Case Study 2: National Collegiate Athletic Association Ethics and Compliance ProgramORIGINAL PAPER. LESS THAN 20% PLARGARISM. IT GOES THRU A CHECKER Read “Case Study 6: National Collegiate Athlet
CASE 6 National Collegiate Athletic Association Ethics and Compliance Program*
INTRODUCTION Perhaps no sport at American colleges is as popular, or as lucrative, as
college football. College football often has a significant impact on the school’s culture. This is
especially true for the more successful and prolific football programs, such as Texas A&M or
Notre Dame. Football has increasingly become a big money maker for many colleges, with a
significant amount of sports revenue coming from their football pr ograms. Within the past two
years, the sports channel ESPN made deals with certain teams to gain rights to air more games
than usual. Because of this influx of revenue, the duties of coaches have evolved beyond just
coaching. In many ways, they became the face of the team. Programs that show positive returns
have coaches working hard to fill seats on game day and encourage college alumni to donate to
the school. The more successful the football team, the more visibility it is given in the media.
This visibi lity leads to greater awareness of the college or university among the public, and
schools with the best football programs can see a greater influx of applications. The collegiate
football programs have an intangible influence within and outside their imme diate surroundings.
This is mainly seen in their fan base, composed of current students, alumni, staff, faculty, and
local businesses. For example, when the University of Alabama won its 15 th national
championship, the victory was celebrated by an enormou s crowd, fireworks, and a parade. Texas
A&M University is one example of a football program that generates not only profits but also a
sense of loyalty among its fans. Approximately 70,000 football fans pile into Texas A&M’s Kyle
Field stadium at every hom e game to show their support for the team and the university. Table 1
shows the value of some of the most successful college -football programs. These games also
help local businesses generate more revenues. Because of the financial support and widespread
influence of the football program, the players, coaches, and football administrators have to deal
with a lot of pressure to fundraise, sell tickets, and win games. These pressures open up
opportunities for misconduct to occur, and it is increasingly importa nt that university
administrators and football program officials directly acknowledge opportunities for misconduct.
While the university is ultimately responsible for the operation of each department and the
behavior of its employees, it can be difficult f or the administrators to have an objective view of
incidents that occur, especially when it involves a successful football program that benefits the
entire university. The university administrators are often subject to the same pressures as those in
the fo otball program to increase the level of revenue and reputation. This led to the development
of a more objective institution to set and enforce rules and standards: the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA). The NCAA views ethical conduct as a cru cial component to a
college football program and works to promote leadership and excellence among student –
athletes and the universities to which they belong. It also serves to protect the interests of
student –athletes, ensure academic excellence, and encou rage fair play. TABLE 1 Value of
major -conference college -football programs, plus Notre Dame and BYU (in millions) Source:
Ryan Brewer, Indiana University -Purdue University Columbus Note: Excludes Wake Forest In
this case, we provide a brief history of the NCAA and examples of the rules they have regarding
college football. We then view how these rules relate to ethics. The next section covers some of
the major college football scandals within the past few years, how these scandals were handled
by the schoo ls and the NCAA, and the impact of these scandals upon the colleges’ communities.
It is crucial to note, however, that these scandals are not common to college football as a whole.
The majority of football teams receive no NCAA infractions during the year, and those reported
are usually minor in nature. Universities have their own set of expectations for student –athletes,
including showing up on time to practice and behaving responsibly that go above and beyond NCAA rules. However, when NCAA violations occu r, universities have a responsibility to report
them in a timely manner. Therefore, the next section covers examples of ways universities
addressed unethical behavior in their football programs through self -imposed sanctions, which
signifies that they cons ider compliance to be an important component of their football programs.
We conclude by analyzing how effective the NCAA appears to be in curbing misconduct and
preventing future unethical behavior from occurring. This case should demonstrate that ethics
and compliance is just as important to nonprofit organizations and educational institutions as
they are for the business world. OVERVIEW OF NCAA The NCAA was formed in 1906 under
the premise of protecting student –athletes from being endangered and exploited . The Association
was established with a constitution and a set of bylaws with the ability to be amended as issues
arise. As the number of competitive college sports grew, the NCAA was divided into three
Divisions, I, II, and III, to deal with the rising c omplexity of the programs. Universities are given
the freedom to decide which division they want to belong to based on their desired level of
competitiveness in collegiate sports. Each Division is equipped with the power to establish a
group of presidents or other university officials with the authority to write and enact policies,
rules, and regulations for their Divisions. Each Division is ultimately governed by the President
of the NCAA and the Executive Committee. Under the Executive Committee are group s formed
in each Division, such as the Legislative Committee, as well as Cabinets and Boards of
Directors. In the early 1980s, questions began to arise concerning the level of education student –
athletes received. Some thought these students were held to a lower academic standard so they
could focus on their sport, which could lead to negative consequences for their futures. As a
result, the NCAA strengthened the academic requirements of student –athletes to ensure they
took academics just as seriously as ath letics. It also established the Presidents Commission,
composed of presidents of universities in each Division that collaboratively set agendas with the
NCAA. Table 2 provides a list of six of the Principles for Conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics
that ca n be found in Article 2 of the Constitution. Throughout the Constitution, the NCAA
emphasizes the responsibility each university has in overseeing its athletics department and being
compliant with the terms established by its conferences. The NCAA establis hes principles, rules,
and enforcement guidelines to both guide the universities in their oversight of the athletics
department as well as penalize those failing to regulate their own misconduct. In article ten of the
bylaws, a description of ethical and u nethical conduct among student –athletes is provided, along
with corresponding disciplinary actions taken if any of these conditions are violated. Honesty
and sportsmanship are emphasized as the basis of ethical conduct, while wagering, withholding
informat ion, and fraud are among the unethical behaviors listed. Article 11 describes the
appropriate behavior for athletics personnel. Honesty and sportsmanship is again the basis for
ethical behavior, but with an added emphasis on responsibility for NCAA regulat ions. Article 11
cites the Head Coach as responsible for creating an atmosphere of compliance and monitoring
the behavior of his or her subordinates, including assistant coaches and players. The NCAA takes
the enforcement of rules seriously and tries to en sure the penalties fit the violation if misconduct
does occur. The organization also makes sure the penalties are handed down in a timely manner,
not only to indicate the seriousness of the infraction but also to maintain a credible and effective
enforceme nt program. This method tries to correct or eliminate deviant behavior while
maintaining fairness to those members of the Association not involved in violations. Employees
(coaches and other administrative staff) are exhorted to have high ethical standards since they
work among and influence young people. The NCAA makes it a requirement that each employee
engage in exemplary conduct so as not to cause harm to the student –athletes in any way. They are also given a responsibility to cooperate with the NCAA. T ABLE 2 Principles for Conduct of
Intercollegiate Athletics The Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility • Puts the
