Description
his case examines the role of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) as the ethical conscience of college football. The NCAA’s oversight is important in college football culture as football contributes significantly to the revenue coming into its universities and colleges. As is most often the case, when such an emphasis is placed on profits, ethical conduct can be lacking. In some instances, this focus on revenue has changed the role of coaches from mentors to promoters, and the role of university administrators from academic authorities to caterers to the football program. After reading the case, respond to these questions listed below. Justify your responses, opinions, and conclusions with facts and details from the case. Your response to each question should be one paragraph 5-8 sentences. Copy and paste the questions into an MS Word document and submit your file using the Upload Instructions below. Remember to include your name, the course, and the assignment name at the top of your file. How does the NCAA encourage a culture of ethics and compliance in college football programs?In your opinion, does the NCAA place enough emphasis on ethical values? In your opinion, which case was more scandalous – Penn State or Ohio State? Explain your decision. How do unethical behaviors affect fans of college sports?
Unformatted Attachment Preview
4.3 Application Case: The NCAA
Jonathan Darnell
ECPI
Course Number: BUS222
Professor L.Love
3/24/2024
4.3 Application Case: The NCAA page 2
1. How does the NCAA encourage a culture of ethics and compliance in college football
programs?
2. In your opinion, does the NCAA place enough emphasis on ethical values?
3. In your opinion, which case was more scandalous – Penn State or Ohio State? Explain
your decision.
4. How do unethical behaviors affect fans of college sports?
References
For additional information on APA Style formatting, please consult the APA Style Manual, 7th Edition.
Case 9. The NCAA Has Many Balls in the Air
Introduction
Perhaps no sport at American colleges is as popular, or as lucrative, as college football. College football
often has a significant impact on the school’s culture. This is especially true for the more successful and
prolific football programs, such as Texas A&M or Notre Dame. Football has increasingly become a big
money maker for many colleges, with a significant amount of sports revenue coming from their football
programs. Within the past few years, the sports channel ESPN made deals with certain teams to gain
rights to air more games than usual. Because of this influx of revenue, the duties of coaches have
evolved beyond just coaching. In many ways, they became the face of the team. Programs that show
positive returns have coaches working hard to fill seats on game day and encourage college alumni to
donate to the school. The more successful the football team, the more visibility it is given in the media.
This visibility leads to greater awareness of the college or university among the public, and schools with
the best football programs can see a greater influx of applications.
The collegiate football programs have an intangible influence within and outside their immediate
surroundings. This is mainly seen in their fan base, composed of current students, alumni, staff, faculty,
and local businesses. For example, when the University of Alabama won its 15th national championship,
the victory was celebrated by an enormous crowd, fireworks, and a parade. Texas A&M University is one
example of a football program that generates not only profits but also a sense of loyalty among its fans.
Texas A&M spent over $485 million to expand its Kyle Field stadium so that it could seat up to 102,500
spectators. Table 1 shows the value of some of the most successful college-football programs. These
games also help local businesses generate more revenues.
Table 1 Value of Major-Conference College-Football Programs (in Millions)
Rank
School Intrinsic Value
1
Ohio State
2
Texas $885.05
3
Michigan
$811.30
4
Notre Dame
$723.59
5
Alabama
$694.87
6
Oklahoma
$674.34
7
Florida $670.86
8
Georgia $636.44
$946.61
9
LSU
$612.30
10
Penn State
$481.39
11
Nebraska
$444.13
12
Iowa
13
Tennessee
$401.98
14
S. Carolina
$398.18
15
Washington
$378.23
16
Texas A&M
$359.14
17
Wisconsin
$352.67
18
Oregon $338.64
19
Auburn $319.32
20
Arkansas
$311.85
21
Florida State
$294.41
22
Oklahoma St.
$293.72
23
Virginia Tech
$280.73
24
S. California
$277.33
25
Kansas St.
$270.15
26
Arizona St.
$262.54
27
Texas Tech
$258.53
28
Michigan State $246.56
29
California
$239.42
30
Clemson
$237.48
31
Stanford
$222.88
32
Mississippi
$216.20
33
UCLA
34
Kentucky
$208.00
35
Oregon St.
$203.27
36
Minnesota
$194.94
37
Colorado
$192.38
$439.57
$211.27
38
Utah
$189.08
39
Miami-Florida $188.61
40
North Carolina St.
