NCAA statement on fairness of rules decisions

[Aubie16]

NCAA statement on fairness of rules decisions

Publish date: Dec 29, 2010

Several media and others recently concluded that very different situations involving student-athlete eligibility should be considered independent of their unique circumstances or interpreted with a "one size fits all" approach.

In particular, they are comparing recent decisions involving The Ohio State University and Auburn University (and others). Some have even suggested the NCAA plays favorites in these types of situations based in part or in whole on financial considerations.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

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.

Inadequate rules education is often cited in student-athlete reinstatement and other waiver cases (such as inaccurate or misguided academic advising), but it is just one of many factors considered in these types of situations. 

As for the broader issue of a student escaping penalties based on their lack of knowledge, there also have been reports in the media that the recent ruling related to Cam Newton's eligibility will encourage parents or third-parties to solicit benefits or money during the recruiting process while keeping the student in the dark as to their activities.

Again, this strays from the truth. 

While efforts are being championed by NCAA President Mark Emmert to further clarify and strengthen recruiting and amateurism rules when benefits or money are solicited (but not received), current NCAA rules would be violated and students declared ineligible should a parent or third party receive benefits or money, regardless of the student's knowledge.

Put simply, had Cam Newton's father or a third party actually received money or benefits for his recruitment, Cam Newton would have been declared ineligible regardless of his lack of knowledge.

There have been questions as well since last week related to the withholding policy and student-athlete reinstatement for NCAA championships and bowl games. This policy was developed and implemented by the Division I membership, specifically the Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement and approved by the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, in 2004. It allows for suspending a reinstatement condition in specific instances involving NCAA championships or bowl games.  It recognizes the unique opportunity these events provide at the end of a season, and they are evaluated differently from a withholding perspective for student-athlete reinstatement. In the Ohio State situation, the facts are consistent with the established policy.

Finally, the notion that the NCAA is selective with its eligibility decisions and rules enforcement is another myth with no basis in fact. Money is not a motivator or factor as to why one school would get a particular decision versus another. Any insinuation that revenue from bowl games in particular would influence NCAA decisions is absurd, because schools and conferences receive that revenue, not the NCAA.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/december/ncaa+statement+on+fairness+of+rules+decisions

[Townhallsavoy]

It sucks that people are so stupid they can't understand the difference between the two situations.

A) Player did nothing wrong.  Some shady talk happened between a few people that did not include the player.  Nothing ever came of the shady talk.

B) Player(s) used items earned through their college scholarship to get extra money.  Evidence was provided that implicated player(s). 

But yeah.  The NCAA is completely corrupt and was obviously playing favorites by not suspending Cam.

[AUChizad]

It sucks that people are so stupid they can't understand the difference between the two situations.

A) Player did nothing wrong.  Some shady talk happened between a few people that did not include the player.  Nothing ever came of the shady talk.

B) Player(s) used items earned through their college scholarship to get extra money.  Evidence was provided that implicated player(s). 

But yeah.  The NCAA is completely corrupt and was obviously playing favorites by not suspending Cam.

It boggles the mind, but if you ask anyone outside of the Auburn family, we're the "clueless" ones...

By the way, hasn't it been stated numerous times during all of this that the NCAA will not comment on cases that are ongoing? Again, though, according to the masses, anyone that thinks this is over is a clueless homer...

[Token]

The NCAA will be it's own destruction.  Not taking sides with either argument presented here, but the NCAA has marched to the beat of it's own drum for a long, long time.  It brings joy to my heart to see them feeling enough pressure to release a second public statement in the last month to explain their actions. 

[Snaggletiger]

I don't give a shit how homerish this sounds, but I understand the Newton ruling and I think I would agree with it no matter who he played for.....IF..I had looked at the actual evidence, facts and decisions released by the NCAA and SEC on the case like I have in this one.  I know full well that as Chad just said, fans outside the Auburn nation think there's shenanigans afoot, but just listen to their arguments (USC fans at the SECCG and Oregon Dick fans on message boards) and all you see is must have beens and I'm sure of and everybody knows...damn the facts...we all know....

I'll be the first to admit that I've been a staunch opponent of all things NCAA forever because their rules are so picky and all encompassing and ultimatley punish everyone except the guilty parties. Yes, I'm glad that the Newton ruling helped Cam and Auburn but holy crap, how could you punish he or the University when you've found no wrongdoing on either party?  Did they get it right?  For once? 

As for the Ohio State situation...and even the A.J. Green jersey issue...that rule is fucked.  Did the Universities have any interest in the jerseys?  Weren't they in fact the sole property of the players?  (I am asking because I'm not 100% sure but I think that's the case)  If so, why should the NCAA have any authority over a kid's personal property and what he does with it?   

[JR4AU]

People making such comments aren't stupid, they simply want to see young men ruined, and some close to the situation, want to see Auburn go down for something they had NO dealings in  And they don't care how foolish they sound saying it...in today's world of blogs and talk radio, and "media" that runs with rumors...the general tact is to keep saying it until it gets legs.  Yet, only with bammers has the notion that "Auburn Cheated" gotten any legs. 

The bright line with the NCAA is RECEIPT of extra benefits...no matter how small.  And flirting with Agents.  And NO, by no definition under NCAA rules does a parent qualify as an agent!  Folks know this stuff.  They KNOW it.  And they know there's a major difference in the Bush/USC situation, Cam and Cecil Newton and MSU, and the tOSU deal.  And the difference is clear...RECEIPT of benefits.

[Saniflush]

I am enjoying pointing and laughing at THE Ohio State but the truth of the matter is that if the items where theirs then they should have the right to sell/barter them for fair market value.

Fuck the NCAA

[GH2001]

I'm pretty sure none of the team gear is "personal" property until their eligibility is up. Like the site selling the rings, those guys whom they belonged to are not at bama now.

[Saniflush]

I'm pretty sure none of the team gear is "personal" property until their eligibility is up. Like the site selling the rings, those guys whom they belonged to are not at bama now.

i would say Pryor's sportsmanship trophy is his.

[JR4AU]

Their stuff is personal property...BUT!  The NCAA has certain rules carved out that actually allow extra benefits, like the "goodies" they get at Bowl games.  IPods, for example, are or recently were a standard bowl gift...watches in times past had always been a staple, along with sweat suits and such.  I'm sure there's a rule dealing with these "allowed extra benefits" and not converting them to cash or whatever.   

[GH2001]

i would say Pryor's sportsmanship trophy is his.

Teh Droid got me. Forgot to put in there "to sell" after personal property. Like Jr said, they do have rules.