responsibility for the operations and behaviors of staff on the president of the university The
Principle of Student -Athlete Wel l-Being • Requires integration of athletics and education,
maintaining a culturally diverse and gender equitable environment, protection of student -
athlete’s health and safety, creating an environment that is conducive to positive coach/student -
athlete rel ationships, coaches and administrative staff show honesty, fairness, and openness in
their relationships with student –athletes, and student -athlete involvement in decisions that will
affect them The Principle of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct • Maintain s that respect,
fairness, civility, honesty, and responsibility are values that need to be adhered to through the
establishment of policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in the athletics program which
must be consistent with the mission and goals o f the university. Everyone must be continuously
educated about the policies. The Principle of Sound Academic Standards • Maintains that
student –athletes need to be held to the same academic standards as all other students The
Principle of Rules Compliance • Requires compliance with NCAA rules. Notes that the NCAA
will help institutions in developing their compliance program and explains the penalty for
noncompliance The Principle Governing Recruiting • Promotes equity among prospective
students and protects them from exorbitant pressures Source: National Collegiate Athletic
Association, 2011 –2012 NCAA® Division III Manual (Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate
Athletics Association, 2011). The NCAA lays out three types of violations and corresponding
penalti es, depending on the nature and scope of the violation. Secondary violations are the least
severe and can result in fines, suspensions for games, and reduction in scholarships. For major
violations, some of the penalties are the same as secondary violation s, but the scope is far more
severe. For example, suspensions will be longer and fines larger. However, some penalties are
specific only to major violations, such as a public reprimand, a probationary period for up to five
years, and limits on recruiting. The last type involves repeat violations that occur within a five -
year period from the start date of the initial violation. The penalties for repeat violations are the
most severe, including elimination of all financial aid and recruiting activities and re signation of
institutional staff members who serve on boards, committees, or in cabinets. Table 3 lists some
of the more prominent unethical practices the NCAA lists specifically concerning college
football. The NCAA incorporates a compliance approach to e thics by developing and enforcing
rules to keep the games fair and respectful of student –athletes’ rights. The NCAA Committee on
Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct identified respect and integrity as two critical elements in
the NCAA 2011 and 2012 Football Rules and Interpretations. The NCAA strives to keep football
games fun and entertaining without sacrificing the health and safety of the student –athletes
participating. As previously mentioned, the NCAA places emphasis on the level of education
student –ath letes receive and encourages athletes to focus on their grades to ensure they have
career opportunities post -athletics. The core of the NCAA concerns ethics. This organization
takes not only key players into consideration, but also other stakeholders, such as the college
community and the sports society as a whole. TABLE 3 Unethical Practices Prohibited by the
NCAA • Use of the helmet as a weapon. •Targeting and initiating contact. Players, coaches and
officials should emphasize the elimination of targeting and initiating contact against a
defenseless opponent and/or with the crown of the helmet. •Using nontherapeutic drugs in the
game of football. •Unfair use of a starting signal, called “Beating the ball.” This involves
deliberately stealing an advantage f rom the opponent. An honest starting signal is needed, but a
signal that has for its purpose starting the team a fraction of a second before the ball is put in play, in the hope that it will not be detected by the officials, is illegal. •Feigning an injury . An
injured player must be given full protection under the rules, but feigning injury is dishonest,
unsportsmanlike and contrary to the spirit of the rules. •Talking to an opponent in any manner
that is demeaning, vulgar, or abusive, intended to incite a physical response or verbally put an
opponent down. •For a coach to address, or permit anyone on his bench to address,
uncomplimentary remarks to any official during the progress of a game, or to indulge in conduct
that might incite players or spectators a gainst the officials., is a violation of the rules of the game
and must likewise be considered conduct unworthy of a member of the coaching profession.
Source: Adapted from National Collegiate Athletics Association, Football 2011 and 2012 Rules
and Interpr etations (Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletics Association, 2011). Aside
from its involvement with student –athlete academics, the NCAA is likewise involved with other
off -the -field activities to protect the best interests of student –athletes. Ac cording to NCAA
guidelines, college football coaches are not permitted to actively begin recruiting prospective
players to their school until the prospective player is at least a junior in high school. These
coaches have a limit on the number of phone call s and off -campus visits they are permitted to
make to prospective students. These rules are in place to ensure student –athletes do not feel
pressured by these colleges. Once the student –athletes are in college, a set of rules made between
the NCAA and the individual college limit the types of gifts a student –athlete can accept. Parents
of student –athletes, for example, are able to give any number and type of gifts to their own
children, but must be wary when it comes to other members of the team. Student –athletes
generally cannot accept gifts at reduced prices (e.g., a free iPod) and other gifts, such as practice
uniforms for the team, must be cleared by the school first. Despite the NCAA’s wide array of
rules and regulations, there have been many criticisms of the organization’s practices. One of
these criticisms has to do with a former investigator of the NCAA, Ameen Najjar, who worked
on investigating reports of rule violations from the University of Miami. Najjar was promptly
dismissed from the NCAA when it was found he was going outside the NCAA’s rules of
investigation in order to collect more evidence for the case. Not only was this a major
embarrassment for the NCAA, but critics state Najjar followed orders from others within the
organization and was p ut up as a scapegoat when the rule -breaking investigative techniques
came to light. The NCAA also faces a lawsuit wherein they are accused of allowing the video
game company EA to use the likeness of NCAA basketball players in their video games without
giv ing the players any compensation. Additionally, misconduct in college sports continues to be
a challenge for the NCAA. Often other stakeholders are involved in the misconduct. For
instance, college sports games that have been “rigged” (managed fraudulently ) have often been
traced to wealthy sports boosters with inside knowledge of the sports in which they heavily
invest. A majority of the time, this rigging is done to benefit gambling outcomes among these
boosters. In addition, as mentioned earlier, college sports often bring in significant amounts of
revenue for the university that creates pressure to overlook misconduct. Authority figures in the
sports program can be tempted to cheat when recruiting players and cover up misconduct to
avoid penalties. When a college sports program is accused of misconduct that violates NCAA
rules, the NCAA conducts an investigation to determine whether the allegations are true. If these
schools are found to be in violation, the NCAA levies penalties against the team. However , the
NCAA also received criticism from those who disapprove of the severity and effectiveness of the
sanctions meant to discourage sports programs from misconduct. On the one hand, some
stakeholders believe the NCAA sanctions are too tough. On the other h and, others feel they are
not strict enough. They state some of the major college football programs hit by NCAA sanctions were able to recover from these penalties quickly and did not suffer much during the course of
the sanctions. This argument implies th at avoiding the risks of punishment is less costly to the
team than the benefits of bending the rules. Whether NCAA sanctions are too harsh or not harsh
enough, pressure to maintain the sports programs provides the opportunity for misconduct in the
college sports community, as well as creates significant challenges for the NCAA.
