Brittany Collens delenda est.

Here’s your weekly reminder that the NCAA is run by petty assholes.

When Brittany Collens first saw the news, she figured it was a joke. It was last October, and Collens, a professional tennis player, was driving home following a workout when her coach texted her an article about the National Collegiate Athletic Association punishing the University of Massachusetts, Amherst women’s tennis program for violating its amateurism rules.

Didn’t you play at UMass? her coach texted.

Collens did. As a senior in 2017, she helped the school win its first Atlantic 10 title in 15 years, capping a memorable season for Collens and her tight-knit teammates with what she calls “an absolutely fairy-tale ending.”

But now—three years later and completely out of the blue—the clock was striking midnight. After pulling off the road, Collens read the article. The NCAA was vacating 49 UMass women’s tennis victories from 2014-15 to 2016-17, including the team’s conference championship, because two players had received money from the school exceeding the full cost of attendance—thereby flouting the sacred and fundamental principle that college athletes shall not get more than whatever the NCAA says they are allowed to get, currently the value of their athletic scholarships plus cost of living stipends.

Curiosity curdling into disbelief, Collens realized that she and her former roommate, Anna Woosley, were the two players in question. Their terrible, no-good amateurism crime? When the pair moved out of dorms and into off-campus housing during their junior year, the school mistakenly continued to include a $252 telecommunications subsidy in their scholarship checks.

“It’s a stipend for athletes in on-campus housing, so they can have a phone jack for a landline,” Collens says. “I didn’t have a landline when I lived on campus. So I never even noticed it. I had to call my former coach and the UMass [athletic director] so they could explain what was happening, and why I was in trouble.

“It just doesn’t make sense. The rules don’t make sense.”

To you, that’s a bug.  To Mark Emmert, it’s a feature.  He must defend this amateurism.


Filed under The NCAA

48 responses to “Brittany Collens delenda est.

  1. mwodieseldawg


    Liked by 3 people

  2. RangerRuss

    That’s the type of violation normally dug up when looking to stick it to someone. Why would anyone want to stick it to UMass women’s tennis?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. didntgotheredawg

    Don’t you know how much Milwaukee’s Best you can buy for $252?

    Liked by 2 people

  4. MGW

    Little turd was probably my buying xboxes and tattoos for all her seedy tennis friends.

    Liked by 8 people

  5. Hogbody Spradlin

    “The way of the amateur, Mr. Abrahams, produces the most satisfactory results.”

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Good grief. That really does sound like Jerry Tarkanian’s “Kentucky gets caught cheating and the NCAA slaps another year of probation on Cleveland State.”

    Given that tennis players aren’t typically on full scholarships, who cares?

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Down Island Way

    Are “petty assholes” what this system is, versus simple reimbursement for an apparent oversight, observation from a distance on the snails pace at which the ncaa moves to save money$ spent on attorney$ fee$ vs having qualified student athletes capitalize on their individual likeness, in turn should be a reduction in costs to the institutions…”petty assholes” they are not, guilty of having the overall appearance of being “petty assholes” in protection of their values is just plain dipshittyness….

    Liked by 1 person

  8. back9k9

    In a sane world they could always just ask the ladies to pay the money back, or even better chalk it up to an accounting error and move on.

    Liked by 2 people

    • TN Dawg

      Do you really think the players would be willing to pay back $4500 for their place in A-10 Women’s Tennis history?

      I doubt it, I wouldn’t.

      It’s not like they are getting stripped of gold medals or the Tour de France title. Their obscure accomplishment won’t appear in some statistical sports almanac that would only ever be referenced by some sports information director for a match day program distributed to the 9 fans in attendance (all of whom are parents).

      Let’s face it, this blog entry and the article to which it refers is actually more publicity about the team’s accomplishments than if the records remained in place.

      A micro-version of Pete Rose getting more publicity by NOT being in the Hall of Fame then if he was actually in the Hall of Fame.

      Just one man’s opinion. YMMV if you look back fondly on that magical A-10 Women’s Tennis run in ’16-17.


      • ugafidelis

        One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean.

        Approaching the boy, he asked, “What are you doing?”

        The youth replied, “Throwing starfish back into the ocean. The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.”

        “Son,” the man said, “don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish? You can’t make a difference!”

        After listening politely, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it back into the surf.

        Then, smiling at the man, he said…..“I made a difference for that one.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • stoopnagle

        This is without a doubt the most idiotic take I think I’ve ever read on this site. Congratulations.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Do you really think the players would be willing to pay back $4500 for their place in A-10 Women’s Tennis history?