41
Georgia Tech
$170.74
42
Iowa State
$170.62
43
Virginia $151.03
44
Arizona $151.02
45
Northwestern $149.51
46
Indiana $142.96
47
Purdue $132.36
48
Syracuse
49
Washington St. $129.37
50
North Carolina $123.37
$172.84
$130.50
Source: Ryan Brewer, Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus, 2016.
Because of the financial support and widespread influence of the football program, the players, coaches,
and football administrators have to deal with a lot of pressure to fundraise, sell tickets, and win games.
These pressures open up opportunities for misconduct to occur, and it is increasingly important that
university administrators and football program officials directly acknowledge opportunities for
misconduct. While the university is ultimately responsible for the operation of each department and the
behavior of its employees, it can be difficult for the administrators to have an objective view of incidents
that occur, especially when it involves a successful football program that benefits the entire university.
The university administrators are often subject to the same pressures as those in the football program
to increase the level of revenue and reputation. This led to the development of a more objective
institution to set and enforce rules and standards: the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
The NCAA views ethical conduct as a crucial component to a college football program and works to
promote leadership and excellence among student-athletes and the universities to which they belong. It
also serves to protect the interests of student-athletes, ensure academic excellence, and encourage fair
play.
In this case, we provide a brief history of the NCAA and examples of the rules they have regarding
college football. We then view how these rules relate to ethics. The next section covers some of the
major college football scandals within the past few years, how these scandals were handled by the
schools and the NCAA, and the community impact resulting from the scandals. It is crucial to note,
however, that these scandals are not common to college football as a whole. The majority of football
teams receive no NCAA infractions during the year, and those reported are usually minor in nature.
Universities have their own set of expectations for student-athletes, including showing up on time to
practice and behaving responsibly, that go above and beyond NCAA rules. However, when NCAA
violations occur, universities have a responsibility to report them in a timely manner. Therefore, the
next section covers examples of ways universities address unethical behavior in their football programs
through self-imposed sanctions, which signifies that they consider compliance to be an important
component of their football programs. We conclude by analyzing how effective the NCAA appears to be
in curbing misconduct and preventing future unethical behavior from occurring. This case demonstrates
that ethics and compliance is just as important for nonprofit organizations and educational institutions
as it is for businesses.
Overview of NCAA
The NCAA was formed in 1906 under the premise of protecting student-athletes from being endangered
and exploited. The Association was established with a constitution and a set of bylaws with the ability to
be amended as issues arise. As the number of competitive college sports grew, the NCAA was divided
into three Divisions—I, II, and III—to deal with the rising complexity of college athletic programs.
Universities are given the freedom to decide which division they want to belong to based on their
desired level of competitiveness in collegiate sports.
Each Division is equipped with the power to establish a group of presidents or other university officials
with the authority to write and enact policies, rules, and regulations for their Divisions. Each Division is
ultimately governed by the President of the NCAA and the Executive Committee. Under the Executive
Committee are groups formed in each Division, such as the Legislative Committee, as well as Cabinets
and Boards of Directors.
In the early 1980s, questions began to arise concerning the level of education student-athletes received.
Some thought these students were held to lower academic standards so they could focus more on their
sport, which could be detrimental to the students’ education and negatively impact future career
success. As a result, the NCAA strengthened the academic requirements of student-athletes to ensure
academics were taken just as seriously as athletics. It also established the Presidents Commission,
composed of presidents of universities in each Division that collaboratively set agendas with the NCAA.
Table 2 provides a list of six of the Principles for Conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics that can be found in
Article 2 of the Constitution.
Table 2 Principles for Conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics
The Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility
Puts the responsibility for the operations and behaviors of staff on the president of the university.
The Principle of Student-Athlete Well-Being
Requires integration of athletics and education, maintaining a culturally diverse and gender equitable
environment, protection of student-athlete’s health and safety, creating an environment that is
conducive to positive coach/student-athlete relationships, coaches and administrative staff show
honesty, fairness, and openness in their relationships with student-athletes, and student-athlete
involvement in decisions that will affect them.
The Principle of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct
Maintains that respect, fairness, civility, honesty, and responsibility are values that need to be adhered
to through the establishment of policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in the athletics program
which must be consistent with the mission and goals of the university. Everyone must be continuously
educated about the policies.
The Principle of Sound Academic Standards
Maintains that student-athletes need to be held to the same academic standards as all other students.
The Principle of Rules Compliance
Requires compliance with NCAA rules. Notes that the NCAA will help institutions develop their
compliance program and explains the penalty for noncompliance.
