Who’s Afraid of the NCAA?

Two weeks ago, the NCAA accused Kelvin Sampson, the basketball coach at Indiana University, of committing five major rules violations involving recruiting and improper phone calls. The NCAA report was harsh in its assessment of the situation, and media coverage of the report was extensive. The media portrayed the NCAA as a serious actor that would come down hard on Indiana if the school didn’t take swift action itself. The school responded by getting rid of Sampson last Friday with a $750,000 settlement.

Contrast this with the academic cheating scandal at Florida State University that came to full light last December. Sixty-one players on various sports teams cheated in an online music history class, making this one of the most widespread cases of academic corruption ever publicly disclosed. Media attention to the scandal was limited outside of Florida, and was mostly focused on the fact that FSU wouldn’t be competitive in its football bowl game because the school had suspended 36 players.

So here’s the question: does the NCAA treat academic fraud as seriously as it treats recruiting and other rules violations, such as illegal payments to players? It appears that the media doesn’t think so, as predictions of doom and gloom for Indiana were prevalent and are still being discussed, while no one is talking about the NCAA doing anything serious to FSU.

For the most part, cheating is framed as the school’s problem. There have been a few examples of the NCAA stepping in and enacting harsh penalties for academic fraud, but only in the most extreme cases. In general, it has been left to colleges to monitor academic honesty and deal with infractions by their student athletes.

Recruiting and rules violations, on the other hand, are tracked closely by the NCAA because, the organization assumes, universities would not comply with them without a supervisory body.

But can the NCAA assume that universities are taking academic corruption seriously without the presence of a meaningful watchdog? Given the tacit acceptance by many schools of improper tutoring and cheating in high-profile sports programs, we think the answer to that question is a resounding “no.”

Current NCAA Monitoring and Infractions

At present, 25 Division I institutions have been charged with NCAA infractions and are on probation with the NCAA (in addition to receiving a range of other penalties). Being on probation itself doesn’t have any real consequences; it basically means that if the school commits another infraction while on probation, the penalties will be much harsher (and it means that the athletics program is likely under stricter scrutiny).

Of those 25 violations, only three are specifically related to academic fraud (McNeese State University, Nicholls State University, Purdue University), while another five primarily involve other recruiting and player benefit infractions but also include instances of academic fraud (Baylor University, Ohio State University, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, University of Georgia, University of Kansas). Most of the NCAA infractions rulings are related to eligibility questions or illegal payments and benefits provided to players.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that the NCAA is ignoring academic fraud; it could mean that cases of academic fraud occur much less frequently than other rules violations. We would be shocked, however, if this were the case. There isn’t concrete data to support widespread academic corruption, because so much of it is under the radar and tacitly accepted by schools. But just talk to anyone involved in athletic academic support services at a big-time football or basketball school, and you’ll get an idea of just how prevalent and widely accepted such conduct is.

NCAA Penalties and Rhetoric: Indiana vs. Florida State

Indiana

When the NCAA released its report on Kelvin Sampson’s recruiting violations, its allegations were pointed and unsympathetic: Sampson “acted contrary to the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly violated recruiting restrictions imposed by the NCAA” and “failed to deport himself…with the generally recognized high standard of honesty.”

Sports commentators immediately began to assess Indiana’s options, and most gravely warned Indiana that if the school didn’t take swift action by firing Sampson and imposing penalties on itself, the NCAA wouldn’t be kind. The violations do appear to be serious, and they shouldn’t be trivialized. If true (and given Sampson’s acceptance of a settlement, they likely are), Sampson blatantly lied to the NCAA and knowingly violated recruiting rules over and over again.

Florida State

But the infractions at Florida State were also quite serious, and weren’t confined to a single individual. Over 60 athletes were implicated, which certainly raises questions about academic integrity and the environment surrounding the FSU athletics program. Rules compliance also has been a problem in the past at FSU.

FSU uncovered the cheating operation itself, and recently announced self-imposed penalties of two years probation for the school, loss of 30 percent of eligibility for the coming season—sitting out 30 percent of games—for the students involved, and to-be-determined scholarship reductions (these certainly won’t disrupt business as usual in the FSU athletic department). It has submitted its final internal report to the NCAA, and will wait to hear whether the NCAA will go above and beyond those penalties.

What’s interesting about the way that the FSU scandal unfolded was the length of time it took for FSU to take action, the lack of pressure or commentary from the NCAA (a single news release reaffirming its academic standards), and the minimal media coverage. FSU president T.K. Wetherell first ordered an investigation into the incident last May and didn’t report the initial findings to the NCAA until September (after becoming frustrated with an uncooperative athletic department). The school didn’t suspend the majority of football players involved until FSU’s season had already gone down the drain and the team was playing in an inconsequential bowl game.

The Indiana-Sampson investigation represents a marked contrast. The NCAA took it upon itself to look into Sampson’s violations after the school first reported them and enacted its own penalties last October. The organization quickly found that Sampson was in a lot more trouble than Indiana had originally thought. The school gave itself seven days to do its own reinvestigation and respond. And the school decided that it would be too damaging to drag the situation out, so it cut its losses and settled with Sampson. (Indiana has not yet announced if it will impose further penalties on itself).

Indiana values its reputation—and is scared enough of the NCAA—to take action now, rather than feel the wrath of the NCAA later. Is FSU scared that the NCAA will take matters into its own hands? Is FSU worried that its reputation might be in jeopardy?

Unlikely. The NCAA rarely exhibits its wrath for academic fraud violations. Our bet is that FSU is breathing a lot easier than Indiana right now.