CHALLENGES FOR ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL College
football is far more than just a sport. For many universities, it is a business that brings millions of
dollars to c olleges all over the United States. Being a business, there are always ethical and
compliance issues that take place. The question is whether schools ignore issues taking place
because of the amount of money a football program generates for the school. If so, this creates a
significant conflict of interest. In the past few years, a number of highly publicized scandals have
rocked the college football industry and led to heavy criticism of the schools where the scandals
occurred. The actions of the NCAA in r esponse to these scandals received mixed reactions from
stakeholders. However, a more serious concern for the NCAA is how to ensure college sports
teams comply with ethical policies as well as combating the tendency for colleges to remain
complacent becaus e of the success of the sports team. The following examples describe three
major college football scandals, how the schools reacted to the scandals, and the sanctions, if
any, the NCAA took against the team. Penn State Scandal In 2011 accusations arose all eging that
a former assistant coach of the Penn State football team sexually assaulted at least eight young
boys over the course of many years. It was not long before the school itself was implicated in
suspecting or knowing about the crime but not taking adequate steps to stop it. Two university
officials turned themselves in to authorities for being accused of covering up the crimes.
According to investigations, the first report of potential misconduct between the former assistant
coach Jerry Sandusky and an underage boy came in 1998. The report came to University police
and the Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz. This matter was
investigated internally and resulted in no criminal charges based on a lack of evidence. In 2001 a
gra duate assistant allegedly witnessed the perpetrator sexually assaulting a young boy in the
Penn State football team’s practice center. The graduate assistant reported the incident to Head
Coach Joe Paterno, who staked his reputation on running a program kn own for ethics and
integrity. While Paterno appeared to have notified campus officials, the officials did not report to
police, allowing the crime to continue. A later report conducted by former director of the FBI
Louis Freeah indicated the coach and scho ol officials covered up the crimes. This led to
accusations that the school cared more about its reputation and the success of its football
program than it did about the young victims. This case is even more serious as such misconduct
does not just constit ute an NCAA violation; it is a criminal act that harmed many people.
Although Joe Paterno did report the crime to campus officials, some felt it was his responsibility
to do more to ensure the crimes were reported to the proper authorities. The assistant c oach
continued to interact with young boys and be around the college campus after the reports were
made. The negligent behavior of Penn State officials, both within the administration and the
football department, might be explained through the strength of the football program and the
complacency of the university culture. Head Coach Joe Paterno had been at Penn State’s football
department for more than 60 years at the time of the scandal. The way he ran the department
indicated a reliance on old football st andards and an inability or unwillingness to adapt to new
ones. Unfortunately, this culture had pitfalls that did not hold up to modern ethical standards.
Some reports claim that on different occasions he advocated for football players not to be held to
the same standards as regular students, implying football players should be treated differently than other students by the university. When football players got in trouble with the law, Paterno
felt the university should not take action but rather let the po lice deal with it. Although he butted
heads with many people when it came to these views, school directors were on his side of the
argument. This is likely because of the large amount of revenue the program brought into the
school. According to one accusat ion, Coach Paterno used this revenue as a threat to stop all fund
raising if a certain director he disagreed with was not fired. If these allegations are true, then
Paterno created a culture within the football department wherein members did not need to be
held accountable according to school regulations. This in turn indicates a complacent university
culture when it came to the football program. The NCAA agreed the misconduct was partially
the fault of the football program’s and Penn State’s complacency. I n addition to the negative
impact on the victims, Penn State suffered reputational damage and received a major blow to its
football program. The NCAA imposed sanctions against Penn State costing $ 60 million in fines,
a four -year post -season ban prohibitin g the school from being eligible for any post games until
2016, and a four -year reduction in scholarships amounting to ten scholarships per year for the
football program. The football team’s wins from between 1998 and 2011 were vacated. These
penalties dra stically hurt the football program’s ability to compete against other teams. In total,
there were seven penalties placed on the university and athletics program combined. The NCAA
is taking steps to make sure the activities that took place at Penn State do not happen again. As
an aside, the Paterno family announced they were filing a lawsuit against the NCAA and its
President on behalf of Penn State, citing the investigation conducted by former director of the
FBI Louis Freeah — a report the NCAA relied heavi ly upon in imposing sanctions against Penn
State — was seriously flawed in its conclusions of blame. The NCAA also put ten corrective
sanctions on Penn State formulated specifically for them. The main corrective measure was that
the university must sign an A thletic Integrity Agreement. In doing so, this allowed the NCAA to
require Penn State to take eight corrective steps. These steps include the addition of a compliance
officer for the athletics department, the creation of a compliance council and a full dis closure
program, adding internal accountability and certifications for this accountability, implementation
of an external compliance review/certification process, drafting an athletics code of conduct,
conducting training and education, and appointing an i ndependent athletics integrity monitor. All
of the steps will be continuously updated to ensure their internal and external controls stay
relevant. The NCAA’s goal for the corrective sanctions is to find and stop unethical behavior
before it becomes a prob lem. Ohio State The Ohio State scandal was a result of rule violations
from student –athletes and a subsequent cover -up of the violations by the coach. In December
2010 five players on Ohio State’s football team were suspended for using the gear the footbal l
team supplied to barter for cash and tattoos. Under the NCAA rules, it is illegal for a Division I
football player to receive any benefit from anyone that is not offered to the public. Head Coach
Jim Tressel became aware of the violation and failed to re port it to the school for a period of nine
months. This enabled the team to continue to play in games they otherwise would have been
ineligible to play. In addition to the suspensions, the NCAA also banned Ohio State from a bowl
game for one year, took fiv e scholarships away for the following three years, and put the team on
a one -year probation. When it was discovered Tressel had prior knowledge of the violation, the
NCAA issued a five -year show -cause order on him, forcing him to resign and virtually endin g
his career as a coach in collegiate athletics. A college can hire a coach who has an outstanding
show -cause order, but they may be penalized simply for hiring him. In addition, if a coach with a
show -cause order does in fact get hired and makes a subsequ ent violation, the consequences will
be far more severe on both the coach and the university. Most colleges will not take the risk of hiring a coach with this kind of label. This was not the only violation to be found among
members of the Ohio State footba ll team. After the bartering scandal, the NCAA suspended three
other players for accepting money from a booster. A booster is a fan who has a significant
amount of money and invests in the team to build better facilities, contribute to scholarships, and
so metimes have a choice in who the coaching staff will be. However, student –athletes are not to
take any money or gifts from boosters directly. It is a direct violation of the rules of the NCAA.
Additionally, other players were suspended for being overpaid b y the same booster for work in a
summer job. The NCAA placed these sanctions on Ohio State for failure to properly oversee
their athletics program. Many of the administrators commented if they knew of the football
players’ conduct, they would have taken co rrective action against it. Ohio State took
responsibility for its actions and cooperated with the NCAA investigation. Ohio State imposed
its own penalties against the football program, including vacating the 2010 season. Yet the
NCAA made it a point to sh ow the administrators it is their responsibility to know what is going
on within their organization. Additionally, the NCAA also noted Tressel withheld information
multiple times from NCAA investigators. In total, the sanctions cost Ohio State an estimated $ 8
million. University of Arkansas Head Coach Bobby Petrino was respected and admired for his
coaching abilities by everyone, even those who did not have a high opinion of him personally.
