This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 A REVIEW OF PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORTS TO IDENTIFY KEY AREAS THAT INFLUENCE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS AT DIVISION I NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION INSTITUTIONS By CHRISTINE ELIZABETH BROWN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012
2 2012 Christine Brown
3 I have been unbelievably blessed by so many individuals over the course of my life. This thesis is dedicated to all those who believed in me and encouraged me throughout my journey.
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the countless indivi duals who have guided me throughout this research process and my academic career. First I would like to thank my academic advisor and Committee Chair Dr. Shannon Kerwin for her continued guidance over the past two years. Dr. Kerwin saw and believed in m y potential. I could not have completed this research without her unwavering support. I give great thanks to my committee members Dr. John Spengler and Dr. Trevor Bopp for all of their valuable assistance through the research process. In addition, I als o thank all of my former professors and program staff members at the University of Florida, who have helped me over the course of the past two years achieve the academic success that I have today. I cannot express enough gratitude to those individuals who have introduced me to and continued to teach me about the process of intercollegiate athletics compliance for more than two years. These professional mentors and colleagues have given me the curiosity about the topic and the background knowledge needed to complete this research. I would not have been able to achieve this academic success, nor all of the other successes in my life without the endless encouragement, guidance and love from my parents, for which I am so very thankful to them for. I also need for education inspired and continues to inspire me. I am so blessed for and thankful to all of my family, friends, and loved ones who have been an incredible support system throughout this research process and my entire life. Finally, I would like to thank God for giving me the strength to continue through with this research process, allowing me to achieve my lifelong academic goals and guiding me through my journey in life.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Capturing Headlines ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 12 The NCAA ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 13 Violations of NCAA Rules ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 16 Institutional Control ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 18 A Lack of Institutional Control ................................ ................................ ............................... 20 A Lack of Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 22 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 24 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 25 Introductory Remarks ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Institutional Control: What We Do Know ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Ethics and Conduct of Athletics Personnel ................................ ................................ ............ 28 Amateurism & Extra Benefits for Student Athletes ................................ ............................... 31 Recruiting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 34 Academics and Student Athlete Wellness ................................ ................................ .............. 35 Institutional Control: Gaps in the Knowledge ................................ ................................ ....... 36 Research Meets Practice: Ethical Theory ................................ ................................ .............. 37 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 41 Document Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 41 Case Selections ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 I nterviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 45 Challenges and Special Considerations ................................ ................................ .................. 47 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 RQ1: Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 51 RQ2: Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 57
6 RQ3: Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 62 RQ4: Discussion: ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 67 RQ5: Discussion: ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 70 RQ6: Discussion: ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 72 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 82 Concluding Remarks ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 82 Future Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 83 Managerial Implications ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 84 APPENDIX A ORGANIZATION OF THE NCAA MANUAL ................................ ................................ .... 87 B PENALTY STRUCTURE FOR SECONDARY NCAA VIOLATIONS .............................. 88 C PENALTY STRUCTURE FOR MAJOR VIOLATIONS ................................ ..................... 90 D RESEARCH STUDY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TEMPLATE ................................ ......... 93 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 95 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 99
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Sports Involved in Major Rules Violations in the Selected Public Infractions Reports. This chart includes both the ICG and the INCG. ................................ ............................... 74 4 2 Sports Involved in Major Rule s Violations in the Selected Public Infractions Reports. This chart includes only results from the ICG. ................................ ................................ .. 75 4 3 Sports Involved in Major Rules Violations in the Selected Public Infractions Rep orts. This chart includes only results from the INCG. ................................ ............................... 76 4 4 Articles where violations occurred in the selected major infractions cases. This chart includes both the ICG and the INCG ................................ ................................ ................. 77 4 5 Areas Where Violations Occurred in the Major Infractions Cases that Led to the NCAA Charging Institutions with A Lack of Institutional Control. This chart includes only the ICG. ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 78 4 6 Areas Where Violations Occurred in the Major Infractions Cases that Led to the NCAA Nearly Charging Institutions with A Lack of Institutional Control. This chart includes only the INCG. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 79 4 7 Penalties Given in the Major Infractions Cases that Led to the NCAA Charging Institutions with A Lack of Institutional Control. This chart includes the ICG the INCG. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 4 8 Penalties Given in the Major Infractions Cases that Led to the NCAA Charging Institutions with A Lack of Institutional Control. This chart includes only the ICG. ....... 80 4 9 Penalties Given in the Major Infractions Cases that Led to the NCAA Nearly Charging Institutions with A Lack of Institutional Control. This chart includes only the INCG. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 81
