Sugar Bowl Eligibility a Conspiracy? Hardly

By far the most incendiary portion of the NCAA ruling, the eligibility of the suspended players for the Sugar Bowl has been hotly debated by anyone with even a passing interest in college football. Some see it as an injustice, some as a conspiracy, and some see it as yet another example of NCAA inconsistency. The position taken most likely coincides with your opinion of Ohio State and the NCAA, but the facts of the case reveal a situation that suffers from poor timing and unclear procedure by the NCAA more than anything else.

Events were set in motion by the U.S. District Attorney's office on December 7th, when they called the Ohio State Athletic Department to report sports merchandise found on a raid of a tattoo parlor earlier in the year. Ohio State began an investigation into the issue, finding violations by a handful of players who sold their merchandise to the tattoo parlor in exchange for cash and discounts on tattoos. On December 19th, Ohio State officially contacted the NCAA to report the violations and the results of their internal investigation. At this time, Ohio State also suspended the six players for the Sugar Bowl.

Three days later, Ohio State was informed of the ruling by the NCAA. Five players were suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season, with another suspended for the first game of the 2011 season. But all six players were reinstated by the NCAA for the Sugar Bowl on January 4th.

"The horror," the internet cried!  "How could these hooligans be allowed to participate in such a glorious event?"

The answer lies in a little known NCAA bylaw that defers suspension in non-regular season games, as long as the student-athletes' situation meets the guidelines prescribed by the NCAA. From the NCAA website:

NCAA policy allows suspending withholding penalties for a championship or bowl game if it was reasonable at the time the student-athletes were not aware they were committing violations, along with considering the specific circumstances of each situation. In addition, there must not be any competitive advantage related to the violations, and the student-athletes must have eligibility remaining.

The ruling hinges on the university's interpretation of  "adequate rules education," and whether the players received it. Georgia had a similar scandal involving more money and players in 2003, and at least one of the players cited ignorance as an excuse for the mistake. It's certainly plausible that the players were under the impression that they could sell their personal possessions, just as the Bulldog players were in 2003. [Ed. Note- It was not against NCAA policy when the Georgia players sold their goods, but it was against university policy.] The players all committed the violations as freshmen or, in the case of Boom Herron, redshirt freshmen.  I don't entirely buy it as an excuse, but I do believe that it's a plausible explanation for the actions. Ohio State compliance officials should have more explicitly explained the difference between personal property and university supplied property, which cannot be sold until a student-athlete graduates or exhausts eligibility.

This is the one portion of the ruling where gaming of the system could be taking place. Criticism of the ignorance defense is expected considering the circumstances. We do not know whether compliance officials adequately explained the difference between property types, or whether they are biting the bullet to protect the student-athletes. I lean towards a little bit of both. In an age where booster and agent involvement is the death-knell for a program, it is easy to put less of a focus on seemingly secondary issues such as the sale of player property. The six players certainly knew what they were doing was questionable, but whether they knew it endangered their eligibility is another issue entirely.

But, contrary to popular opinion, we do know that this ruling was not conjured up by the NCAA to protect the Sugar Bowl's marketing appeal. It is consistent with previously established NCAA policy, little known as it may be. The unique timing of the investigation simply pushed the issue to a conspicuous forefront, making it understandable how those with a predilection against the NCAA or Ohio State would see conspiracy in a situation like this. However, the NCAA is not the BCS, although journalists and fans alike often confuse the two. The NCAA only receives $12,000 from the Sugar Bowl, and that payment takes place no matter who plays in the game. There's no monetary incentive for the NCAA to conspire with Ohio State, and little reason to even entertain the idea.

The NCAA has baffled many fans with their inconsistent rulings over the past year, but different departments within the NCAA handle different cases. And that will continue during the appeals process for this case. A separate panel, "comprised of representatives from NCAA member colleges, universities and athletic conferences," will be hearing and ruling on the appeal presented by Ohio State's lawyers.This is notable because this panel will not only be reviewing the facts of the case but also Ohio State's behavior throughout the investigation.

Kevin Lennon, NCAA Vice President of Academic and Member affairs, stated in the NCAA press release, "these are significant penalties based on findings and information provided by the university."

Ohio State's total compliance with the NCAA should reflect well in the hearings process, and it's an advantage that Ohio State moved so quickly in their internal investigation. It may result in a reduction of penalties for at least a few of the players, and perhaps more.