police force. ” He goes on to say that “this investigation tore down NCAA morale… [and] turned its enforcement division into a shambles. Vi Though Miami had sanctioned itself during the investigation, the NCAA is still the enforcer and should have established a more uniform punishment in accordance with the violations. Other programs, such as USC, received much harsher penalties for less severe violations. It is clear that Miami was in violation of multiple rules and he NCAA as the governing body should have been the one to enforce the necessary sanctions. As Couch pointed out, this case put the enforcement power of the NCAA in jeopardy and weakened its hold on college athletics.
Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, it has striver to set a standard across college athletics and promote competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner. Vii It has also emphasized the education of these athletes so that more is gained from college than just the athletic experience. The rules set in place are meant to uphold the ideal of the student-athlete and also promote fair competition. The NCAA protocols are much like the law enforcement and Judicial.
Tolerance of rule breaking leads to an ineffective and chaotic structure as shown by the Miami case. This reduces the risk involved for schools to commit similar violations. However, by strict enforcement of the rules, the NCAA can provide equity and consistency across the country. Strict punishments require accountability of all parties involved and will make people think twice before crossing that line. In conclusion, a strong governing body is integral to the effectiveness of the NCAA in enforcing amateurism and academic integrity.