Skip to content

How much cheating are we willing to tolerate?

Sep 15, 2010, 5:08 PM EDT

New NCAA president Mark Emmert supports tougher penalties for schools who break the rules. It’s sure to be a popular statement among fans and pundits, who’ve watched as the summer months turned into a bit of a dramatic mess.

Forget the notable arrests and just focus on the NCAA issues: UConn and Tennessee self-imposed penalties due to violations, while some star recruits have had transcript issues. And that’s just for hoops. I don’t even want to get into football’s problems.

“It’s very complicated, a highly dynamic environment,” Emmert said Tuesday. “Around elite athletes, there are always people who see an opportunity to make money in the future, so the opportunities for those things are sort of omnipresent and what the university president and athletic directors have to do is be as rigorous as they can with what the university stands for, their values and be very attentive to it.

“And even then, sometimes, that (rules violations) happens.”


So here’s the thing — if rules violations happen, how much cheating are we willing to tolerate?
Bruce Pearl undoubtedly stepped afoul of NCAA rules. He and his staff not only made impermissible calls to recruits, he reportedly hosted prospects when he shouldn’t have. Some might scoff at the idea that a guy should be pilloried because he didn’t break laws, only rules that may be seen as antiquated. Regardless of how you view Pearl, he’s not doing anything other coaches already do. (He just did them at what seems to be a much, much higher level and is being punished accordingly.)

A survey of 20 coaches by ESPN’s Dana O’Neil found that most don’t trust their peers. When CBSSportsline’s Gary Parrish interviewed 10 coaches after the Pearl mess, all 10 admitted they’d made impermissible calls. Some a few times; some many times.

“Any coach who tells you he hasn’t is lying,” one told Parrish. “We’ve all done it. You don’t need to interview coaches to get that answer.”

Some might argue that world view — “Rules? The rules don’t apply to me.” — is part of what makes great athletes and great coaches, well, great. They don’t always do things according to the rules. They do things how they think they should.

Even the game’s legends don’t escape that type of behavior if people associated with their program choose to ignore the rules.

But some bad behavior we choose to ignore. Some we choose to laugh about. Some we choose to vilify.

So what are we willing to tolerate?

Not the blatant cheaters. No paying players or agents. No grade changing.

Yet if we accept that some NCAA rules are silly — text messaging, for one — but still need to be followed, perhaps that’s one violation to tolerate. If coaches or programs run afoul of those rules then we can treat said rule breakers lightly. The same might apply to impermissible calls. But there’s a point where even silly rules stop being silly and start being serious. From Parrish’s article:

The only debate was whether the illegal calls are more often a sign of confusion or intentional cheating. One coach said the number of them typically tells the story.

“There’s a difference between 15 and 200,” he said. “It might be accidental if you make 15 impermissible calls over a two-year period, but you can’t accidentally make 200; that’s cheating. There’s no way the gray area leads to 200.”

To understand the gray area you must first understand that coaches are only allowed to call prospects once a month starting June 15 before their junior years, then twice a week starting August 1 after their junior years. It’s also important to note that calling a prospect’s family member is the same as calling a prospect. There are also guidelines that make it improper to call prospects while they’re at sanctioned summer events. So some impermissible calls, the coaches said, are rooted in calendar confusion and can be unavoidable.

“Let’s say there’s a kid I’m recruiting who’s scheduled to play in an AAU event, go home for a day, then play in another AAU event,” said one coach, citing just one example of how an impermissible call might get made. “I can’t call while he’s at either event, but I can call while he’s home. So on the day that he’s scheduled to be home, I call his cell phone. But what if his team decided at the last minute to go straight from the first event to the second event without going home? Now I’ve just made an impermissible call, and it was unavoidable.”

Thankfully, this is where Emmert comes in. The NCAA is supposed to examine those gray areas and decide what sort of punishment is necessary. Egregious violations call for serious consequences. When minor violations continue to mount, so should the consequences. And the small stuff? That’s where common sense applies.

We can tolerate coaches and programs who stretch the rules. If I expect a little forgiveness for jaywalking (there were no cars in either direction!) or speeding (seriously? it’s only 50 mph on the Interstate?), then I’ll probably cut a coach some slack who makes a few impermissible calls. But blatant rule breaking is out. That’s not worth tolerating, no matter how good a coach or athlete you are.