        Why should they have to make that choice?


        • TN Dawg

          Because they received compensation improperly for a product they were not entitled to.

          Similar to the fact that if the cashier gives me too much change back at the grocery store, I give them the excess back.

          I notice her response wasn’t “Oh my goodness, let me make this right.”

          So you’ll forgive me if I’m not crestfallen.


      • Jack Klompus

        Playing up the TN part of your user name, I see.

        To read this kind of bafoonery is why I clicked on this particular comments section.


  9. 79dawg

    No one is putting a gun to UMass’ head and forcing it to be in the NCAA and agree to any rules! This is the system UMass helped set up! You guys who all think the NCAA is some sui generis, autonomous body just issuing edicts from on high, are complete rubes.
    Sure UMass is pissed that it happened to them, but if it happened to their big rivals (Maine State? who knows), they’d probably be laughing their asses off right now instead…

    Liked by 1 person

    • The problem is the big stuff that NCAA compliance and enforcement decides to sweep under the rug ($Cam, anyone?) and the little stuff like this and cream cheese for bagels gets a hammer.

      This is truly why I believe the Power 5 + a few Gof5 schools should go tell the NCAA to pound sand and form their own organization with their own rules. Yes, I believe those schools could likely make more money with this model than they do today (including a different version of March Madness) even with a liberalization of the rules of amateurism.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 79dawg

        Squeekiest wheel gets the grease…
        Auburn puts up a helluva fight and cobbles a plausible story together, because they’re willing to go “all in” and fight to protect the golden-goose football team.
        Odds UMass was willing to fight, spend any money, etc. to protect their women’s tennis program – slim to none.
        Do I think UMass probably should have fought it appealed, asked for leniency, etc.? Yes, but I didn’t see anything in the article indicating that they had done anything. Is that a poor way to repay (perhaps not the best choice of words) the women’s tennis players on your team? It is no way to treat them.
        Again, pretending the Universities are simply bystanders, and giving them passes, is beyond naive – they are the principals, not the agents! And that they allow themselves (and their constituents, i.e., the student-athletes) to be abused by their agents, is wrong.
        But the answer is not demagoguing the NCAA – its going after the Universities who wallow in this whole corrupt enterprise!


  10. SlobberKnocker

    The real question is; landlines cost $252 per month in Massachusetts??

    Liked by 2 people

    • stoopnagle

      The government paid a $1,000 for a toilet seat.

      OOOOH-cean front property in AIR-UH-ZOE-NUH!


    • Dylan Dreyer's Booty

      Okay, so it was actually 2 land lines – one for each room mate – so her part is only $126.00/mo. But that is still a lot of money for a land line. Big question to me is why the school does that? Most kids I know these days think of land lines as dinosaurs – they know they existed, but use one? Nah. The school caused this problem by having it available. I had a land line at Russell Hall in 1969, and as far as I know it was included in the dorm fee. Why isn’t this fee part of the dorm fee, and wouldn’t that be included as part of the scholarship? This is fucked up.

      Btw, I did a search for Brittany Collens and this post from the Senator was listed third.


  11. Ozam

    NCAA enforcement personnel are the stereotypical bully….always waiting to pounce on the weak. When the power schools punch back hard (excluding UGA) they go away cowering.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Ozam

    This is the same organization that unilaterally decided whether a university’s nickname was appropriate. Why the hell would they care? Wouldn’t this be the purview of the university…smh

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Anon

    Did I read correctly? They paid a firm $100k to investigate and came up with overall $10k in “questionable impermissible” benefits? Idiots

    Liked by 1 person

  14. W Cobb Dawg

    It was all fun until the ncaa cops found out. Surprised the chicks aren’t in jail and umass didn’t get the death penalty for this🧐


  15. That entire article is a good summary, although the restaurant analogy is a little off. UMass, Stanford, Bama and Jackson St. are not capped at the same dollar amount. Still, there is one logical conclusion…Mark Emmett is evil and has no morals which is the perfect stooge for his overlord bosses, the university presidents.


  16. Russ

    And yet another reason not to offer any information to the NCAA. Mass tries to do the right thing and they get screwed because of it. As much as I hate to admit it, the Auburn method is the correct way of dealing with the NCAA.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Derek

      My take is that much like other areas in our society we punish the powerless to prove there are rules and forgive the powerful time and time again.

      So they put this poor women’s tennis team out there as a warning to others to follow the rules while the people who can afford to flaunt the rules do so.

      Carlin had this figured out long ago:

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Dawg19

    So Greg McGarity is AD at UMass now?