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Processing of a typical major infractions case. The chart describes the typical process of an investigation into a major violation of NCAA rules. ................................ 86
9 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S BCS Bowl Championship Series COI Committee on Infractions FAR Faculty Athletics Representative FBS Football Bowl Subdivision FCS Football Championship Series IAAUS Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association NLI National Letter of Intent PSA Prospective Student Athlete SWA Senior Woman Administrator
10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science A REVIEW OF PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORTS TO IDENTIFY KEY AREAS THAT INFLUENCE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS AT D IVISION I NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION INSTITUTIONS By Christine Brown August 2012 Chair: Shannon Kerwin Major: Sport Management A core principle of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is that its member institutions mainta in complete control of their intercollegiate athletics programs by following all Association rules, conference rules (if applicable) and institution rules. It is cause for concern that institutions at the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision level, the highest level of intercollegiate athletics competition in the NCAA, are being found to lack control of their athletics programs. These highly costly rules violation scandals do not only have negative but rather the universities as a whole. It was the purpose of this study to better understand the factors that could potentially impact an institution being found to lack control of their athletics programs through document analysis of Public Infractions Reports, reports published by the NCAA that outline the details of a major rules violation case. Some potential factors that could increase the chance of an institution being charged with a lack of institutional control could be particular sports involved areas of legislation involved and penalties given. In addition to understanding what factors could impact institutional control, the researcher looked to academia and ethical theory to possibly find answers to why individuals choose to break rules that could lead to a charge of a lack of
11 institutional control. Overall the results of the study revealed that there are particular areas athletic administrators could focus on enhancing rules education and monitoring efforts to reduce the likelihood of being charged by the NCAA with a lack of institutional control.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Capturing Headlines major violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NC AA) regulations in lodging, transportation and allowing ineligible student athletes to compete in seven of their athletics programs for a period lasting over five years (Boise State Public Infractions Report, 2011). A legendary head Division I basketball coach and his staff allegedly knowingly violated multiple that their institution would receive the commitment of that highly touted prospective student athl ete (University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report, 2011). A Division I institution, known historically as being one of the premier football powerhouses in the United States, exceeded the amount of playing and practice time that student athletes wer e allowed under NCAA regulations to participate in for a period of nearly two years (University of Michigan Public Infractions Report, 2010). During this time period, several employees of that same es that only countable coaches under NCAA regulations were allowed to conduct. Therefore the institution was found to have exceeded their countable coaches limit for that time period as well (University of Michigan Public Infractions Report, 2010). These are just three of the countless recent national headline capturing cases involving major Division I institutions breaking NCAA regulations. It is apparent to anyone who scans the front covers of sports sections in newspapers, magazines and websites that to day intercollegiate athletics is facing a rapidly growing epidemic of NCAA member institutions breaking Association rules. Even individuals who are not avid sports fans are well aware of the endless stories of student athletes, coaches, athletic
13 administ from student athletes accepting extra benefits to athletics staff members lying to the NCAA Enforcement Staff during an investigation into allegations of rules violations. These numerous instances show just how many institutions are struggling at maintaining, or worse failing to maintain, control of their big time intercollegiate athletic programs. Unfortunately this struggle to maintain control of athletic departments is nothing new in intercollegiate athletics. ere incidents of academic dishonesty by student athletes on standardized tests, institutions easing admission requirements for student athletes, of institutions enticing prospective student athletes (also referred to as PSAs) with extra benefits, and stude nt athletes failing to succeed academically at institutions across the country (Frey, 1987). As hundred years since the early scandals of intercollegiate athletics appeared, the question of control within intercollegiate athletics is still as puzzling to researchers studying intercollegiate athletics and athletic a dministrators tirelessly attempting to maintain control of their intercollegiate athletic programs. The NCAA In 1905 intercollegiate football in the United States was nearly abolished due to a national public outcry against the increased violence in the sport, specifically increased deaths during that season (Fuller, 2009; McQuilkin, 2002; Meggyesy, 2000). As a longtime advocate for the physical and mental benefits of participation in intercollegiate athletics, then President Theodore Roosevelt called to gether a meeting of university athletic administrators and coaches to find
14 solutions to the increased violence in intercollegiate football (Fuller, 2009; McQuilkin, 2002). In this meeting the athletics leaders agreed to abide by certain principles when co nducting their athletic programs, ultimately creating the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States (IAAUS) in 1906 to regulate and increase safety in intercollegiate athletics (Crowley, 2006). Four years after the IAAUS was formed, in 191 0 the organization formally changed its name to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) which is the name the organization still holds today (Fuller, 2009). The overall purpose of the NCAA was to enhance safety for student athletes, particular ly in the sport of football, and protect them from exploitation by those who saw a profit in their athletic abilities (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010). Today the NCAA is the largest governing body for intercollegiate athletics in the Uni ted States (McQuilkin, 2002; National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010). As of the 2011 2012 academic year, the NCAA had 1,273 member institutions, conferences and organizations that are located all across the United States and span all three of the (Composition & Sport Sponsorship of the NCAA, 2011). Depending on specific requirements, population, football stadium seating capacity and financial aid distribution amounts, institutions can join one of three different divisions, Division I, II or III (Fuller, 2009; Meggyesy, 2000; 2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). Division I, which has the highest requirements to meet, has three subdivisions (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). The thre e Division I subdivisions are Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as Division I A and currently known as FBS), Football Championship Subdivision (formerly known as Division I AA and currently known as FCS), and schools simply known as Division I (Com position & Sport Sponsorship of the NCAA, 2011). The structure using divisions to
