There’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.

Now here’s a real shocker:  attorney takes it upon himself to analyze NCAA probation penalties to see if there are any patterns to the punishments levied by the organization and finds – surprise! – that there are and that they’re just about exactly as you’d expect (unless you’re an Alabama fan, of course).

… The study reveals universities who belong to conferences whose champions receive annual automatic BCS bowl bids (BCS automatic-qualifier schools) received less stringent probation penalties from the NCAA infractions committee than other Division I institutions. Also, the research indicates FBS institutions receive less probation years than FCS institutions and non-football sponsoring schools. Finally, the results suggest historically Black colleges and universities in the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference and Southwestern Athletic Conference (HBCUs) received harsher probation penalties than other Division I institutions.

By the way, this isn’t some random dude who came up with this in his spare time between chasing ambulances.  He’s got a background in NCAA enforcement.

… Mr. Buckner, a licensed attorney and private investigator, assists universities with conducting complex investigations of alleged NCAA rules-violations. Mr. Buckner has appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions and Infractions Appeals Committee. Mr. Buckner, as an independent consultant for the NCAA (2006-07), also conducted on-site investigative audits of non-traditional and prep schools in the United States and Puerto Rico.

I’m not surprised at the NCAA’s response to all of this.

The NCAA discredited the report, saying the study was based on an inadequate examination of the facts. The NCAA said in a statement, “the research relies on a very small sample size of a handful of institutions and a methodology that fails to tests the claims against standard statistical criteria.”

The NCAA also stated each case is unique, so the Committee on Infractions must consider the specifics of each case individually to maintain fairness throughout the process.

If it’s blind enough to let this develop in the first place, it’s certainly not going to concede that now.  Evidence, schmevidence!

Now it’s possible that the specifics the NCAA alludes to might explain some of this, since the nature of the study is to average the punishment periods the schools received.  But shouldn’t the NCAA give us more than some sort of blanket, indignant denial?  Especially when the patterns break down clearly in favor of the haves of the college football world?

About these ads

3 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

3 responses to “There’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.

  1. RedCrake

    I don’t doubt that there is some disparity, but isn’t it possible that the nature of the offenses are patently different as well?

    I would think that non-BCS AQ’s would be more likely to have violations and more blatant ones at that as they attempt to close the gap. It may be that this was taken into account, but I’m not sure if it was or not.

    If not, I could look at the Alabama textbook infraction and the FSU Academic Cluster-F infraction and claim the ACC was being unfairly punished compared to the SEC.

  2. SefDawg

    Wait a minute. So he’s saying that the NCAA might be showing preferential treatment to teams that play in the big, money making bowls? I refuse to believe that.

    We should just send one Mike Adams right on up there to investigate.(Maybe he’ll stay)

  3. Toom

    Just speculating here but wouldn’t you assume that the bigger, more powerful schools also have more resources to mitigate any charges that are levied, thereby resulting in lesser penalties?