Mike Miller’s also on Twitter @BeyndArcMMiller, usually talkin’ hoops. Click here for more.

  1. Bruce Furst - Sep 15, 2010 at 6:22 PM

    Get rid of the whole charade – the cheating, the student/athlete joke, etc. Youth sports are by age group: U14, U16, etc. So, football can be the U22 or U23 age group. Colleges can hire the players, pay them a salary, the hell with classes, and they can leave when they get drafted, or leave when they are over the age limit.
    Most of these college players have little connection to the school, transferring when things are not working out for them on the field. Get rid of the nitpicking rules. Require the players to be between say 18 and 22, and be done with the rest of the crap.
    It would be run similar to the NFL: suspensions for improper conduct, players can be cut at certain times.
    C’mon, this is the way to go!!!!

  2. TomN - Sep 15, 2010 at 6:33 PM

    Bad rules erode support for “law”. The NCAA and the college system is a monopoly that exploits their athletes and their fans. Why should I disrespect someone who is breaking stupid immoral rules?
    The Olympics gave up “amateur” some time ago.
    I have no respect for the hypercritical NCAA rules or the system. I do enjoy the rivalries and watching the athletes. I could care less. The whole system is morally corrupt. If there was some fairness in the system, elite athletes would be paid and there would be a college football playoff system.
    And yes, all these things tie together.

  3. Mike - Sep 16, 2010 at 1:45 AM

    “Yet if we accept that some NCAA rules are silly — text messaging, for one. . . .”
    You are ASSuming that everyone with a cell phone has unlimited incoming text messaging. If even one does not, their cell phone bill, if certain features are abused, can be VERY high, as each text message costs $.10 to $.25.
    Let’s face it – most of the highly sought-after high school basketball athletes are not rich. Many, in fact, live in low income neighborhoods. As a result, they and their families, by necessity, watch how every penny is spent. Even an unexpected $10.00 cost (40 to 100 unbudgeted text messages, for example) could send them into a fiscal tail spin.
    You may ASSume the ban on text messaging is silly, but to some it is not a silly rule. In fact, to some, it is an extremely SANE rule.

  4. Darrell Hart - Sep 16, 2010 at 10:50 AM

    In response to the question, How much cheating are we willing to tolerate?: How much horse crap in choclate cake are we willing to tolerate?; the principle remains the same.

  5. Anonymous - Sep 16, 2010 at 11:59 AM

    The NCAA has one real rule, keep the money rolling in boys. As for the Bruce Pearl photo, he will be cheating someone until he hits the grave.

  6. William the Conqueror - Sep 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM

    Cheating is cheating any way you look at it.
    I do believe a coach only needs to call a recruit maybe once a week, if that.
    When I was recruited, I was receiving calls on the weekend at night, it totally messed up my studying. At that point, my father took over and had them speak to him during early evening. We didn’t answer the phone after nine o’clock.
    My concern with the cheating goes in the direction of changing grades for eligiblity, having someone take your SAT’s so you’re eligible, receiving gifts, money, cars, booster girls, etc. Yes, this happens. When this does happen, it cheapens the university and its representatives. This type of wanton behavior needs to end.
    And, when did a $250,000 scholarship get cheapened? These athletes don’t need to be paid, they need to get their education which is provided through the scholarship. And, all D-1 scholarships offer room & board, books, summer school, and laundry money (allowance). It doesn’t offer you a job spotting for the football team, a job turning the lights on and off at the gym, money for cutting a wealthy alumni’s lawn, clothing, etc.
    I’m for making an example of all the big time cheaters like Pearl, Calipari, Sampson, Calhoun, etc.

  7. sweating armpits - Sep 19, 2010 at 2:35 AM

    Not many people would say this. Youve got some guts. I will say this, though. If you dont want to alienate any readers, youre gonna have to stop generalising so much. Perhaps you should try seeing both sides of this issue instead of assuming that yours is the only valid opinion. Id still read it, I like the method that you write. But I can see some people getting upset.

  8. Marisela Gottwald - Nov 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM

    ok everyone keep the reviews clean and have a little bit of reverence a lot of energy and effort went into this site!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!