Inconsistency rules the day...

     Imagine you’re on an NCAA committee designated to dole out punishments for infractions committed by incoming college basketball players. You’re presented with three files, each containing a case involving a different player from a different program in a different part of the country. Each player (for the purposes of this blog: Player A, Player B, Player C) commits a separate offence as follows:

     Player A is an incoming college freshman who has signed to play at a program that is on the upswing and predicted to do very big things this year. He is from a European country and the high school that he went to did not have a sports program, so he could not play competitively at that level. As a result, he started playing with a club team in his native country. The roster of his club team included a player that had once played professionally and who was still considered a professional athlete, and therefore, Player A was in violation of the Amateurism Rule put forth by the NCAA.

    Player B is a transfer who has decided to continue his career at a smaller mid-major school. He is from South America and spent last season playing for a community college in the Midwest. Prior to coming to the United States, Player B played three games as an actual professional basketball player in his native country. Playing professional basketball clearly is in violation of the Amateurism Rule put forth by the NCAA.

     Player C is an incoming college freshman who last year was considered to be the best high school basketball player in the country. He is now playing for one of college basketball’s all-time winningest programs and a team favored to finish near the top this season. Prior to enrolling at this school, Player C played on a basketball team coached by an agent with the ability to see money change hands in order to benefit said player. On top of that, said agent provided Player C with cash to visit schools prior to signing with his current one. In playing for and accepting money from an agent, Player C violated (you guessed it) college basketball’s Amateurism Rule.

    All three of the above cases are real and all three players have been handed down punishments by the NCAA. Although the players each broke the same rule by varying degrees, it remains that they all broke the same rule. As such, each player should be given the same treatment and punished the same way, or at least you would think…

     Last week, the NCAA suspended Douglas Kurtz for six games because he played in a professional league as a professional basketball player (therefore stripping him of his amateur status) in his native Brazil prior to coming to the states. Kurtz, the 7’0” center who is playing for the University of Hawaii this season, played three games professionally in 2007 before finding himself in Iowa where he played at Marshalltown Community College last year. He will be eligible to play for the Rainbow Warriors at the beginning of December.

    The Kurtz ruling that was handed down was just one of three that have recently taken place that are all over the map. The most severe punishment handed down was seemingly for the least offensive crime. In October, West Virginia freshman Deniz Kilicli, a 6’9” forward from Istanbul was suspended for twenty games by the NCAA because of his affiliation with a club team in his native country. Kilicli, who didn’t have the opportunity to play high school basketball because his high school didn’t have a team, played (with amateur status in tact) on a team with a player who had a professional status.

     While Kurtz’s offence seems a little more serious than Kilicli’s, both pale in comparison to infractions commited by Kentucky superstar freshman John Wall. Wall, who was considered by many to be the best high school player in the country last year, played for AAU coach Brian Clifton. Clifton was a registered agent between 2007 and 2008 and accompanied Wall on several recruiting trips, including two to Kentucky. It has since come out that Clifton helped pay for Wall’s trips to various schools, which is also considered a no-no by the NCAA. Wall was provided over $800.00 by Clifton. The NCAA rules state that if a player receives more than $101.00, he must repay the money and is subject to at least a ten percent suspension of his respective team’s regular season games. While the NCAA remained true to the monetary punishment (Wall has been ordered to pay back the $800.00) he was suspended for only one regular season game for the Wildcats this season.

     Needless to say, inconsistency seems to be running rampant in the NCAA. If all three players broke the same rule, each player should be subjected to the same punishment. Either one game, six games or 20 games, and not punishments that seem like they've been pulled out of a hat. If one is to compare all three cases, Kurtz’s might be the most malicious. As a professional player, he was probably aware of his professional status. In the other two cases, neither Wall or Kilicli gained any kind of advantage in their situation and probably were not honestly aware of their crimes.

     On paper, Wall looks like he could have benefitted the most. After all, agents have access to professional teams, lucrative contracts and act as a gateway between the player and the money. He had much more of a chance to gain monetarily than did Kilicli, who simply associated with a guy who was a professional ball player. Had he even know, the most Kilicli could have gained was more ability and experience with the opportunity to play against a professional athlete.

    The rule that affects Kilicli is a controversial one. The NCAA last year penalized 490 athletes (in all sports) for amateurism violations and 434 of those were foreign students. In many instances, amateurs can be playing on a foreign team that includes professionals and not know it at all, simply because what constitutes professional in Europe and the United States are often far different things. Since that's the case, it's hard to determine whether he deserves the most harsh punishment of the three recently handed down by the NCAA.

    Clearly John Wall will play in the NBA and will more than likely be a superstar while Kilicli and Kurtz will play out their careers as role players before slipping into obscurity.  From a business aspect, one can certainly understand that college basketball will benefit much more from having Wall on the floor than on the sidelines, but it's creating a slippery slope that may not be able to be reversed without some major reform.  For a governing body that preaches fairness and sportsmanship, the NCAA has dropped the ball on this one.