The fact that UCLA freshman guard Shabazz Muhammed was ruled
ineligible by the NCAA prior to the Bruins’ season opener against Indiana State
came as a surprise only to those within the Westwood bubble who were unwilling
to acknowledge a set of facts that clearly pointed toward a violation. But
while the ruling in Muhammed’s case seems to be correct, albeit poorly timed,
other cases in which the NCAA handed down rulings this week weren’t based in
nearly as much common sense.
For example, nine-game suspensions handed out to Indiana
freshmen Peter Jurkin and Hanner Mosquera-Perea came as a result of their
having done nothing more than play on an AAU team coached by a man who had
given $185 to the school between 1986-1992, apparently enough for that coach,
Mark Adams, to be deemed a “booster”.
Given that the way the letter of the law stands right now
does indeed mean these suspensions were “by the book”. But if that is the case,
then the book needs to be rewritten.
Because right now, the book that is NCAA rules on amateurism
is simply too big and too onerous to effectively enforce.
Without the ability to enforce each and every regulation,
the organization has forced itself into a situation in which enforcement is
necessarily arbitrary. Sometimes the rulings handed down from headquarters in
Indianapolis are “by the book”. Other times the ruling seems grounded more in
the common sense of the case, even if that common sense isn’t exactly in line
with the letter of the law. Consistent enforcement is simply impossible with
the way the NCAA has its bylaws written at this point.
The solution? Simplify things.
I hate the idea that student-athletes should be paid by the
schools for their participation in intercollegiate athletics. Not because they
don’t deserve compensation, but instead because they are already compensated to
the tune of up to $50,000 of free tuition, room, and board.
But what I do object to is the prohibition placed on these
student-athletes by the NCAA when it comes to obtaining funds from elsewhere.
If a student-athlete gets offered the opportunity to appear
in a commercial, they should be free to take it. Just as free as any other
student would be.
Should the NCAA shed its unnecessary regulation of
student-athletes’ outside employment, it would not only make enforcement easier
and thus easier to streamline, but would also eliminate the need for schools to
try a circumvention of the rules.
The objective of creating an even playing field in the
recruiting process is a noble endeavor, but an endeavor the NCAA takes that is
destined to fail and ultimately contradictory to the interests of the
student-athletes it is designed to protect. After all, if there is no objection
to a free market for academic, musical, research, or need-based scholarship
money, then why is the same not acceptable when it comes to financing the
education of student-athletes?
Too often I think this argument over athlete compensation is
narrowly defined by its application to the “1%” of NCAA athletes that dominate
our television sets. Beyond the glitz and glamor of big-time college football
and men’s basketball are thousands more student-athletes who truly will “go pro
in something other than sports”, even if that slogan is quite cliché.
Ultimately the endeavor to make recruiting happen on an even
playing field works against the interests of that majority of student-athletes.
It prevents them (in some cases) from accepting academic grants that supplement
athletic scholarships when such funds would put their team above its
scholarship allotment. It prevents them from taking on summer jobs that could
be the result of a connection made through the athletic department, a summer
job that could perhaps provide both a source of funds and an entre into their
industry of choice.
After all, if the manager gave $185 to the school, he or she
could be deemed a booster and then suddenly the summer job in a civil
engineering firm turns into a secondary NCAA violation.
The onerous nature of NCAA regulations makes their enforcement
both unfair and by nature arbitrary. It allows for a coach with a history of
cheating like John Calipari to move up the chain without consequence while at
the same time cracking down on an innocent rower who might take a job from an
alumnus who gave $150 to the athletic department 25 years ago.
Ultimately the problem with the NCAA bylaws is not that
student-athletes are prevented from getting special treatment that they
deserve, but rather that those bylaws prevent many student-athletes from taking
advantage of opportunities open to their classmates who are not burdened by the
watchful eye of the compliance department.
No comments:
Post a Comment