The Principle Governing Recruiting
Promotes equity among prospective students and protects them from exorbitant pressures.
Source: Adapted from National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2016-17 NCAA® Division II Manual
(Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletics Association, 2016).
Throughout the Constitution, the NCAA emphasizes the responsibility each university has in overseeing
its athletics department and being compliant with the terms established by its conferences. The NCAA
establishes principles, rules, and enforcement guidelines to both guide the universities in its oversight of
the athletics department as well as penalize those schools that fail to regulate and address misconduct.
In article 10 of the bylaws, a description of ethical and unethical conduct among student-athletes is
provided, along with corresponding disciplinary consequences if any of the conditions are violated.
Honesty and sportsmanship are emphasized as the basis of ethical conduct, while wagering, withholding
information, and fraud are among the unethical behaviors listed. Article 11 describes the appropriate
behavior for athletics personnel. Honesty and sportsmanship are again the basis for ethical behavior,
but with an added emphasis on responsibility for NCAA regulations. Article 11 cites the Head Coach as
responsible for creating an atmosphere of compliance and monitoring the behavior of his or her
subordinates, including assistant coaches and players.
The NCAA takes the enforcement of rules seriously and tries to ensure the penalties fit the violation if
misconduct does occur. The organization also makes sure the penalties are handed down in a timely
manner, not only to indicate the seriousness of the infraction but also to maintain a credible and
effective enforcement program. This method tries to correct or eliminate deviant behavior while
maintaining fairness and objectivity toward those members of the Association not involved in violations.
Employees (coaches and other administrative staff) are exhorted to have high ethical standards since
they work among and influence students. The NCAA makes it a requirement that each employee engage
in exemplary conduct so as not to cause harm to the student-athletes in any way. They are also given a
responsibility to cooperate with the NCAA.
The NCAA lays out three types of violations and corresponding penalties, depending on the nature and
scope of the violation. Secondary violations are the least severe and can result in fines, suspensions for
games, and reduction in scholarships. For major violations, some of the penalties are the same as
secondary violations, but the scope is far more severe. For example, suspensions will be longer and fines
larger. However, some penalties are specific only to major violations, such as a public reprimand, a
probationary period for up to five years, and limits on recruiting. The last type involves repeat violations
that occur within a five-year period from the start date of the initial violation. The penalties for repeat
violations are the most severe, including elimination of all financial aid and recruiting activities and
resignation of institutional staff members who serve on boards, committees, or in cabinets. Table 3 lists
some of the more prominent unethical practices the NCAA lists specifically concerning college football.
Table 3 Unethical Practices Prohibited by the NCAA
Use of the helmet as a weapon.
Targeting and initiating contact. Players, coaches, and officials should emphasize the elimination of
targeting and initiating contact against a defenseless opponent and/or with the crown of the helmet.
Using nontherapeutic drugs in the game of football.
Unfair use of a starting signal, called “Beating the ball.” This involves deliberately stealing an advantage
from the opponent. An honest starting signal is needed, but a signal that has for its purpose starting the
team a fraction of a second before the ball is put in play, in the hope that it will not be detected by the
officials, is illegal.
Feigning an injury. An injured player must be given full protection under the rules, but feigning injury is
dishonest, unsportsmanlike, and contrary to the spirit of the rules.
Talking to an opponent in any manner that is demeaning, vulgar, or abusive, intended to incite a physical
response or verbally put an opponent down.
For a coach to address, or permit anyone on his bench to address, uncomplimentary remarks to any
official during the progress of a game, or to indulge in conduct that might incite players or spectators
against the officials, is a violation of the rules of the game and must likewise be considered conduct
unworthy of a member of the coaching profession.
Source: Adapted from National Collegiate Athletics Association, Football 2016 and 2017 Rules and
Interpretations (Indianapolis IN: National Collegiate Athletics Association, 2016).
The NCAA incorporates a compliance approach to ethics by developing and enforcing rules to keep the
games fair and respectful of student-athletes’ rights. The NCAA Committee on Sportsmanship and
Ethical Conduct identified respect and integrity as two critical elements in the NCAA 2016 and 2017
Football Rules and Interpretations. The NCAA strives to keep football games fun and entertaining
without sacrificing the health and safety of the student-athletes participating. As previously mentioned,
the NCAA places emphasis on the level of education student-athletes receive and encourages athletes to
focus on their grades to ensure they have career opportunities post-athletics. The core of the NCAA
concerns ethics. This organization takes not only key players into consideration but also other
stakeholders, such as the college community and the sports society as a whole.
