NCAA Enforcement and Competitive Balance in College Football

It Pays to Bend the Rules

“…Overall, there seems to be little collateral damage from a range of NCAA sanctions, and these findings support Depken and Wilson's (2006) conclusion that some penalties are not "statistically relevant." However, organizational context measures-useful as controls for potential pressures toward rule-breaking that might reduce sanction effectiveness-were only sporadically related to current outcomes.…”

“…Arthur A. Depken II and Dennis P. Wilson (2006) focused on how NCAA sanctions influenced competitive balance among the 11 major football conferences. 7 Thomas A.…”

Antitrust Analysis of Sports Leagues

“…Somewhat similarly, DeBrock and Hendricks (1997) argue on the basis of a median voter model of NCAA roll-call voting on important policy matters that the median NCAA member may find it optimal to force poor quality teams to improve and to restrict the quality of the strongest teams, thereby leading to greater competitive balance, which in turn may lead to higher joint revenue. Depken and Wilson (2006) analyze data for 11 major Division I-A football conferences over the period 1953-2003 and find that a greater level of NCAA enforcement actions (i.e., investigations and probations) in a conference is associated with an improvement in competitive balance, whereas a greater severity of punishment is associated with a reduction in competitive balance; they conclude that, "on average, the net effect of NCAA enforcement is an improvement in competitive balance." (p. 826) Likewise, Depken and Wilson (2004b) analyze data for 10 major Division I-A football conferences over the period 1888-2001, but they reach a more ambiguous conclusion: "Our pooled results do support the claim that NCAA enforcement may have the unintended consequence of reducing competitive balance, although we do find evidence that might support the NCAA's stated goal of enforcement, namely to improve competitive balance."…”

New Rules for a New Ballgame: Legislative and Judicial Rationales for Revamping the NCAA’s Enforcement Process

“…This evidentiary obligation is outlined specifically in Bylaw 32.8.8.2 (established in 1977 as the standard of proof for determining if an NCAA rules violation has occurred), which states that the COI will 'base its findings on information which it determines to be credible, persuasive and of a kind which reasonably prudent persons rely on in the conduct of serious affairs' (NCAA, 2007a, p. 448). Based on the severity of the violations uncovered, presumptive penalties are available to the COI (Depken & Wilson, 2005;Falla, 1981). Available penalties include: (a) reprimand and censure, (b) probation for one year or more than one year, (c) ineligibility for one or more NCAA championships, (d) ineligibility for other invitational and post season meets and tournaments, (e) television restrictions under the NCAA's control, (f) ineligibility to vote and/or serve on NCAA Committees, (g) probation from all outside competition (e.g.…”

“…Typically, when a 'show cause' is issued by the COI, the university will terminate the affected individual, although it is under no obligation to do so. However, if an institution chooses to retain a 'show-cause' employee, it must convince the NCAA that further penalties are not justified (Depken & Wilson, 2005;Falla, 1981;NCAA, 2007a).…”