Before coaching at University of Arkansas in 2007, Petrino left bi tter feelings at the football
organizations where he previously worked. For example, he secretly tried to get one of his
former bosses fired, he pressured a student to go to practice rather than attend a funeral where he
was to be a pallbearer, and he left his job with the Atlanta Falcons by leaving a short note in the
lockers of each player before the season ended. Petrino’s questionable behavior continued while
he coached for the University of Arkansas. He had been with the university since 2007 and
trans formed the team into championship material. However, a motorcycle accident in early 2012
revealed a latent scandal brewing for several months. At the time of the accident Petrino claimed
he was riding alone, but changed his story as the police report was a bout to become public. He
admitted he rode with Jessica Dorrell, a 25 -year -old former student who Petrino hired as the
Student Athlete Development Coordinator just a week prior. He further admitted he initially lied
about the details of the accident becaus e he and Dorrell were involved in an inappropriate
relationship. Petrino hoped to keep this information secret as is evidenced by the fact he filed the
report with a state trooper who worked as his personal security after he parted ways with Dorrell.
This incident was a scandal for two reasons. First, Petrino was married with four children, and
second, he had hired Dorrell without stating to the university there was a conflict of interest due
to their personal relationship. Because she was hired as a state employee, not disclosing the
conflict of interest was illegal. Additionally, the position she was given reported directly to
Petrino himself. Upon investigation, it was found that Petrino also gave Dorrell gifts amounting
to $ 20,000. All of these things t aken together caused the Athletic Director of the University of
Arkansas Jeff Long to fire Petrino. However, the decision was not easy for him to make.
Petrino’s contributions to the success of the football team were no small matter, and the
consequences o f letting him go would affect the team’s performance. However, keeping Petrino
as Head Coach would demonstrate that the university condoned the misconduct. Dorrell resigned
a few days after Petrino was fired. In less than a year after the University of Ark ansas scandal,
Petrino was hired as Head Coach of the Hilltoppers of Western Kentucky University. Some say
this arrangement is good for both of the parties involved. Petrino gets to coach football for a
lower ranking football program while waiting for the scandal to blow over, and Western
Kentucky University gets to take advantage of Petrino’s coaching for a few years. The arrangement drew some criticism to the school. Some say the hiring of a coach recently fired for
a scandal speaks to the fact that the s chool values winning games over ethical behavior.
Fortunately for the University of Arkansas and Bobby Petrino, NCAA rules had not been
violated, so sanctions were avoided. Jeff Long showed ethical leadership in the way he handled
the Petrino scandal even without pressure from the NCAA. Long refused to be complacent when
the misconduct became apparent even when, in the short term, it did not seem like it would
benefit the university. The football team suffered from the loss of Coach Petrino, but the
univers ity’s actions express it expects high ethical standards from its football program and will
accept no less. Because it creates a culture of ethics and compliance, schools like the University
of Arkansas step up to the plate and make the right decision even when misconduct does not
constitute an NCAA violation. SELF -REPORTING AND MONITORING STUDENT
ATHLETES Minor violations become scandals when they are covered up for long periods of
time by the university, the football program authorities, or both. No matter where the cover up
begins or ends, the ultimate responsibility lies with the university to monitor the actions of the
football program. If the culture of the university fosters misconduct, minor violations will
inevitably become scandals. On the other han d, universities that monitor their athletics programs
so minor violations are caught immediately and reported to the NCAA are less likely to be
involved in major scandals. This act of self -reporting demonstrates a concern with ethical
behavior and accounta bility for their actions. Furthermore, the NCAA takes these measures into
account when deciding on the appropriate level of penalties for violations. In 2011 the NCAA
approached Boise State with 22 allegations of misconduct within its athletics department.
Becoming aware of this misconduct, the university as well as the head coaches acted
immediately and in collaboration with the NCAA. During the university’s investigation, they
found other violations the NCAA was unaware of and reported them to the Associa tion.
Violations included incidents when assistant coaches arranged low -cost housing and
transportation for prospective football players. While the monetary value of these
accommodations was under $ 5,000, the duration of time these activities had gone on was five
years. Boise State developed and submitted a set of self -imposed sanctions against the athletic
department that included three fewer preseason practices for the current and upcoming year and
three fewer scholarships for the next two years. After r eviewing the incidents and the proposed
sanctions, the NCAA eliminated three more scholarships for an additional year and placed the
university on probation for three years. The NCAA imposed harsher sanctions due to what it
perceived to be a lack of instit utional control and the fact that the infractions had gone on for so
long. The university admitted it lost control over compliance because of the rate of growth of the
football program. It claims it has taken steps to strengthen its compliance department b y hiring a
new director and adding new language to its student handbook to clarify its expectations. The
University of New Mexico also received sanctions for misconduct in its football program. The
case involved academic fraud that occurred in 2004 and was not discovered by the university
until 2007. Two former assistant coaches helped three recruits and one currently enrolled student
receive academic credit through an online course for which the students did not complete work.
Despite the fact the incident occurred three years prior, the university took the matter seriously
and imposed heavy sanctions. It reduced the number of scholarship offers by one, the overall
number of scholarships by two, the number of coaches allowed to recruit by one for the next t wo
years, and the number of official visits to recruits by four for one year. It also imposed a two -
year probation period on the football program and reduced the number of academic non -
qualifiers by half for two years. Because of the seriousness of academi c fraud, the NCAA accepted most of the self -imposed sanctions offered by the university but reduced the number of
scholarships by five rather than two for a period of two years rather than one year. Many of these
issues involve providing college athletes w ith special favors. For decades a pressing issue has
been one of paying college athletes. There are various rules that must be followed to avoid the
appearance of paying college athletes or providing them with special treatment. At Ohio State
University, s tudent athletes disobeyed the rules by trading athletic equipment for tattoos. The
main argument against athletes receiving compensation is that if the players were paid, then
college sports would lose its appeal. In 2013 -14 the courts will make a decision about whether a
lawsuit arguing that players be compensated for use of their likeness goes forward. However, the
major issue still remains over whether student athletes be paid a salary or reimbursed for
expenses caused by sports -related activities and me dical care. The integrity of the NCAA and
collegiate athletics depends on transparency and a level playing field. The NCAA and
universities are mindful that most collegiate athletes do not enter professional sports and will
have to find a career outside of athletics. Therefore, any attempt to treat collegiate athletics like
professional sports could be detrimental. The goal of all stakeholders should be to help young
men and women develop the ability to have a career and contribute to society. CONCLUSION
Th e NCAA strives to prevent unethical behavior in collegiate athletics by objectively setting and
enforcing standards of conduct. They also encourage and help universities establish their own
system of compliance and control, since the ultimate responsibilit y lies with the universities and
the cultures they create. Even when colleges impose sanctions on their football programs, the
NCAA examines the sanctions objectively and either accepts the sanctions as sufficient or
supplements them with more penalties th at better match the misconduct. This should not
discourage universities from self -reporting, however. While there is no guarantee a football
program will not be penalized for reporting misconduct or adopting self -imposed sanctions, the
more proactive a foo tball program appears to be, the more consideration it may receive when the
NCAA examines the situation. Additionally, a proactive ethical culture creates a reputation for
ethics and compliance that may help the program bounce back quicker after a miscondu ct
incident. The NCAA stands as a compliance -oriented organization. At the same time, it promotes
certain values the universities should adopt when developing sports programs. The NCAA rules
should not be accepted as totally sufficient but used as a minimu m benchmark for ethical
conduct. NCAA guidelines serve as a framework for how collegiate sports programs should
behave and offers consequences for non -compliance. Universities involved in both minor and
major violations have come to realize the importance of emphasizing ethics and compliance in
their sports programs. QUESTIONS 1. How does the NCAA encourage collegiate football
programs to develop a culture of ethics and compliance? 2. Is it a valid criticism that the NCAA
is based more on compliance than et hical values? 3. How can student athletes, coaches, and
university administrators demonstrate a proactive response to ethics and compliance?