Aside from its involvement with student-athlete academics, the NCAA is likewise involved with other offthe-field activities to protect the best interests of student-athletes. According to NCAA guidelines,
college football coaches are not permitted to actively begin recruiting prospective players to their school
until the prospective player is at least a junior in high school. These coaches have a limit on the number
of phone calls and off-campus visits they are permitted to make to prospective students. These rules are
in place to ensure student-athletes do not feel pressured by these colleges. Once the student-athletes
are in college, a set of rules made between the NCAA and the individual college limit the types of gifts a
student-athlete can accept. Parents of student-athletes, for example, are able to give any number and
type of gifts to their own children, but must be wary when it comes to other members of the team.
Student-athletes generally cannot accept gifts at reduced prices (for example, a free iPod) and other
gifts, such as practice uniforms for the team, must be cleared by the school first.
Despite the NCAA’s wide array of rules and regulations, there have been many criticisms of the
organization’s practices. One of these criticisms has to do with a former NCAA investigator, Ameen
Najjar, who worked on investigating reports of rule violations from the University of Miami. Najjar was
promptly dismissed from the NCAA when it was found he was going outside the NCAA’s rules of
investigation in order to collect more evidence for the case. Not only was this a major embarrassment
for the NCAA, but critics state Najjar followed orders from others within the organization and was put up
as a scapegoat when the rule-breaking investigative techniques came to light. The NCAA was also sued
for allegedly allowing the video game company EA to use the likeness of NCAA basketball players in its
video games without giving the players any compensation. EA later stopped producing college football
video games altogether. The NCAA paid $20 million to settle these claims.
A major issue that has arisen for the NCAA is player safety. It is common for injuries to occur in sports,
especially football. Over the past few years professional players have increasingly filed lawsuits as
evidence has demonstrated that injuries such as concussions could lead to degenerative brain disease.
College athletes have also gotten involved in the dispute, and former athletes filed a lawsuit against the
NCAA seeking damages for injuries sustained during games. The fear is that concussion and other
injuries could have long-term health impacts. The NCAA announced it would spend $30 million to track
the impact of concussions on athletes and has changed its guidelines regarding how it manages
concussion occurrences. This includes prohibiting players that suffered a concussion from playing again
during the day and developing a medical monitoring program to assess whether self-reported symptoms
might be indicative of a head injury.
Additionally, misconduct in college sports continues to be a challenge for the NCAA. Often other
stakeholders are involved in the misconduct. For instance, college sports games that have been “rigged”
(managed fraudulently) have often been traced to wealthy sports boosters with inside knowledge of the
sports in which they heavily invest. A majority of the time, this rigging is done to benefit gambling
outcomes among these boosters. Flopping—a tactic common in the NBA—is becoming more
widespread in college basketball. Flopping occurs when a player exaggerates or fakes a blow so that the
referee will call a foul. Despite anti-flopping measures adopted by the NCAA, this practice is hard to
pinpoint exactly because it is hard to measure the intent of the player (that is, whether the player
intentionally faked a blow).
When a college sports program is accused of misconduct that violates NCAA rules, the NCAA conducts
an investigation to determine whether the allegations are true. If these schools are found to be in
violation, the NCAA levies penalties against the team. However, the NCAA also receives criticism from
those who disapprove of the severity and effectiveness of the sanctions meant to discourage
misconduct. On the one hand, some stakeholders believe the NCAA sanctions are too tough. On the
other hand, some feel they are not strict enough. They state some of the major college football
programs hit by NCAA sanctions were able to recover from these penalties quickly and did not suffer
much during the course of the sanctions. This argument implies that avoiding the risks of punishment is
less costly to the team than the benefits of bending the rules. Whether NCAA sanctions are too harsh or
not harsh enough, pressure to maintain the sports programs provides the opportunity for misconduct in
the college sports community, as well as creates significant challenges for the NCAA.
Challenges for Ethics and Compliance in College
Football
College football is far more than just a sport. For many universities, it is a business that brings millions of
dollars to colleges all over the United States. Being a business, there are always ethical and compliance
issues that take place. The question is whether schools ignore issues taking place because of the amount
of money a football program generates for the school. If so, this creates a significant conflict of interest.