15 classify member institutions allows for each member institution to select the level of competition that they would like to participate in and that fits the mission of their program (How Athletics Programs are Classified, 2010). Over the last century this governing body for intercollegiate athletics has developed very specific bylaws, or rules, for nearly every aspect of life that affects PSAs, current s tudent athletes, coaches, athletic staff members and the intercollegiate athletics programs of its member institutions. The NCAA membership develops, votes on, and determines newly adopted legislation each year and annually publishes the most updated vers ion of their legislation in the NCAA manual, with each division having its own manual for regulations tailored to the specific needs of the division (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). The Division I NCAA Manual is divided into Twenty Three Articles, each with its own bylaws, which describe in detail the conduct of the organization that member institutions agree to implement and follow (NCAA Manual, 2011). Articles One through Six review the constitution of the organization and its structure (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. viii). Articles Ten through Twenty Three outline how membership should normally operate (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. viii). Finally Articles Thirty One through Thirty Three describe how business of the Associ ation should be handled (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. viii). Focus should be given to Articles Ten through Twenty Three in the NCAA Division I Manual, known as the Operating Bylaws, as they outline the many different areas in which a universit y athletic department operates on a regular basis and provides guidelines of how the athletic department is required to conduct affairs in those specific areas. The Articles of the Operating Bylaws include: Ethical Conduct (Article Ten); Conduct and Emplo yment of Athletics Personnel (Article Eleven); Amateurism (Article Twelve); Recruiting (Article Thirteen); Eligibility: Academic and General
16 Requirements (Article Fourteen); Financial Aid (Article Fifteen); Awards, Benefits and Expenses for Enrolled Studen t Athletes (Article Sixteen); Playing and Practice Seasons (Article Seventeen); Championships and Postseason Football (Article Eighteen); Enforcement (Article Nineteen); Division Membership (Article Twenty); Committees (Article Twenty One); Athletics Certi fication (Article Twenty Two); and Academic Performance Program (Article Twenty Three) (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, viii). It is critical that institutional staff members carefully understand and follow these Operating Bylaws, as well as all oth er bylaws, in order to control their athletic program in accordance with NCAA legislation. A complete list of the Articles in the 2011 2012 NCAA Division I Manual can be found in Appendix A (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. viii). Violations of NCAA Rules In 1952, the NCAA created an Enforcement Program to dissuade member institutions from breaking Association rules and to improve the overall administration of intercollegiate athletics by combining the efforts and responsibilities of all member i nstitutions, their conference offices, and the NCAA (NCAA Enforcement/Infractions, 2011). The Enforcement Program put in place a set of procedures to be followed when a violation of a rule is alleged to have occurred at a member institution. It is the mi 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 319) Being fair to all parties involved in an alleged rules violation investigation, being timely in the investigation procedures and coming to an unbiased resolution with penalties on par with the level of rule violation are also part of the Enforcement 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.319). When a possible major violation of NCAA rules is discovered by an institution, it is reported to the NCAA Enforcement Staff, who are the team of individuals that investigate
17 NCAA rule violations (NCAA Enforcement/Infractions, 2011). The Enforcement Staff conduc t a preliminary investigation to establish if an official inquiry into the alleged rule violation is necessary and to define whether the alleged violation(s) are in fact major violations or lesser secondary violations (NCAA Enforcement/Infractions, 2011). In addition to alleged violations being reported, the Enforcement Staff can initiate a preliminary investigation if they are given information about a situation that they believe is in violation of Association rules (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.396). recruiting, competitive or other advantage and does not include any significant impermissible 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.319). Violations that are classified as secondary in nature are further categorized by different levels, such as Level I and Level II. violations, specifically including those th at provide an excessive recruiting or competitive 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.320). If an institution is found by the Enforcement Staff through their preliminary investigation to have committed major violations of NCAA rules, the institution is officially notified of the allegations and a subsequent investigation is launched. Once the full investigation is complete, the findings are given to the Committee on Infractions (also known as COI), the group of individuals who oversee and administer the Enforcement Program, as well as ultimately determine if a violation has occurred (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.320). The institution accused of the rules violations will appear in front of the COI to be notified if the committee found that violations have indeed occurred at their institution and if so, what the associated penalties for those violations will be (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011,