Penn State Scandal In 2011 accusations arose alleging that a former assistant coach of the Penn
State football te am sexually assaulted at least eight young boys over the course of many years. It
was not long before the school itself was implicated in suspecting or knowing about the crime
but not taking adequate steps to stop it. Two university officials turned themse lves in to
authorities for being accused of covering up the crimes. According to investigations, the first
report of potential misconduct between the former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky and an
underage boy came in 1998. The report came to University poli ce and the Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Gary Schultz. This matter was investigated internally and resulted in
no criminal charges based on a lack of evidence. In 2001 a graduate assistant allegedly witnessed
the perpetrator sexually assa ulting a young boy in the Penn State football team’s practice center.
The graduate assistant reported the incident to Head Coach Joe Paterno, who staked his
reputation on running a program known for ethics and integrity. While Paterno appeared to have
noti fied campus officials, the officials did not report to police, allowing the crime to continue. A
later report conducted by former director of the FBI Louis Freeah indicated the coach and school
officials covered up the crimes. This led to accusations that the school cared more about its
reputation and the success of its football program than it did about the young victims. This case
is even more serious as such misconduct does not just constitute an NCAA violation; it is a
criminal act that harmed many peop le. Although Joe Paterno did report the crime to campus
officials, some felt it was his responsibility to do more to ensure the crimes were reported to the
proper authorities. The assistant coach continued to interact with young boys and be around the
coll ege campus after the reports were made. The negligent behavior of Penn State officials, both
within the administration and the football department, might be explained through the strength of
the football program and the complacency of the university cultur e. Head Coach Joe Paterno had
been at Penn State’s football department for more than 60 years at the time of the scandal. The
way he ran the department indicated a reliance on old football standards and an inability or
unwillingness to adapt to new ones. U nfortunately, this culture had pitfalls that did not hold up to
modern ethical standards. Some reports claim that on different occasions he advocated for
football players not to be held to the same standards as regular students, implying football
players s hould be treated differently than other students by the university. When football players
got in trouble with the law, Paterno felt the university should not take action but rather let the
police deal with it. Although he butted heads with many people when it came to these views,
school directors were on his side of the argument. This is likely because of the large amount of
revenue the program brought into the school. According to one accusation, Coach Paterno used
this revenue as a threat to stop all fund raising if a certain director he disagreed with was not
fired. If these allegations are true, then Paterno created a culture within the football department
wherein members did not need to be held accountable according to school regulations. This in
turn i ndicates a complacent university culture when it came to the football program. The NCAA
agreed the misconduct was partially the fault of the football program’s and Penn State’s
complacency. In addition to the negative impact on the victims, Penn State suff ered reputational
damage and received a major blow to its football program. The NCAA imposed sanctions
against Penn State costing $ 60 million in fines, a four -year post -season ban prohibiting the
school from being eligible for any post games until 2016, a nd a four -year reduction in
scholarships amounting to ten scholarships per year for the football program. The football team’s
wins from between 1998 and 2011 were vacated. These penalties drastically hurt the football
program’s ability to compete against o ther teams. In total, there were seven penalties placed on
the university and athletics program combined. The NCAA is taking steps to make sure the
activities that took place at Penn State do not happen again. As an aside, the Paterno family
announced they were filing a lawsuit against the NCAA and its President on behalf of Penn
State, citing the investigation conducted by former director of the FBI Louis Freeah — a report
the NCAA relied heavily upon in imposing sanctions against Penn State — was seriously fl awed
in its conclusions of blame. The NCAA also put ten corrective sanctions on Penn State
formulated specifically for them. The main corrective measure was that the university must sign
an Athletic Integrity Agreement. In doing so, this allowed the NCAA t o require Penn State to take eight corrective steps. These steps include the addition of a compliance officer for the
athletics department, the creation of a compliance council and a full disclosure program, adding
internal accountability and certification s for this accountability, implementation of an external
compliance review/certification process, drafting an athletics code of conduct, conducting
training and education, and appointing an independent athletics integrity monitor. All of the steps
will be continuously updated to ensure their internal and external controls stay relevant. The
NCAA’s goal for the corrective sanctions is to find and stop unethical behavior before it
becomes a problem. Ohio State The Ohio State scandal was a result of rule viola tions from
student –athletes and a subsequent cover -up of the violations by the coach. In December 2010
five players on Ohio State’s football team were suspended for using the gear the football team
supplied to barter for cash and tattoos. Under the NCAA ru les, it is illegal for a Division I
football player to receive any benefit from anyone that is not offered to the public. Head Coach
Jim Tressel became aware of the violation and failed to report it to the school for a period of nine
months. This enabled t he team to continue to play in games they otherwise would have been
ineligible to play. In addition to the suspensions, the NCAA also banned Ohio State from a bowl
game for one year, took five scholarships away for the following three years, and put the te am on
a one -year probation. When it was discovered Tressel had prior knowledge of the violation, the
NCAA issued a five -year show -cause order on him, forcing him to resign and virtually ending
his career as a coach in collegiate athletics. A college can hi re a coach who has an outstanding
show -cause order, but they may be penalized simply for hiring him. In addition, if a coach with a
show -cause order does in fact get hired and makes a subsequent violation, the consequences will
be far more severe on both t he coach and the university. Most colleges will not take the risk of
hiring a coach with this kind of label. This was not the only violation to be found among
members of the Ohio State football team. After the bartering scandal, the NCAA suspended three
other players for accepting money from a booster. A booster is a fan who has a significant
amount of money and invests in the team to build better facilities, contribute to scholarships, and
sometimes have a choice in who the coaching staff will be. However, student –athletes are not to
take any money or gifts from boosters directly. It is a direct violation of the rules of the NCAA.