In the past decade, a number of highly publicized scandals have rocked the college football industry and
led to heavy criticism of the schools where the scandals occurred. The actions of the NCAA in response
to these scandals received mixed reactions from stakeholders. However, a more serious concern for the
NCAA is how to ensure college sports teams comply with ethical policies as well as combat the tendency
for colleges to remain complacent because of the success of the sports team. The following examples
describe two major college football scandals, how the schools reacted to the scandals, and the
sanctions, if any, that the NCAA took against the team.
Penn State Scandal
In 2011 accusations arose alleging that a former assistant coach of the Penn State football team sexually
assaulted at least eight young boys over the course of many years. It was not long before the school
itself was implicated in suspecting or knowing about the crime but not taking adequate steps to stop it.
Two university officials turned themselves in to authorities after being accused of covering up the
crimes.
According to investigations, the first report of potential misconduct between the former assistant coach
Jerry Sandusky and an underage boy came in 1998. The report came to University police and the Senior
Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz. This matter was investigated internally and
resulted in no criminal charges based on a lack of evidence. In 2001 a graduate assistant allegedly
witnessed the perpetrator sexually assaulting a young boy in the Penn State football team’s practice
center. The graduate assistant reported the incident to Head Coach Joe Paterno, who staked his
reputation on running a program known for ethics and integrity. While Paterno appeared to notify
campus officials, the officials did not report the incident to police, allowing the crimes to continue. A
later report conducted by former FBI director Louis Freeah indicated the coach and school officials
covered up the crimes. This led to accusations that the school cared more about its reputation and the
success of its football program than it did about the young victims. This case is even more serious as
such misconduct does not just constitute an NCAA violation; it is a criminal act that harmed many
people. Although Joe Paterno reported the crime to campus officials, some felt it was his responsibility
to do more to ensure the crimes were reported to the proper authorities. The assistant coach continued
to interact with young boys and be around the college campus after the reports were made.
The negligent behavior of Penn State officials, both within the administration and the football
department, might be explained through the strength of the football program and the complacency of
the university culture. Head Coach Joe Paterno had been at Penn State’s football department for more
than 60 years at the time of the scandal. The way he ran the department indicated a reliance on old
football standards and an inability or unwillingness to adapt to new ones. Unfortunately, this culture
had pitfalls that did not hold up to modern ethical standards. Some reports claim that on different
occasions he advocated that football players should not be held to the same standards as regular
students, implying football players should be treated differently than other students by the university.
When football players got in trouble with the law, Paterno felt the university should not take action but
rather let the police deal with it. Although he butted heads with many people when it came to these
views, school directors were on his side of the argument. This is likely because of the large amount of
revenue the program brought into the school. According to one accusation, Coach Paterno used this
revenue as a threat to stop all fundraising if a certain director he disagreed with was not fired. If these
allegations are true, then Paterno created a culture within the football department wherein members
did not need to be held accountable according to school regulations. This in turn indicates a complacent
university culture when it came to the football program.
The NCAA agreed the misconduct was partially the fault of the football program’s and Penn State’s
complacency. In addition to the negative impact on the victims, Penn State suffered reputational
damage and received a major blow to its football program. The NCAA imposed sanctions against Penn
State costing $60 million in fines, a four-year post-season ban prohibiting the school from being eligible
for any post games until 2016, and a four-year reduction in scholarships amounting to 10 scholarships
per year for the football program. The football team’s wins between 1998 and 2011 were vacated;
however, in 2015 the NCAA reinstated the wins after a legal battle. The 2015 lawsuit settlement also
included a repeal of the 2012 NCAA sanctions and agreement by Penn State to spend $60 million on
programs intended to prevent child abuse. Indeed, the penalties imposed by the NCAA drastically hurt
Penn State’s football program’s ability to compete against other teams. In total, there were seven
penalties placed on the university and athletics program combined.
The NCAA’s actions demonstrate its commitment to ensure the activities that took place at Penn State
do not happen again. Although Joe Paterno died of lung cancer in 2012, close to two months after he
was fired as head coach, the Paterno family filed a lawsuit against the NCAA and its President on behalf
of Penn State, citing the investigation conducted by former director of the FBI Louis Freeah—a report
the NCAA relied heavily upon in imposing sanctions against Penn State—was seriously flawed in its
conclusions of blame.
