35 Pages Posted: 6 Apr 2011
Date Written: 2011
Success in a major intercollegiate athletic program, particularly a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I national championship, can translate into millions of dollars and immense pride for the players, coaches, alumni, fans, and university. It can also be a determinative factor in a highly recruited high school student-athlete’s program selection decision. In this intensely competitive environment, temptations to cheat, exploit, or circumvent the rules lurk, not only for agents, but also for institutional personnel, certain student-athletes, boosters, and even parents. Acting on behalf of over 1200 member institutions, the NCAA regulates and enforces rules of amateurism in college. In recent cases involving high-profile student-athletes and programs found to have engaged in cheating and major infractions of NCAA rules on amateurism, agents, and extra-benefits to players, the NCAA imposed stringent sanctions, including bans on postseason competition, against member institutions and the offending athletic programs. This Article analyzes the effectiveness of these sanctions on the offending programs, actual wrongdoers, and student-athletes most impacted by sanctions. The Article asserts that the sanctions’ reach is both overly limited and overly broad. NCAA sanction powers are narrow in that they extend only to member institutions, not to individual coaches, players, agents, boosters, or other involved individuals. The sanctions are broad in that they negatively impact current student-athletes, who are restricted in their ability to transfer without penalty. The Article makes proposals for holding coaches and institutions financially accountable for infractions, while protecting uninvolved student-athletes.
Keywords: NCAA, sports, college, football, basketball, athlete, student, sanctions, coach, athletic, player, agent, booster, amateur, university, financial, penalty, bowl, cheat
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Weston, Maureen, NCAA Sanctions: Assigning Blame Where it Belongs (2011). Boston College Law Review, Vol. 52, 2011; Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011/3. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1803595