18 p.320). At this time, the COI summarizes the case facts and their findings in a P ublic Infractions Report that is released to the institution, the media and published for the public to see on the 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.404). Institutions that disagree th the Infractions Appeals Committee, who will review all of the facts in the case and make the final decision on the rules violations case (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.404). To see a summary of the typical NCAA rules violation investigation p rocess and the NCAA penalty structure for secondary violations and major violations, see Figure 1 1, Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. The Public Infractions Reports that are released to the public and media outline the basic background of the case, describe who was involved in the investigation, explain the specific bylaws that were found to be violated and state what penalties were imposed on the institution and all individuals involved in the case. The Public Infractions Reports do not state the names of 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.320). The Public Infractions Reports also lists the names of the members on the COI for th e case. The reports are provided to the media and public, both of which typically show great interest in cases of institutions being found to have committed major NCAA violations, to give an accurate portrayal and summary of the case. Institutional Contro l The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrati ve control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control. (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 43)
19 This general principle titled Institutional Control, which stands at one small paragraph with less than fifty words, is arguably one of the more significant pieces of legislation throughout the entire 439 paged manual (Marsh & Robbins, 2003; 2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.43). titutions make to (Processing of a Typical Major Infractions Case, 2011). The foundation of institutional control is that each NCAA member institution is responsible for monitoring all aspects of their athletic programs, implementing the appropriate checks and balances needed to do so, and ensuring that their institution is adhering to all NCAA legislation (Principles of Institutional Control, 1996). In addition to minim izing violations of NCAA legislation through practicing proactive preventative strategies, maintaining institutional control also means that when a rules violation is discovered by the institution, it is immediately investigated by the appropriate staff tr ained to do so and reported to the NCAA and/or Conference Office when applicable (Principles of Institutional Control, 1996). In order to uphold institutional control, a university must continuously educate its student athletes, staff members and communit y members of what is and is not permissible under NCAA legislation, recognizing that changes to legislation can occur often and need to be disseminated. Simply stated, the principle of institution control requires that NCAA member institutions have comple te control of all aspects their athletic programs. of the educational institution (Principles of Institutional Control, 1996). That individual is accountable fo r creating an atmosphere in the institution and the athletic department that demands complete compliance with NCAA legislation and an atmosphere where rule violators
20 and their actions will not be tolerated. The President of the institution creates this at mosphere by appointing a Director of Athletics who believes in and is committed to the vision of conducting business in accordance with all NCAA legislation (Principles of Institutional Control, 1996). The Director of Athletics puts together a team of ind ividuals, such as the Faculty Athletics Department Administrators, a Director of Compliance, Head Coaches, an Academic Support Staff and other department staff members, to as sist in creating an atmosphere of compliance with all NCAA, conference (if applicable) and institution rules (Principles of Institutional Control, 1996). Even though this fundamental principle of institutional control appears to be clear and straightforwar d, it is great cause for concern that institutions across the United States are continuing to fail at maintaining control of their athletic programs. A Lack of Institutional Control Professor Gene Marsh and Athletic Administrator Marie Robbins accurately d escribed in their essay what an allegation by the NCAA of a lack of institutional control means to a member institution (Marsh & Robbins, 2003). An allegation of lack of institutional control by the NCAA enforcement staff and a corresponding finding by th e NCAA Committee on Infractions is perceived by many to be the most damning of findings because it represents a failure within the institution, rather than an act although major and important which may have been committed by a distant booster, renegade coach, or some other variety of Robbins, 2003, pp. 670 671) An allegation of a lack of institutional control implies that the institution and athletic program have extensive inadequacies in monitoring programs, educational efforts, violations reporting systems and overall compliance systems (Marsh & Robbins, 2003; Processing of a Typical Major Infractions Case, 2011). A charge of a lack of institutional control can be levied
21 by the NCAA if it is determined that athletic department staff members lack the power to immediately stop violations once discovered. All of these factors in totality are what cause the NCAA to charge an institution with a lack of institutional control (M arsh & Robbins, 2003). It is understood by the NCAA that it is impossible for the Director of Athletics and those individuals in the institution with the responsibility of making sure NCAA legislation is being followed to know every action taken in or aro und their athletic department on a day to day basis (Principles of Institutional Control, 1996). It is inevitable for most universities that they will at some point in the year discover a violation, or multiple violations, of NCAA rules (Marsh & Robbins, 2003). When a rule violation or a possible rule violation occurs, institution staff members responsible for NCAA compliance should immediately be notified (Marsh & Robbins, 2003). Those individuals should at that time begin gathering information on the s ituation and notify the Director of Athletics of the possible violation. The institution must then notify the NCAA and Conference Office (when applicable) of the violation in a timely fashion. From there the investigative process as descri bed in part thr ee of Chapter 1 and as in Figure 1 1 occurs (Marsh & Robbins, 2003). Violations of NCAA rules can easily occur as an accident and unbeknownst to the person commits the violation. Just because one violation occurs at an institution, or even a few violatio ns occur at an institution, does not mean that the athletic administrators at the institution do not have control of their athletics program. Most violations of pena lties (Marsh & Robbins, 2003). Where great cause for concern lies is when major violations are alleged at an institution, because those violations can bring an enormous amount of negative publicity, bring increased scrutiny by media from all across the Un ited States, have major financial costs of fines and legal
