Interpreting the NCAA Bylaws: Buckeye Suspensions

By now everyone should know that five Ohio State players have been suspended for five games and a sixth player has been suspended for one game in 2011.  From the press release issued by the NCAA and statements made by Ohio State, it doesn’t appear that the players have denied selling the items and/or receiving benefits. So for purposes of this analysis, we will assume the following events occurred (as provided by the NCAA):

• Mike Adams sold his 2008 Big Ten championship ring for $1000.
• Boom Herron sold his football jersey, pants and shoes for $1,300, including $1,150 cash and $150 in discounted services.
• Devier Posey sold his 2008 Big Ten championship ring for $1,300, including $1,250 cash and $50 in discounted services.
• Terrelle Pryor sold his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 Gold Pants trinket (commemorates wins over Michigan) for $2500.
• Solomon Thomas sold his 2008 Big Ten championship ring for $1,000, his 2008 Gold Pants for $350 and received discounted services worth $155.

Since the announcement by the NCAA, the media has provided an endless supply of opinions, including everything from how foolish these players were to why the NCAA is an evil dictatorship. It is easy to understand the former position given the results, but here is some information regarding the latter to understand why some are so troubled by the NCAA’s decision.

I.  According to the press release issued by the NCAA, the six Buckeye players committed violations that fall under the NCAA’s preferential treatment bylaws.

12.1.2 Amateur Status. An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition in a particular sport if the individual:
(a) Uses his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport;
(b) Accepts a promise of pay even if such pay is to be received following completion of intercollegiate athletics participation;

12.1.2.1 Prohibited Forms of Pay. “Pay,” as used in Bylaw 12.1.2 above, includes, but is not limited to, the following:

12.1.2.1.6 Preferential Treatment, Benefits or Services. Preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual’s athletics reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete, unless such treatment, benefits or services are specifically permitted under NCAA legislation. For violations of this bylaw in which the value of the benefit is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual shall not be affected, conditioned on the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her choice. The individual, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the receipt of the benefit until the individual repays the benefit. If the violation involves institutional responsibility, it remains an institutional violation per Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the individual’s repayment shall be forwarded to the enforcement staff. (Revised: 1/11/94, 1/14/08).

I underlined a portion of the first sentence above because it contains the critical issue for making a determination of wrongdoing under this bylaw: did each player receive benefits “because of the individual’s athletics reputation or skill or pay-back potential?”   One thing that is not clear in the bylaw is whether the NCAA makes a presumption of wrongdoing on the basis alone that benefits were received or if they require evidence proving such?  I ask because $1,000-$1,300 seems like a fair, if not bargain price for an authentic Ohio State Big Ten Championship ring.  It’s hard to argue that the cash was provided as a benefit rather than payment for property.  Therefore,  the benefits were received as a result of the sale of the players’ personal property they owned as Ohio State football players, not because of their individual athletic endeavors.  But the NCAA has called this sale preferential treatment nonetheless.

II.  Even if the benefits received don’t exactly fit the rule above, players know that they are not allowed to sell their personal items if they were given to them by the University…or do they?

If players are absolutely prohibited from selling any personal items that were provided by the University or in some way as a result of their status at student-athletes, it isn’t stated in the NCAA Constitution or Bylaws.  But it was stated in an NCAA memorandum in 2003.  That is not something that is readily available to players or anyone reading the NCAA rules though.  Was this something they knew about?  The most recent case where an athlete was punished for selling his University issued items occurred with Georgia’s wide receiver AJ Green.   Green was suspended for four games at the beginning of 2010 for selling his Independence Bowl game jersey for $1,000 to an individual who meets the NCAA definition of an agent.   But Green was never accused of receiving preferential benefits or doing anything that would violate a rule had he not conducted the transaction with an agent.  In fact, all statements made by the NCAA notably left out any reference to preferential benefits and rather focused solely on the fact that the individual Green bargained with was an agent.  With that said, ultimately, lack of knowledge isn’t an excuse and the school is responsible for providing this information to its student-athletes.

III.  Even if the players did know the rules and chose to violate them anyway, the NCAA’s rulings seem to be arbitrary and unfair.

Even if Terrelle Pryor was clear that his ring wasn’t actually his ring to sell, does that seem right?  And is a five-game suspension fair?  I understand the need to establish rules and expectations, but I think at times the NCAA governs through intimidation and fear.  The NCAA suspended Dez Bryant (Oklahoma State 2007-2009) for the remainder of the season in 2009 (after playing just three games)  for lying to them about meeting with Deion Sanders. An entire season lost, not for any wrongdoing in his friendship with Sanders, but because Bryant dared to lie to them.  The NCAA also ruled Mike Williams (USC 2002-2003) ineligible after he declared for the NFL Draft.  Williams was just a sophomore but declared for the draft in 2003 after a federal district court judge’s ruling made it permissible.  When the appellate court overturned that ruling, many thought Williams would return to USC.  But the NCAA refused to make an exception because he had mistakenly hired an agent and taken steps to enter the NFL draft.  The NCAA recently determined that Cam Netwon did not commit any infractions, even though we know for a fact that his father asked for $200,000 for his son to play at Mississippi State and Newton’s decision not to attend that school may have been influenced by their refusal.   While the NCAA plays a valuable role and provides a great service, I do have to question its arbitrary use of authority in determining wrongdoing and punishments.

IV.  Conclusion

Maybe this rule has been stated clearly to the student-athletes by the schools.  I don’t know because I’m not privy to that information and the point of this piece isn’t to provide my opinion.  I simply wanted to provide an understanding of why these violations may not have been clear violations and an explanation for why the players may not have known that they were doing something wrong.  In fact, the most significant wrongdoing I’ve heard from Ohio State fans concerns the idea that these players sold these valuable items for such little money or that they even sold them at all. I think we should all wait to hear what further information comes out before we form conclusions.  But in the meantime, Ohio State must admit that they did not provide adequate education about the rules to their student-athletes and that as a result those six players did not knowingly violate the rules.  They must do this as required by the NCAA in order for the suspended players to participate in the upcoming Sugar Bowl on January 4, 2011.