| 11 August 2011
One question that gets asked of me quite a bit is the following: “Is the NCAA worse than it’s ever been? Or is the coverage just more intense.”
I might be in the minority, but I absolutely, unequivocally think it’s the latter.
Understand that breaking NCAA rules is a tradition about as old as Clemson going to crappy bowl games. There were college basketball point shaving scandals in the 1940’s. Billy Cannon, the 1959 Heisman Trophy winner has admitted to accepting extra benefits while he was at LSU. Hell, as recently as the mid-1980’s, SMU (and other SWC schools I’m sure) were not only giving kids cash, but essentially signing them to professional contracts. Thousands were guaranteed a month, housing was set up for them and their families, the whole nine yards. As cynical as I am, I’m guessing that no college football program in 2011 has “A Payroll To Meet,” an excuse SMU once gave as a cause for their rampant cheating.
Nope, as far as I’m concerned, schools are abiding by, or at least trying to abide by the rules more than ever before. Compliance staffs are growing larger by the day. Rules awareness is as good as it’s ever been. And quite frankly, I believe that at their core, most coaches and administrators try to play by the rules. Granted, they might attempt to bend them to their advantage, but breaking them is an altogether different story.
The problem of course, is that there are too many damn rules. They govern every single thing a college coach and athlete does in their everyday lives.
For coaches, the NCAA dictates how much you can call recruits; at what time of day you can call them; what time of year you can reach out. When a kid gets to campus the NCAA dictates everything for a player as well. What they’re allowed to accept; how much they can accept; who they can accept it from. The list is quite literally never-ending. Do yourself a favor and try to track down an NCAA rulebook sometime. The thing has more addendums, additions and post-scripts than you could ever imagine.
Which is why it’s refreshing that new NCAA President Mark Emmert is at least trying to make some changes.
For those of you who haven’t been following, Emmert spent the last two days hanging with 50 or so of your favorite Athletic Director and school President types, with the goal of getting this crazy quagmire that is the NCAA fixed up. If Emmert has his way, those changes will comes sooner, rather than later.
As to what needs to be changed, let me give you a quick nuts and bolts version of what the NCAA is proposing:
1) They want to institute a “full-cost,” scholarship, which essentially is an extra $200-$300 a month to cover the “grey area,” that a college scholarship doesn’t cover now. Players would still have their books, room and board paid for, but also get some cash for the other things, like food, clothing, and maybe even the occasional Gucci belt. You know how we always hear about how athletes don’t have “A few bucks to go buy a hamburger?” Well this would, in theory, cover it.
2) Changing the college scholarship to a binding four year commitment, instead of just one. As things stand now, a college scholarship is renewable every summer, and during any of those four years, a college can take it away from a kid. With the change, the school would be making a four-year commitment to the kid, just the same as the kid does to the school.
3) Increased academic requirements for incoming freshmen and junior college athletes. This one seems like it might be the hardest to pass. I’ll get to “why,” a bit later.
4) Streamlining the NCAA rulebook by eliminating a lot of the “dumb rules,” and trying to make it more practical for the world we live. As I mentioned before, the NCAA has so many rules that quite honestly, it’s impossible for coaches or even administrators to know and understand it all.
5) Maybe most importantly, a change to how rules violators are punished. Basically, Emmert wants the major violators to be punished accordingly, and not hit the minor rule breakers nearly as hard.
So with that said, let’s break these down one by one:
Full-Cost Scholarships:
For those of you who’ve read my work in the past, you know that I’m not in favor of outright paying players. Simply put, there are too many complex issues to deal with when you do so. Do you pay football and basketball players the same as tennis and lacrosse players? Do women get paid the same as men? Do you only pay the revenue producers (Football and basketball)? Again, it’s one big can of worms, and there won’t be nearly enough pesticide to go around once you open that can.
But with that said, I can get behind an increase in scholarships by a few hundred dollars a month.
My attitude on the subject really has swung more toward this direction over the last year or so, as we’ve seen TV contracts get totally out of whack. Did you know that by this time next year, every single school in the Big XII, ACC, SEC, Big Ten and Pac-12 will be making at least $11 million a year, with schools in the Big Ten and Pac-12 (as things stand), making over $20 million?
Well, with that said, where’s all that money going? It seems to me that right now, it’s to put an extra car in the driveway of your Athletics Director, or give your head coach a bonus for getting you to 7-5 and the NobodyGivesACrap.com Bowl. Would it be the worst thing in the world to give the kids on the field (or court) an extra couple hundred bucks beyond what they’re getting now? Understand that this wouldn’t be paying players, so much as supplementing them with a little extra spending cash.