22 fees, and can tarnish the brand image of a university; all of which can have effects that extend well beyond the athletic department. In cases where major NCAA violations are alleged, the type of violations, severity of the violations, magnitude of the violations and duration of the violations all play a role in determining if the institution has control of their athletics program (Marsh & Robbins, 2003). Even if an institution is charged with a m ajor violation, this violation does not necessarily mean the athletic administration lacks control of their athletics programs. It is institutions that are repeatedly charged with major violations that indicate to the NCAA that there may be severe issues with regards to having sufficient systems in place to ensure rule adherence. Institutions in this situation must take swift action to correct the issues at their institution or otherwise they could possibly find themselves joining the growing number of in stitutions that are charged with a lack of institutional control. A Lack of Research There is a lack of research in identifying what specific areas of intercollegiate athletics are the common causes of a lack of institutional control charges. In fact, the re is very little, if any, research that deals directly with the issue of institutional control in intercollegiate athletics (Frey, 1987). To date, common research areas focusing on intercollegiate athletics include but are not limited to: gender equity, race and discrimination in collegiate athletics (Meggyesy, 2000), leadership and organizational structures (Davis, 1995; Glazier & Jones, 1991; Goldfine, Pastore & Riemer, 1996; Kuga, 1996), academics and academic reform (The Knight Commission Report, 1991 ), student athlete wellness (Brewer, Murphy & Petitpas, 1996; Sack & Staurowsky, 2005), amateurism issues (Callanan, 2005), economics of intercollegiate athletics (Deschriver & Stotlar, 1996; Goff, 2000), the recruitment of student athletes (Batista & Clar k, 2009; Klenonsky, Templin & Troutman 2001), rules violations and penalties (Batista & Clark, 2009; Baxter & Hopkins, 2003; Dixon, Mahony, Pastore & Turner, 2003; Marsh & Robbins, 2003),
23 and the ethical issues in intercollegiate athletics (Frey, 1984; Ful ler, 2009). All of the above listed research areas fall under the NCAA Operating Bylaws. These broad research topics within intercollegiate athletics are all connected to the concept of institutional control; however, it is unclear which of these areas ho lds a greater weight in terms of importance and should be causes of concern for institutions looking to strengthen and maintain control of their athletics programs. For example, even though there has been extensive research conducted on academic issues fo r current and future prospective student athletes, there has been no prior research conducted to determine how many institutions have been charged with major violations, including a lack of institutional control, because of violations of NCAA regulations r egarding academics (such as in Article Fourteen) (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). It may be helpful for athletic administrators to know how many institutions charged with a lack of institutional control had violations specifically involving academi c issues. With that information athletic administrators could increase their monitoring and educational efforts in those specific departments of their athletic programs to be proactive in combating any potential issues that could arise and eventually lead to a charge of a lack of institutional control. This is just one example of how identifying and better understanding what factors are involved in cases where there has been charges of lack of institutional control can help other institutions avoid findin g themselves facing those same violations. With the rapid increase of Division I institutions being charged with major violations, increased scrutiny of insti rules violators, it is important for athletic administrators to understand what are typical areas
24 where institutions put themselves at risk for violations that could potentially lead to maj or NCAA charges, such as a lack of institutional control. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this research study is to identify common factors of Division I Football Bowl Subdivision institutions being charged by the NCAA Committee on Infractions to have a lack of institutional control in their athletic programs. The researcher identified these commonalities through examining and analyzing the Public Infractions Reports published by the NCAA Committee on Infractions after each investigation of a major infractions case is completed. It was the goal of the research to uncover and dissect the findings regarding the causes of lack of institutional control in athletic programs. The major research questions the researcher addressed are as follows: 1. Whi ch sports were involved in the major infractions cases that led to the NCAA charging institutions with lack of institutional control? 2. Which areas of NCAA legislation, specifically the Articles where the violations were found, were most often involved in th e major infractions cases that led to the NCAA charging institutions with lack of institutional control? 3. What individuals were listed as being involved in violations in the major infractions cases where the NCAA charged the institutions with a lack of inst itutional control? 4. What were the penalties that were given in the major infractions cases where the NCAA charged the institutions with a lack of institutional control? 5. What themes emerged throughout the document analysis of the Public Infractions Reports s elected that noted a lack of institutional control? 6. How were institutions that were ultimately not charged with a lack institutional control able to avoid the findings and penalties associated with the charge?
25 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introductory Rema rks In order to better understand what causes a lack of institutional control in Division I intercollegiate athletics departments, it is critical to first grasp what prior research has uncovered about institutional control in intercollegiate athletics. In addition to merely understanding previous research on the concept of institutional control, it is important to comprehend other aspects of intercollegiate athletics, such as previous research on the Articles of the Operating Bylaws as described in the Int roduction (see Appendix A for the complete list of Operating Bylaws) which ultimately help govern institutional control (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. viii). Because the principle of institutional control is the idea from which all of these and other NCAA rules are developed, reviewing literature on these areas will increase understanding regarding the factors that may influence institutional control. Finally, there are gaps in the literature related to institutional control of intercollegiate athletics that must be recognized. Once what is known and unknown about institutional control is uncovered and the common factors involved in a lack of institutional control are defined, it is possible to determine the gaps in the literature to better und erstand the state of institutional control within the NCAA; which is the ultimate goal of this research. Institutional Control: What We Do Know As previously mentioned, the NCAA defines institutional control to be when a member n, including the President, Director of Athletics, Senior Woman Administrator, Faculty Athletic Representative, Compliance Director and other Athletic Administrators charged by the university with the responsibility of this task, maintain complete control and responsibility of the conduct of their athletics programs (Marsh & Robbins, 2003;