Additionally, other players were suspended for being overpaid by the same booster for work in a
summer job. The NCAA placed thes e sanctions on Ohio State for failure to properly oversee
their athletics program. Many of the administrators commented if they knew of the football
players’ conduct, they would have taken corrective action against it. Ohio State took
responsibility for it s actions and cooperated with the NCAA investigation. Ohio State imposed
its own penalties against the football program, including vacating the 2010 season. Yet the
NCAA made it a point to show the administrators it is their responsibility to know what is going
on within their organization. Additionally, the NCAA also noted Tressel withheld information
multiple times from NCAA investigators. In total, the sanctions cost Ohio State an estimated $ 8
million. University of Arkansas Head Coach Bobby Petrino was respected and admired for his
coaching abilities by everyone, even those who did not have a high opinion of him personally.
Before coaching at University of Arkansas in 2007, Petrino left bitter feelings at the football
organizations where he previously w orked. For example, he secretly tried to get one of his
former bosses fired, he pressured a student to go to practice rather than attend a funeral where he
was to be a pallbearer, and he left his job with the Atlanta Falcons by leaving a short note in the
lockers of each player before the season ended. Petrino’s questionable behavior continued while
he coached for the University of Arkansas. He had been with the university since 2007 and
transformed the team into championship material. However, a motorcycle accident in early 2012 revealed a latent scandal brewing for several months. At the time of the accident Petrino claimed
he was riding alone, but changed his story as the police report was about to become public. He
admitted he rode with Jessica Dorrell, a 25 -year -old former student who Petrino hired as the
Student Athlete Development Coordinator just a week prior. He further admitted he initially lied
about the details of the accident because he and Dorrell were involved in an inappropriate
relationship. Petrino hoped to keep this information secret as is evidenced by the fact he filed the
report with a state trooper who worked as his personal security after he parted ways with Dorrell.
This incident was a scandal for two reasons. First, Petrino was marrie d with four children, and
second, he had hired Dorrell without stating to the university there was a conflict of interest due
to their personal relationship. Because she was hired as a state employee, not disclosing the
conflict of interest was illegal. Ad ditionally, the position she was given reported directly to
Petrino himself. Upon investigation, it was found that Petrino also gave Dorrell gifts amounting
to $ 20,000. All of these things taken together caused the Athletic Director of the University of
Arkansas Jeff Long to fire Petrino. However, the decision was not easy for him to make.
Petrino’s contributions to the success of the football team were no small matter, and the
consequences of letting him go would affect the team’s performance. However, ke eping Petrino
as Head Coach would demonstrate that the university condoned the misconduct. Dorrell resigned
a few days after Petrino was fired. In less than a year after the University of Arkansas scandal,
Petrino was hired as Head Coach of the Hilltoppers of Western Kentucky University. Some say
this arrangement is good for both of the parties involved. Petrino gets to coach football for a
lower ranking football program while waiting for the scandal to blow over, and Western
Kentucky University gets to tak e advantage of Petrino’s coaching for a few years. The
arrangement drew some criticism to the school. Some say the hiring of a coach recently fired for
a scandal speaks to the fact that the school values winning games over ethical behavior.
Fortunately for the University of Arkansas and Bobby Petrino, NCAA rules had not been
violated, so sanctions were avoided. Jeff Long showed ethical leadership in the way he handled
the Petrino scandal even without pressure from the NCAA. Long refused to be complacent whe n
the misconduct became apparent even when, in the short term, it did not seem like it would
benefit the university. The football team suffered from the loss of Coach Petrino, but the
university’s actions express it expects high ethical standards from its football program and will
accept no less. Because it creates a culture of ethics and compliance, schools like the University
of Arkansas step up to the plate and make the right decision even when misconduct does not
constitute an NCAA violation. SELF -REPOR TING AND MONITORING STUDENT
ATHLETES Minor violations become scandals when they are covered up for long periods of
time by the university, the football program authorities, or both. No matter where the cover up
begins or ends, the ultimate responsibility l ies with the university to monitor the actions of the
football program. If the culture of the university fosters misconduct, minor violations will
inevitably become scandals. On the other hand, universities that monitor their athletics programs
so minor vi olations are caught immediately and reported to the NCAA are less likely to be
involved in major scandals. This act of self -reporting demonstrates a concern with ethical
behavior and accountability for their actions. Furthermore, the NCAA takes these measu res into
account when deciding on the appropriate level of penalties for violations. In 2011 the NCAA
approached Boise State with 22 allegations of misconduct within its athletics department.
Becoming aware of this misconduct, the university as well as the head coaches acted
immediately and in collaboration with the NCAA. During the university’s investigation, they
found other violations the NCAA was unaware of and reported them to the Association. Violations included incidents when assistant coaches arrang ed low -cost housing and
transportation for prospective football players. While the monetary value of these
accommodations was under $ 5,000, the duration of time these activities had gone on was five
years. Boise State developed and submitted a set of self -imposed sanctions against the athletic
department that included three fewer preseason practices for the current and upcoming year and
three fewer scholarships for the next two years. After reviewing the incidents and the proposed
sanctions, the NCAA elimi nated three more scholarships for an additional year and placed the
university on probation for three years. The NCAA imposed harsher sanctions due to what it
perceived to be a lack of institutional control and the fact that the infractions had gone on for so
long. The university admitted it lost control over compliance because of the rate of growth of the
football program. It claims it has taken steps to strengthen its compliance department by hiring a
new director and adding new language to its student ha ndbook to clarify its expectations. The
University of New Mexico also received sanctions for misconduct in its football program. The
case involved academic fraud that occurred in 2004 and was not discovered by the university
until 2007. Two former assistan t coaches helped three recruits and one currently enrolled student
receive academic credit through an online course for which the students did not complete work.