As for those who object to the full-cost scholarship, most argue that it’s something that simply isn’t feasible at smaller schools, and would provide an unfair advantage in recruiting and beyond. After all, if a kid gets an extra $3,000 a year to go to LSU as opposed to a Sun Belt or WAC school, why wouldn’t he just go to LSU?
Except, let me ask you this: Is it really a disadvantage, or just another inherent advantage for the bigger schools? I mean really, how many recruits are LSU or Ohio State or Penn State or USC really losing recruits to WAC and Conference USA schools anyway? One a year, maybe two? Aren’t 99.9 percent of kids in high school going to choose the big school with the big-time tradition over the smaller one? Don’t the recruits end up at the smaller schools because they have no place to go? It really does seem that simple to me.
Quite honestly, I don’t see any downside to a full-cost scholarship.
Four Year Scholarships:
Considering that I’ve thought this to be the dumbest rule in college sports for a while now, you’ll get no objection from me for implementing this change.
After all, how is it fair that every July, a coach has the option of yanking a kid’s scholarship? I mean seriously, imagine if kids did the same. Imagine if a kid walked into the coaches office and said, “Coach, I really appreciate you giving me a chance. But when I came here, I never thought I’d rush for over 1,000 yards as a freshman. Hell, I didn’t even think I’d see the field! Well, Texas called, and they think I could fit in real nice with what they’re doing there. And come on, it’s Texas! Anyway, my bags are packed and I’m headed to the airport. Good luck this September!”
Of course that would never happen, but the point is, that’s essentially what a coach can do to a kid now. If the recruit doesn’t live up to expectations, the coach can pull the scholarship, even if the kid is in good academic standing, hasn’t been in trouble with the law, or done anything wrong. The kid? Once he’s signed on the dotted line, he’s stuck for four years, unless he wants to transfer…which of course needs to be approved by his coach.
Basically what I’m trying to say is that I’m in favor of this rule. If a kid has to commit to a school for four years, why doesn’t the school have to do the same?
As far as I’m concerned, this is something that should’ve been changed 20 years ago.
Academic Requirements:
So I’m no genius (like a lot of college football players actually) but I’m really having a hard time believing that the increased academic requirements are going to pass without coaches pissing and moaning like an elementary school kid headed for a timeout. After all, any rule that further limits the talent pool in a field as blood-thirsty as Division I recruiting isn’t going to go over well with a lot of people.
And you know what? I’m actually ok with coaches at least trying to take a stand here. If the point of intercollegiate athletics is to try and educate kids, and the point of college to make young men and women into adults, how is it helping anyone to limit their opportunities? Is the world a worse place because Ole Miss spent all those years helping Jerrell Powe get eligible and earn his college degree? My hunch is no.
Beyond that, let’s look at the dynamics of everything here for a second. Understand that if you’re trying to change high school GPA and core requirements, you’re essentially asking 14 and 15-year-old kids to take an immediate stake of their future. By doing that, you’re saying to a high school freshman, “You better not mess up, because it may cost you the rest of your academic career.” To which I ask: Did you have the big-picture understanding of how important the decisions you made impacted the rest of your life when you were 15? Me neither. Again, we’re supposed to be trying to help these kids. Not punish them for youthful mistakes.
In addition, Emmert’s crew is looking to push harder for academic performance, once kids actually get to campus. They want to raise a minimum APR requirement, and if the school doesn’t meet it, they may face a postseason ban.
Well, if you don’t know think that coaches are going to fight that one until they’re blue in the face, you’ve got another thing coming to you.
For those of you who don’t know how the APR works, it’s basically as follows: Every school is graded out based on how your athletes do academically, once they get to campus. Basically, you earn a certain number of points for every kid in your program that graduates, and lose points for any kid who leaves school in bad academic standing. Seems simple right?
Not exactly.
You see, this whole thing works on a four year cycle, meaning that the most recent APR numbers are indicative of all of the 2006-2007 through 2009-2010 seasons. And if you lose a kid during that cycle, it affects your APR number for however long he or she would’ve had eligibility left.
For example, say that tomorrow, one of your star freshmen goes out and robs a gas station. For the sake of simplicity, we’ll call him, ohh, I don’t know, “Nu’Keese.” Well, if as a true freshman Nu’Keese robs that store, and you kick him out of school the next day (before he finishes out the semester), your APR score is screwed for the next three years. See where that gets tricky? And see why coaches are going to go down swinging to either limit this rule, or change the way the APR is constructed? Especially when you could potentially be banned from the postseason?
Overall, I’m thinking this is the hardest of all rules for Emmert and his staff to get through.
Streamlining the Rulebook:
True story, when I was in college I worked in the compliance office for the year. Mostly I just handled paperwork and housekeeping stuff, filing and answering the phones. At no point did I have any real responsibility, and thankfully so.