26 2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). Due to a severe lack of man power, resources and feasibility, it would be impossible for the NCAA to be hands on and monitor every aspect of responsibility of monitoring adherence with Association rules to each member institution. Each institution is responsible for self regulating the actions of all student athletes and staff members, as well as the actions the faculty members, boosters and local community members have in connection with their athletic programs (Davis, 1995). In addition to self regulating through having adequate monit oring systems in place, maintaining institutional control also means regularly providing NCAA rules education to its student athletes, staff and community members and taking immediate action if a rule violation is discovered (Principles of Institutional Co ntrol, 1996). There is very little research directly on institutional control, and virtually none conducted showing how many universities have been found to lack institutional control. What is understood about institutional control is that ensuring that it is in place at an institution is at the very least one full time position. Realizing the complexities of interpreting and implementing NCAA rules, most Division I athletic departments today have an entire department of individuals charged with maintain ing institutional control on a daily basis. At many institutions, it is the job applicable) and institution rules, with the whole goal of being proactive to avoi d any financially costly and reputation damaging rule violations scandals (Fuller, 2009). Typical areas of monitoring include recruitment of PSAs; initial and continuing eligibility of student athletes; amateurism of student athletes; financial aid distri bution to student athletes and types of financial aid student athletes receive; playing and practice seasons of sports teams; countable
27 athletically related activities student athletes engage in each week; coaching staff activities and outside compensati on; institutional summer sports camps operations; employment of student athletes and PSAs; extra benefits and awards given to student athletes and PSAs; issuance of athletic gear and equipment; travel arrangements for student athletes and PSAs; housing ac commodations of student athletes; vehicle ownership by student athletes; complimentary admissions to athletic events for student athletes and PSAs; and activity of support and booster clubs (Glazier & Jones, 1991; 2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). Th ere are no known guidelines outlining specifically how Compliance Directors are supposed to monitor all aspects of their intercollegiate athletic programs to ensure control of their athletic programs. Typically these monitoring systems are developed throu gh trial and error, in response to a violation at another institution, by guidance of professional organizations, or through suggestions from Conference or NCAA publications. There has been literature describing how the control of athletic programs by Com and providing advice on contracts), and therefore is an unauthorized practice of law and should be regulated similarly to the way lawyers are currently regulated (Fuller, 2009). De spite this call by Fuller, administrators are not regulated as lawyers and monitoring and tracking institutional control (both in research and practice) remains relatively nonexistent (Fuller, 2009). Because there is no current one size fits all model for implementing and ensuring institutional control, the NCAA leaves it up to the leadership in each individual institution to develop a program that works for their institution (Glazier & Jones, 1991; Marsh & Robbins, 2003). This leads to a variation in moni toring systems, ultimately leaving a chance for an institution to have inadequate systems in place. Typically an institution can avoid a charge of a lack of institutional control by the NCAA as a result of a major rules violation investigation if
28 the inst itution can show that they had sufficient monitoring systems in place and they generally have control over the people in their programs (Marsh & Robbins, 2003). Unfortunately this means that more and more, institutions are having trouble keeping control o f their athletic programs. The larger than life nature of big time collegiate sports, including financial, reputation and prestige gains, are making college sports more vulnerable to those wishing to exploit institutions for personal reasons. When trying to determine how to maintain control of intercollegiate athletics programs today, it is critical for athletic administrators to understand programs. Ethics and Conduct of Athletics Personnel history as well as dramatic current impacts. Athletics is also an area that carries a heavy load of ideological baggage and cultura have been several ethical questions that have developed throughout the evolution of intercollegiate athletics. Once it was understood that intercollegiate athletic events could bring in r evenues through ticket sales, the original purpose of institutions taking control of their intercollegiate athletic teams to protect the athletes from exploitation conflicted with this new revenue generating product based on amateur athletics. Today the e thical issues of sports still exist, now even more complicated with advances in technology, media, and the rise of big time collegiate athletics (Marsh & Robbins, 2003). As previous research has shown, unfortunately unethical conduct and violations of NCAA rules are on the rise (Clark & Batista, 2009; Fink, Mahony & Pastore, 1999). Recent scandals in major Division I FBS athletic programs have come at the cost of coaches and administrator jobs, the eligibility of student athletes and millions of dollars fr om institutions (Fuller, 2009). In
29 addition to these costs, a major infractions case can cause a great deal of negative media attention for an institution and inevitably hurt the reputation of the institution (Fuller, 2009). Because a charge of a lack of institutional control is a direct result of other NCAA rules violations occurring at an institution, it is necessary to understand what research has been previously conducted on ethical (or unethical) conduct in intercollegiate athletics and the conduct o f institutional staff members to understand areas that may influence a lack of institutional control and develop possible ways to avoid this costly charge. NCAA Article Ten (Ethical Conduct) and Article Eleven (Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personne l) are directly related to institutional control and have received empirical attention over the last few decades. Particularly topic areas of rules violations and associated penalties, those caused by the conduct of institutional staff members, are areas of intercollegiate athletics directly related to institutional control that have been relatively well researched (Clark & Batista, 2009; Baxter, Lambert & Margavio, 1996; Dixon, Turner, Pastore & Mahony, 2003; Marsh & Robbins, 2003; Hopkins, 2003). Some previous research conducted in the area of ethical conduct was aimed at deterring institutional staff members from committing rules violations. This research developed several theories to possibly help combat the incentive for university staff members to w illingly break rules. One idea was that the NCAA could mandate that universities require that Presidents, Directors of Athletics, coaches and staff members pay considerable fines if their athletic programs are found guilty of committing violations (Hopkin s, 2003). This idea stresses the point that huge financial losses will make coaches and other staff members think twice before committing a violation, as well as make Presidents and Athletic Directors, the individuals with the ultimate authority over thei r institutions athletic programs, even more vested in ensuring that