Despite the fact the incident occurred three years prior, the university took the matter serio usly
and imposed heavy sanctions. It reduced the number of scholarship offers by one, the overall
number of scholarships by two, the number of coaches allowed to recruit by one for the next two
years, and the number of official visits to recruits by four f or one year. It also imposed a two -
year probation period on the football program and reduced the number of academic non -
qualifiers by half for two years. Because of the seriousness of academic fraud, the NCAA
accepted most of the self -imposed sanctions off ered by the university but reduced the number of
scholarships by five rather than two for a period of two years rather than one year. Many of these
issues involve providing college athletes with special favors. For decades a pressing issue has
been one of paying college athletes. There are various rules that must be followed to avoid the
appearance of paying college athletes or providing them with special treatment. At Ohio State
University, student athletes disobeyed the rules by trading athletic equipment for tattoos. The
main argument against athletes receiving compensation is that if the players were paid, then
college sports would lose its appeal. In 2013 -14 the courts will make a decision about whether a
lawsuit arguing that players be compensated for use of their likeness goes forward. However, the
major issue still remains over whether student athletes be paid a salary or reimbursed for
expenses caused by sports -related activities and medical care. The integrity of the NCAA and
collegiate athletics de pends on transparency and a level playing field. The NCAA and
universities are mindful that most collegiate athletes do not enter professional sports and will
have to find a career outside of athletics. Therefore, any attempt to treat collegiate athletics like
professional sports could be detrimental. The goal of all stakeholders should be to help young
men and women develop the ability to have a career and contribute to society. CONCLUSION
The NCAA strives to prevent unethical behavior in collegiate athlet ics by objectively setting and
enforcing standards of conduct. They also encourage and help universities establish their own
system of compliance and control, since the ultimate responsibility lies with the universities and
the cultures they create. Even w hen colleges impose sanctions on their football programs, the
NCAA examines the sanctions objectively and either accepts the sanctions as sufficient or
supplements them with more penalties that better match the misconduct. This should not
discourage univer sities from self -reporting, however. While there is no guarantee a football
program will not be penalized for reporting misconduct or adopting self -imposed sanctions, the more proactive a football program appears to be, the more consideration it may receiv e when the
NCAA examines the situation. Additionally, a proactive ethical culture creates a reputation for
ethics and compliance that may help the program bounce back quicker after a misconduct
incident. The NCAA stands as a compliance -oriented organizatio n. At the same time, it promotes
certain values the universities should adopt when developing sports programs. The NCAA rules
should not be accepted as totally sufficient but used as a minimum benchmark for ethical
conduct. NCAA guidelines serve as a frame work for how collegiate sports programs should
behave and offers consequences for non -compliance. Universities involved in both minor and
major violations have come to realize the importance of emphasizing ethics and compliance in
their sports programs. QU ESTIONS 1. How does the NCAA encourage collegiate football
programs to develop a culture of ethics and compliance? 2. Is it a valid criticism that the NCAA
is based more on compliance than ethical values? 3. How can student athletes, coaches, and
universit y administrators demonstrate a proactive response to ethics and compliance? SOURCES
Andrea Adelson, “Boise State self -imposes sanctions,” ESPN, May 5, 2011,
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6476963 (accessed May 30, 2013); Zac Al -Khateeb,
“Bama fans turn out en masse to celebrate the Tide’s championship victory,” The Crimson
White, January 22, 2013, http://cw.ua.edu/2013/01/22/bama -fans -turn -outen -masse -to-celebrate -
the -tides -15th -bcs -national -championship/ (accessed April 23, 2013); Associated P ress, “Bobby
Petrino to Western Kentucky,” ESPN, December 11, 2012, http://espn.go.com/college -
football/story/_/id/8732857/bobby -petrino -hired -head -coach -western -kentucky -hilltoppers
(accessed May 30, 2012); Associated Press, “Lobos begin self -imposed pena lties for four
possible rules violations,” ESPN, January 5, 2008,
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3182809 (accessed May 30, 2013); Associated
Press, “NCAA denies Boise State’s appeal,” October 10, 2012, ESPN,
http://espn.go.com/college -football /story/_/id/8486550/ncaa -upholds -ruling -boise -state -broncos -
scholarship -sanctions (accessed May 30, 2013); The Associated Press, “NCAA to reconsider
Boise St. sanctions,” NCAA, June 29, 2012, http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012 -06 -
29/ncaa -recons ider -boise -st-sanctions (accessed May 30, 2013); Associated Press, “Penn State
lists 1st director of ethics and compliance,” WITF, March 8, 2013,
http://www.witf.org/news/2013/03/penn -state -names -1st -director -of-ethics -and -compliance.php
(accessed May 30, 2013); Rachel Bachman and Matthew Futterman, “College Football’s Big -
Money, Big -Risk Business Model,” The Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324024004578169472607407806.html
(accessed April 23, 2013); Rachel Bachman, Kevin H elliker, and John Miller, “A Discipline
Problem Paterno Fought Penn State Official Over Punishment of Players,” The Wall Street
Journal, November 22, 2011,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577052073672561402.html
(accessed May 30, 201 3); Thomas Bradley, “Breaking it down: ‘Tattoo -Gate’ scandal costs Ohio
State almost $8M,” The Lantern, June 16, 2012, http://www.thelantern.com/campus/breaking -it-
down -tattoo -gate -scandal -costs -ohio -state -almost -8m -1.2875925#.UZqbSUrD770 (accessed
May 30, 2013); College Sports Scholarships, “NCAA and NAIA Sports Recruiting,”
http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com/ncaa -recruiting -rules -contact -visits.htm (accessed
April 23, 2013); Abby Davidson, “Why the N.C.A.A.’s Sanctions Against Penn State Are Fair,”
The New Yorker, July 23, 2012,
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/07/punishing -penn -state -sandusky -
scandal.html (accessed April 28, 2013); Division III Commissioners Association, “Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct Committee,”
http://www.d iiicomm.org/committees/sportsmanship/mission (accessed April 23, 2013); “Do
college football or basketball teams cheat in recruiting? Does it really happen?” Recruiting -
101.com, http://recruiting -101.com/do -college -football -or-basketball -teams -cheat -in-rec ruiting -
%C2%A0does -it-really -happen/ (accessed May 30, 2013); Darren Everson, “What Is Your Team
Worth?” The Wall Street Journal, January 7, 2013.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324391104578225802183417888.html
(accessed March 23, 2013); Mik e Fish, “The Most Powerful Boosters,” ESPN, January 12, 2006,
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2285986 (accessed May 30, 2013); Marilee
Gallagher, “Penn State Penalties: Did NCAA Give University the ‘Death Penalty’ in Disguise?”
