Recruiting violations and improper benefits. Those words must sound like fingernails on a chalkboard to any respectable college basketball coach. The nightmare of losing a star player to an NCAA suspension for receiving improper help, however, has been a reality for a number of prominent college programs this year.
Among other cases, incidents involving players at St. John's, Michigan, UCLA and Missouri have made headlines as the NCAA appears to be cracking down on players who have received improper help. More intriguing than the actual violations, however, is the NCAA's method of dealing with violations of rules that are unclear to begin with.
Less than two weeks ago, St. John's point guard Erick Barkley was suspended for three games by the NCAA for trading his Jeep Cherokee to a family friend for an older Ford Expedition. St. John's immediately protested, as it is not a violation for a player to accept gifts from someone they have had a relationship with for a certain length of time.
Receiving preferential treatment for being an athlete, however, is a violation. Promising payback upon becoming a professional is also against the rules. This is apparently how the NCAA interpreted the incident.
The major criticism of the NCAA in handling these potential violations is its "guilty until proven innocent" stance. Barkley was suspended although there was no clear evidence that he intended to pay anyone back or that he received preferential treatment for being an athlete. Why would someone trade cars with him then? Who knows, but in 1996 Georgia Tech point guard Stephon Marbury was given a car by someone he had a prior relationship with, and the NCAA ruled that he had not committed a violation.
After hearing an appeal by St. John's, the NCAA chose to reduce Barkley's suspension to the two games he had already missed, thus immediately reinstating him.
Michigan's leading scorer, freshman Jamal Crawford, was recently suspended for six games for living with a wealthy family friend, businessman Barry Henthorn, for three years during high school. Crawford was also the sole beneficiary of a nonprofit organization set up by Henthorn. Part of Crawford's punishment is to payback approximately $15,000 to Henthorn, who claims that he doesn't want the money.
Crawford's mother says that she was trying to give up guardianship of Crawford to Henthorn, and the university claims that Henthorn was acting as a guardian, in which case the violations are not clear-cut. If their story is true, Crawford was suspended for living with a person who was his guardian, albeit not a legal guardian.
Also recently suspended were brothers JaRon and Kareem Rush, who both admitted to receiving help from an AAU coach. Kareem, of Missouri, was initially suspended for half of this season, but his suspension was reduced to one-third of the season after an appeal. He was reinstated in late January. JaRon, who plays for UCLA, did not fare as well. He was suspended half of a season for accepting $200 from an agent and a full season for benefits he received from the AAU coach -- a total of 44 games. UCLA is in the process of appealing his suspension. Oklahoma State's Andre Williams was also suspended for his relationship with the same coach.
Few would contend that none of these players broke any rules, but the NCAA has been less than fair in handing out suspensions. The NCAA appears to be targeting big-name players at big-name colleges for violations it could probably find anywhere, and the effects of these suspensions are quite apparent. Any hope Michigan had for making the NCAA tournament went down the drain with the loss of Crawford for six games. UCLA also looks to be left out of the tournament, as it has struggled without Rush, who started 22 games for the Bruins last year as a freshman.
The motive behind these suspensions is most likely an attempt by the NCAA to take a tough stance against players who have received improper help. In doing so, however, the NCAA is appearing biased -- it cannot investigate every possible case.
The ultimate irony of the entire situation is that players are being suspended for taking thousands, even hundreds, of dollars, while the NCAA makes billions of dollars on television contracts that are valuable for one reason -- the players.
Whether the NCAA should pay players or not is another question, but taking such an unbending stance on improper benefits makes the NCAA appear greedy and hypocritical -- worse than the players it is suspending.