Anyway, one thing that I noticed while working there, was that occasionally, a coach would e-mail or call over, and ask one of our staff members if something they were about to do broke NCAA rules. They weren’t trying to do anything bad, as much as make sure they were following the simple rules on e-mails, phone calls, whatever. Again, it goes back to my theory that at the end of the day, coaches at least try to abide by the rules. Unfortunately sometimes those rules are just kinda, sorta confusing.
To make matters worse, there were a few times that the compliance person wasn’t exactly sure the answer to the question, and had to verify within the NCAA rulebook. Again, I’m not blaming the coach or the compliance staff member, as they only had everyone’s best interests at heart. But what does it say about the rulebook, that these trained professionals constantly needed to consult it?
And really, this is my biggest gripe with the NCAA: In the process of them trying to account for everything that might happen, they take out the “real world,” aspect of this whole process.
Understand that I don’t want anyone to have any unfair advantage over anyone else, but there’s a difference between an “unfair advantage,” and “stuff happening.” Occasionally a coach bumps into a recruit on the road when they’re not supposed to. Is that breaking the rules, or real life happening? Same with an accidental phone call or text, it happens, whether it’s intended to be deceitful or not. Again, not every coach (or kid) is out to break the NCAA rules. But when there are so many rules, how can anyone possibly be 100 percent certain they’re not?
The best example I can think of came at Boise State this summer, a school which fired their AD on Wednesday, because of problems the department had with the NCAA. And while some of the smaller programs were the worst rule breakers (mainly the tennis teams, if you can believe it), it’s the football team that got all the attention. After all, they are the blue-jersey-wearing breadwinner up in Idaho.
Except if you actually look to see what rules the football team broke, you’ll realize that ultimately, they weren’t really bad at all. Essentially what happened was that a few enrolling freshmen (who’d already signed letters of intent, mind you), got to campus early for summer workouts, crashed with older teammates, and let those teammates drive them around.
To me, that’s just bros being bros. If a future teammate needs a ride around, or a couch to crash on, you help him out. My friends did it for me when I was a freshman in college and didn’t have a car, or at times a place to sleep. Really, that’s just the kind of stuff that tends to happen when you’re 18 and in a new situation.
Of course according to the rules, Boise was a rule breaker. And because of it, their practice time this preseason has been limited.
So let me ask you, was Boise an egregious rule-breaker out to bend the system and scheme the NCAA? Of course not. And honestly, you want to know what makes things even worse? Boise coach Chris Petersen said that he wasn’t even aware his players were breaking NCAA rules. I believe him. After all, who knew that it was illegal for future teammates to take freshmen (who again had signed letters of intent months before), around, and give them a roof over their heads?
Ultimately I can’t say it better than Colonial Athletic Association Commissioner Tom Yeager said, “The general thinking is that we spend too much time worrying about the $1.95 stuff when there's bigger issues.”
Absolutely.
And speaking of those bigger issues…
Increased Punishment For Major Violators:
Here’s the place where I think Emmert will ultimately be judged. Not only if major violators are punished, but more importantly how they are.
And really, I think that’s the biggest beef with most fans overall. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to the way punishments are handed out. Commit major violations, and you get the book thrown at you like USC. Or you may get off relatively scot free like the UConn basketball program did. Lie to the NCAA for relatively minor violations like Dez Bryant did, and you get hit with major trouble. Lie to the NCAA with an alibi like Cecil Newton did, and there are no repercussions. Again, where is the consistency?
The most appropriate word here again seems to be “streamlined.” Punishments need to be uniform. If you break a rule, it shouldn't matter what the name on your jersey says, who your coach is, or whatever, just that you get punished the same as everyone else. No leniency, no grey area, just honest and open transparency by the NCAA in this process. I'm not saying that the NCAA hasn't tried to do that in the past. At the same time, they haven't exactly been good at it.
Look, in the end, I honestly don’t know what to take of Emmert’s new tougher, 21st century stance. Maybe it’s a crock of bull, but maybe there is some teeth to it. The fact that he has support from plenty of big-wigs along the way (cough…Mike Slive…cough), only helps.
But something needs to be changed. The system is broken, and everyone seems to know it but the people in charge. Monumental changes may not be coming, but it does seem like there is enough here to tweak what’s not working, and make things a bit better.
Will everything work? I don’t know. But at least someone is trying to make changes.
Really, it’s about damn time.
(Love the article? Hate it? Disagree with something Aaron said? Let him know by commenting below, e-mailing him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or by adding him on the new Google +.
Also for his continued take on all things sports, and updates on his articles, podcasts and giveaways, be sure to follow Aaron on Twitter @Aaron_Torres, or by downloading the Aaron Torres Sports App for FREE for your iPhone or Android Phones)