Bleacher Report, July 23, 2012, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1268899 -penn -state -penalties -
did -ncaa -give -university -the -death -penalty -in-disguise (accessed May 30, 2013); Adam
Himmelsbach, “Scandal Involving Petrino Goes Beyond X’s and O’s,” The New York Times,
April 6, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/sports/ncaafootball/bobby -petrino -scandal -
goes -beyond -football -acumen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& (accessed May 30, 2013); The Ivy
League, “NCAA Rules: A Guide for Parents of Student -Athletes,” Brown Bears,
www.bro wnbears.com/compliance/files/parentsrules.pdf?dec (accessed April 23, 2013); Jerry
Hinnen, “Emails released in O’Bannon suit show ‘real concern’ at NCAA,” CBS Sports, April
26, 2013, from http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye -on -college -
footbal l/22144772/emails -released -inobannon -suit -show -real -concern -at-ncaa (accessed May 30,
2013); Vince Huth, “Column: NCAA sanctions maybe not severe enough,” The Daily Cardinal,
September 7, 2012, http://host.madison.com/daily -cardinal/sports/columnists/colum n-ncaa -
sanctions -maybe -not -severe -enough/article_a7522bb0 -f8b7 -11e1 -9517 -001a4bcf887a.html
(accessed May 30, 2013); Scott Jaschik, “The Football Dividend,” Inside Higher Ed, October 29,
2012, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/29/research -finds -fin ancial -impact -
colleges -win -football -games (accessed May 30, 2013); Armen Keteyian (correspondent) and
Draggan Mihailovich (producer), “Has college football become a campus commodity?” CBS
News, originally aired as part of “The College Game” on November 18, 2012,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301 -18560_162 -57551556/has -college -football -become -a-campus -
commodity/ (accessed April 23, 2013); Paige Kuznar, “Students pickup post -game garbage, earn
cash,” The Battalion Online, October 3, 2012, http://www.thebatt.com/lif estyles/students -pickup -
post -game -garbage -earn -cash -1.2917853#.UVdXg1eMBGM (accessed April 23, 2013); Bill
Littlefield, “‘Cheating The Spread’: Scandals In College Sports,” Only A Game, January 26,
2013, http://onlyagame.wbur.org/2013/01/26/cheating -the -sp read (accessed May 30, 2013);
Stewart Mandel, “Bobby Petrino’s hire at WKU shows emphasis on winning above all else,”
Sports Illustrated, December 10, 2012,
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/12/10/bobby -petrino -western -
kentucky/i ndex.html (accessed May 30, 2013); Susan Montoya Bryan, “NCAA penalizes New
Mexico for football violations,” USA Today, August 20, 2008,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2008 -08 -20 -1452036409_x.htm?csp=34
(accessed May 30, 2013); Nati onal Collegiate Athletic Association Home Page,
http://NationalCollegiateAthleticAssociation, 2011 -2012 NCAA® Division I Manual
(Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletics Association, 2011); National Collegiate Athletic
Association, “2012 AND 2013 NC AA Football Rules and Interpretations,” NCAA Publications,
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p -4292 -2012 -and -2013 -ncaa -football -rules -and -
interpretations.aspx (accessed May 30, 2013); National Collegiate Athletic Association, “History,” August 13, 2012,
http ://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/history (April 23, 2013);
“NCAA to reconsider penalties imposed on Boise State football,” USA Today, June 29, 2012,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/mwest/story/2012 -06 -29/boi se-state -
ncaa -reconsider -sanctions/55921852/1 (accessed May 30, 2013); “Ohio State gets one -year bowl
ban,” ESPN, December 22, 2011, http://espn.go.com/college -football/story/_/id/7372757/ohio -
state -buckeyes -football -penalties -include -bowl -ban (accessed Ma y 30, 2013); Chip Patterson,
“Joe Paterno’s family to sue NCAA on behalf of Penn State,” CBS Sports, May 30, 2013,
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye -on -college -football/22327207/joe -paterno -
family -to-sue -ncaa (accessed May 30, 2013); Penn S tate, “Becker named as first director of
University ethics and compliance,” March 7, 2013,
http://news.psu.edu/story/267725/2013/03/07/administration/becker -named -first -director -
university -ethics -and -compliance (accessed May 30, 2013); Penn State, “Ethics and Compliance
Hotline,” Office of Internal Audit, http://www.internalaudit.psu.edu/hotline/ (accessed May 30,
2013); “Penn State Football Coach Sex Abuse Scandal: Officials Step Down,” YouTube,
November 7, 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkfcYHlvYpU (accessed March 23,
2013); “The Penn State Scandal, Piece by Piece,” Pittsburgh Post -Gazette, http://blogs.post -
gazette.com/scandal/timeline.php (accessed May 30, 2013); “Police look at Bobby Petrino
Crash,” ESPN, April 7, 2012, http://espn.go.com/college -football/story/_/id/7784107/arkansas -
state -police -looking -closer -football -coach -bobby -petrino -crash (accessed May 30, 2013);
Christopher P. Ryan, “Penn State NCAA Sanctions Go Too Far,” Policymic,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/11704/penn -state -ncaa -san ctions -go -too -far (accessed May
30, 2013); “Scandal Brings down Arkansas Football Coach,” Fox News, April 11, 2012,
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1557329306001/scandal -brings -down -arkansas -football -coach/
(accessed March 23, 2013; Mark Schlabach, “NCAA sends message to Ohio State,” ESPN,
December 20, 2011, http://espn.go.com/college -football/story/_/id/7373708/ncaa -sends -
message -sanctions -ohio -state -buckeyes (accessed May 30, 2013); Allen St. John, “The
Economics of Scandal: A $55, 735 Hiring Cost Arkansas Foo tball Coach Bobby Petrino $18
Million,” Forbes, April 11, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2012/04/11/the -
economics -of-scandal -a-55735 -hiring -cost -arkansas -football -coach -bobby -petrino -18 -million/
(accessed May 30, 2013); Staff Report, “A&M fo otball season, Manziel generate $37 million in
media exposure revenue,” The Battalion Online, January 18, 2013, http://www.thebatt.com/a -m-
football -season -manziel -generate -37 -million -in-media -exposure -revenue -
1.2973571#.UVdYOleMBGM (accessed April 23, 2013 ); ncaa.org (accessed April 23, 2013);
official -ncaa -accepts -vols -self -imposed -sanctions/ (accessed May 30, 2013); Mark Torrence,
“Crimson Tide weight room gets $9 million makeover,” The Crimson White, February 28, 2013,
http://cw.ua.edu/2013/02/28/crimson -tide -weight -room -gets -9-million -makeover/ (accessed
April 23, 2013); “University of Miami: Self -imposed sanctions have strengthened our mission,”
The Miami Herald, February 21, 2013,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/21/3246573/university -of-miami -self -imposed.html
(accessed May 30, 2013); Steve Wieberg, “Sanctions against Ohio State Just the Latest NCAA
Scandal,” USA Today, December 21, 2011,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2011 -12 -20/ohio -state -
sanctions -ncaa -scandals /52132580/1 (accessed March 23, 2013); Dan Wolken, “NCAA
enforcement staff’s tasks won’t get any easier,” USA Today, February 18, 2012,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/02/18/miami -ncaa -enforcement -ameen - najjar -julie -roe -lach -mark -emmert -ken -wainstein/1929011/ (accessed May 30, 2013); Charlie
Zegers, “Show Cause,” About.com,
http://basketball.about.com/od/collegebasketballglossary/g/show -cause.htm (accessed May 30,
2013). * This case was prepared by Michelle Urban, Kathleen Dubyk, Ben Skaer , and Bethany
Buchner for and under the direction of O.C. and Linda Ferrell. It was prepared for classroom
discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative,
ethical, or legal decision by management. All sou rces used for this case were obtained through
publicly available material.