30 their programs are run according to the rules (Hopkins, 2003). Another idea proposed was that the NCAA could impose a two or three strike rule on coaches who run programs that continuousl y break Association rules. This idea would ban coaches from being employed at all NCAA member institutions once they run out of strikes (Hopkins, 2003). This idea would help eliminate the all too often practice of coaches, who have allegedly broken Assoc iation rules or who in fact are found to have broken Association rules, leaving their current programs before penalties are imposed at their institutions for coaching opportunities at other institutions (Hopkins, 2003). The coaches, who fail to run clean programs, are off to find their next violations occurring, are left behind to face the penalties (Hopkins, 2003). Researcher James Hopkins believes that if the NCA A wants to encourage institution presidents and college coaches, those individuals in a position to put a stop to violations of Association rules, then the NCAA penalties levied for rule violations need to be aimed toward those individuals (Hopkins, 2003). Other research related to ethical conduct, rules violations and penalties in intercollegiate athletics looked at other reasons for violations of NCAA rules. One article looked at how winning a national championship in football at Division I FBS instituti ons led to increased violations in the area of recruiting (Clark & Batista, 2009). The researchers reviewed all major infractions listed in the Legislative Services Database (LSDBi) from 1970 2007 (Clark & Batista, 2009). This research revealed that win ning a national championship in football did not necessarily lead to recruiting violations. It was shown though that those institutions under the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) structure that had an opportunity to play for a national
31 championship, did hav e an overall increase in recruiting violations since that structure was put in place (Clark & Batista, 2009). Previous research has also proved that some types of NCAA member institutions are more likely to be unethical by committing rule violations, and therefore receive harsher penalties than other schools for a variety of reasons, such as academic standards for admission and geographical region where the institution is located (Baxter, Lambert & Margavio, 1996). This study revealed that institutions lo cated closer to more competitors are less likely to be sanctioned by the NCAA with rules violations and vice versa (Baxter, Lambert & Margavio, 1996). coach receives f rom his or her athletic administration may have an affect on their view on violating rules (Goldfine, Pastore & Reimer, 1996). If a coach feels genuinely supported by their administration, then they may be less likely to be unethical and commit rules viol ations in order to win and keep their positions (Goldfine, Pastore & Reimer, 1996). Overall the research previously conducted on ethical conduct and institutional staff members conduct has provided meaningful information to researchers and athletic admini strators, but it still has failed to show which specific violations have in the past led to charges of a lack of institutional control. Amateurism & Extra Benefits for Student Athletes Article Twelve (Amateurism), Article Fifteen (Financial Aid) and Articl e Sixteen (Awards, Benefits and Expenses for Enrolled Student Athletes) are three areas of NCAA regulations that have been hot topics in news media reports in recent years. Legislation in all three areas has been controversial, with one side arguing that student athletes should be receiving more for what they do for universities and the other side saying student athletes need to maintain their amateurism to preserve the foundation of collegiate athletics.
32 The NCAA holds amateurism as maintaining a nonpr ofessional atmosphere of athletics (Hopkins, 2003). Principle 2.9 titled The Principle of Amateurism in the 2010 2011 Division I NCAA manual states Student athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motiva ted primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterpri ses. (p. 4) 2003). So integral to the NCAA mission that it was part of the very first NCAA manual published around 1906 (NCAA Division I Manual, 1906). Today the deba te continues about whether or not student athletes, who often are generating millions of dollars for their universities each year, should be compensated for the use of their athletic talents. Current literature present on amateurism reviews the high profil e case of Jeremy Bloom amateurism (Callanan, 2005). The case of the former NCAA student athlete Jeremy Bloom, who lost the remainder of his eligibility to play collegi amateurism in collegiate athletics is to the NCAA (Callanan, 2005). Callahan (2005) described in his research how potential multisport athletes can protect themselves from a similar situation, where their amateur status could be called into question by the NCAA or worse their amateur status could be lost due to accepting benefits not allowed under NCAA rules. Furthermore, with in the past few years, there has been debate whether student athletes should be allowed to receive extra financial benefits for their athletic participation. Although the NCAA has increased the amount of financial aid that a student athlete can receive se veral times, through the legislative process and a famous court settlement, supporters of paying student
33 student athletes can receive occurred in October 2011, when the NCAA Board of Directors, a group comprised of 50 member institution presidents, voted to grant student athletes receiving full scholarships an additional $2000 per year, as well as allowing student athletes to receive multi year financial aid agr eements, instead of the annually renewed agreements they receive now. Parts of this newly adopted legislation since has been defeated but is currently still under review has reenergized the debate on whether student athletes are receiving enough compensat ion for what benefits they bring to their institutions. When discussing the debate on if student athletes are receiving enough compensation for financial gains they bring to institution athletic departments it is important to note the research conducted i time intercollegiate athletics has 1977 to 1997, revenue producing sports increased from $6.6 million to $267 mill ion (Meggyesy, 2000). Today intercollegiate athletics is a multi billion dollar industry, with billion dollar postseason bowl games contracts for football (Hopkins, 2003). Research has shown that some of the top Division I intercollegiate athletic programs bring in tens of millions of dollars in revenues bowl game appearances and te levision contracts (Goff, 2000; Hopkins 2003). Currently, the NCAA is dominated by about 50 Division I and basketball teams in the country (Meggyesy, 2000). These universities are able to generate countle ss dollars, recruit PSAs with the increased national attention of the athletics teams and overall enhance their brand with increased athletic success (Frey, 1987).
