RSS 2.0 Feed
Criticisms of the NCAA Enforcement Process Provides Opportunity for Change
The recent determinations by the NCAA on the cases involving Auburn’s Cam Newton and the football players from Ohio State led to a tidal wave of criticism against the organization for both its process and its decisions. The criticisms of the NCAA’s actions ranged from illogical and tortured reasoning to money-driven, result-oriented decision making. The NCAA did not take kindly to the widespread analysis and second guessing of both its intent and application of the rules. As a result, the organization countered with its own press release in an attempt to justify its actions and sought to explain its decisions in a series of meetings with administrators at the recent NCAA Convention. While reports of these meetings indicated an understanding and acceptance of the reasoning and the ensuing results reached by the NCAA, the entire process still placed the NCAA on the defensive and called into question its motivations, reasonableness and equitable approach to the enforcement of the NCAA’s bylaws.
The concerns with the NCAA in this regard are further magnified when they are coupled with what has generally been seen as a slow investigative and decision making process that can consume a number of years. The recent Reggie Bush case amply demonstrates the issues associated with an extended process. While a thorough and deliberate approach is essential given what is potentially at stake, everyone involved would most likely appreciate a revamped and more expeditious process.
All of this is happening at a time when the new NCAA President has publicly stated his commitment to vigorous rules enforcement and the organization has appointed a new leader for the enforcement area. Needless to say, these are difficult times for anyone in these types of positions and particularly for those who are new to their respective jobs. The ability to think outside the box and come up with solutions to difficult problems are the hallmarks of true leadership and both of these individuals will surely be tested. By all accounts, however, they are quality individuals who should be able to identify the deficiencies in existing rules as well as their own internal process and come up with ways to reshape the NCAA enforcement process so that it is both credible and timely. All member institutions would likely welcome improvements in this regard and positive changes would do much to stem future criticism such as that which plagued the NCAA over this past football season.