The NCAA also put 10 corrective sanctions on Penn State formulated specifically for them. The main
corrective measure was that the university must sign an Athletic Integrity Agreement. In doing so, this
allowed the NCAA to require Penn State to take corrective steps. These steps include hiring a
compliance officer for the athletics department, creating a compliance council and a full disclosure
program, adding internal accountability and certifications for this accountability, implementing an
external compliance review/certification process, drafting an athletics code of conduct, conducting
training and education, and appointing an independent athletics integrity monitor. All of the steps will
be continuously updated to ensure the internal and external controls stay relevant. The NCAA’s goal for
the corrective sanctions is to find and stop unethical behavior before it becomes a problem.
Ohio State
The Ohio State scandal was a result of rule violations from student-athletes and a subsequent cover-up
of the violations by the coach. In December 2010, five players on Ohio State’s football team were
suspended for using the gear the football team supplied to barter for cash and tattoos. Under the NCAA
rules, it is illegal for a Division I football player to receive any benefit, such as a discount or favor, that is
not offered to the public. Head Coach Jim Tressel became aware of the violation and failed to report it
to the school for a period of nine months. This enabled the team to continue to play in games they
otherwise would have been ineligible to play. In addition to the suspensions, the NCAA also banned
Ohio State from a bowl game for one year, took five scholarships away for the following three years, and
put the team on a one-year probation. When it was discovered Tressel had prior knowledge of the
violation, the NCAA issued a five-year show-cause order, forcing him to resign and virtually ending his
career as a coach in collegiate athletics. A college can hire a coach who has an outstanding show-cause
order, but it may also face penalties for doing so. In addition, if a coach with a show-cause order does in
fact get hired and makes a subsequent violation, the consequences will be far more severe on both the
coach and the university. Most colleges will not take the risk of hiring a coach with this kind of label.
This was not the only violation found among members of the Ohio State football team. After the
bartering scandal, the NCAA suspended three other players for accepting money from a booster. A
booster is a fan who has a significant amount of money and invests in the team to build better facilities,
contribute to scholarships, and sometimes influence who the coaching staff will be. However, studentathletes are prohibited from accepting money or gifts from boosters directly, and doing so is a direct
violation of NCAA rules. Additionally, other players were suspended for being overpaid by the same
booster for work completed during a summer job.
The NCAA placed these sanctions on Ohio State for failure to properly oversee its athletics program.
Many of the administrators commented if they knew of the football players’ conduct, they would have
taken corrective action against it. Ohio State took responsibility for its actions and cooperated with the
NCAA investigation. The university imposed its own penalties against the football program, including
vacating the 2010 season. Yet the NCAA made it a point to show the administrators it is their
responsibility to know what is going on within their organization. Additionally, the NCAA also noted
Tressel withheld information multiple times from NCAA investigators. In total, the sanctions cost Ohio
State an estimated $8 million.
Self-Reporting and Monitoring Student-Athletes
Minor violations become scandals when the university, the football program authorities, or both cover
them up for long periods of time. No matter where the cover-up begins or ends, the ultimate
responsibility lies with the university to monitor the actions of the football program. If the culture of the
university fosters misconduct, minor violations will inevitably become scandals. On the other hand,
universities that monitor their athletics programs and swiftly address minor violations, including
reporting the infractions to the NCAA, are less likely to be involved in major scandals. This act of selfreporting demonstrates a concern with ethical behavior and accountability for their actions.
Furthermore, the NCAA takes these measures into account when deciding on the appropriate level of
penalties to impose for violations.
In 2017 the NCAA charged University of Mississippi’s football team, the Ole Miss Rebels, with 21 college
football violations. Accusations included alleged recruiting violations by staff, improper booster
payments and benefits, and manipulating student scores on high school ACT tests. The NCAA also
charged the university with a lack of institutional controls and the failure of head coach Hugh Freeze to
responsibly legislate the players’ conduct. In response, Ole Miss admitted its program had engaged in
misconduct, although it contested some of the NCAA’s claims. In the immediate aftermath, Ole Miss
fired coaches alleged to have been involved in the misconduct. It also self-imposed a one-year bowl ban
for the 2017 season. Later in the year, Ole Miss faced the NCAA’s Committee of Infractions. The
Committee of Infractions decides whether university teams accused of violations committed infractions,
which helps determine the penalties levied against universities for violations.
A growing problem the NCAA is facing involves a rise in academic misconduct. Because sports bring a lot
of money to the university, administrators and faculty are sometimes tempted to turn the other way
when players engage in misconduct. It is not uncommon for coaches and professors to provide
assistance to players that might violate NCAA rules or lower academic standards so they can continue to
compete. In