34 These areas of research will only continue to grow as the topic of maintaining amateurism in collegiate athletics and the debate on benefits student athletes should be able to receive carries on. New legislation and calls for reform of legislation in these areas will also continue to carry on. Recruiting A critical and rapidly emerging area of research in intercollegiate athletics is in Article Thirteen titled Recruiting (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). This Article refers to the recruitment of prospective student athletes which has become a major focus for Division I coaches. In big t ime collegiate athletics today, there is a great deal of money and pride at stake (Baxter, Lambert & Margavio, 1996). Getting the best high school athletes from across the United States, and even the world, to come play for their institution is a priority for coaches looking to win conference and national championships. The NCAA has developed numerous regulations on recruiting activities of institutions such as limiting who can contact PSAs, how often PSAs can be contacted, when PSAs can be contacted, whe re PSAs can be contacted and evaluated, what types of inducements can be offered to PSAs, what types of recruiting materials can be sent to PSAs, what activities can occur during a PSA visit (both on official visits that are paid by the institution as well as on unofficial visits that are paid in full by the PSA or their attendance at an institution summer camp and other various limitations (Batista & Clark, 2009; 2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). As stat ed in Chapter 2 coaches will sometimes face ethical decisions when they knowingly violate recruiting rules in order to land a highly touted PSA. Previous research conducted on looking at recruiting v iolations shows that there has been a dramatic increase in recruiting violations over the past decade (Batista & Clark, 2009). Secondary recruiting
35 violations reported increased from 216 violations reported by institutions in 2002 to 999 violations report ed by institutions in 2007 (Batista & Clark, 2009). Major recruiting violations also drastically increased at Division I FBS institutions during this same time period (Batista & Clark, 2009). The recruitment of PSAs is an area where many major infraction s occur. This leads the researcher to believe that recruiting violations could be an area that is a significant factor in institutions being charged with a lack of institutional control. Academics and Student Athlete Wellness As previously mentioned, th e NCAA was founded on the principle of ensuring safety and overall well being of student athletes (Fuller, 2009; McQuilkin, 2002; NCAA Division I Manual, 1906). It is the ultimate responsibility of each member institution to meet the educational, social, athletic and overall needs of its student athletes (Davis, 1995). Each institution recruits their student athletes, creates contracts with them, in ways such as financial aid agreements or National Letters of Intent, and is responsible for creating a posi tive experience for each student athlete (Davis, 1995). Article Fourteen (Eligibility: Academic and General Requirements) and Article Sixteen (Awards, Benefits and Expenses for Enrolled Student Athletes) pertain to the student athletes academic requiremen ts and overall wellness programs. intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an 00; 2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011) Previous research has determined that without an adequate and proper structure of institutional governance of intercollegiate athletic programs in place, intercollegiate athletic programs can damage the brand, ima ge, ethical standards and financial stability of their institutions (Davis,
36 athletic programs has also showed the importance of placing athletic participati on of student athletes secondary to the educational experience of the student athletes (Davis, 1995). A major area of research on academic and student athlete well being issues in intercollegiate athletics conducted was called the Knight Commission Report (The Knight Commission, 1991). Originally convening in 1991, and then again in 2001, the Knight Commission was formed to provide solutions to the increasing headline making issues that were plaguing intercollegiate athletics (Davis, 1995; The Knight Commi ssion, 1991). After importance of intercollegiate athletics to college life created a dilemma: unless kept in perspective, intercollegiate athletics threatened t o overwhelm and undermine the integrity of determined that a model of institutional governance was needed that included promoting the concept that intercollegiate at hletics is secondary to academics, creating a formalized structure of monitoring systems with appropriate checks and balances, and having in place external methods of holding institutions accountable for their actions (Davis, 1995; The Knight Commission; 1 991). The Knight Commission ultimately determined that the manner in which intercollegiate athletic programs had been run was detrimental to the fundamental mission of the institutions that which they were a part (Davis, 1995; The Knight Commission 1991). Since the Knight Commission Reports were published, improvements of legislation in the areas of student athlete academic issues and wellness have been made (The Knight Commission, 1991; The Knight Commission, 2001). Institutional Control: Gaps in the Kn owledge After reviewing previous research, it is clear that questions remain regarding what types of violations lead to a charge of a lack of institutional control. Although the previous research
37 provides us with a better understanding of topic areas that institutions must have control over, such as the amateurism status of student athletes or where academic reform is needed in intercollegiate athletics, there is limited investigation of how each of these topic areas plays a role in determining a situation of a lack of institutional control. In addition to this, previous research has not defined the sports that have been involved in violations that led to the charge of a lack of institutional control and the similarities (or differences) in the cases where institutions have been charged with a lack of institutional control. At the completion of this research study, it is the ultimate goal to answer the previously listed research questions. The researcher aims to gain a better understanding of the nature of a charge by NCAA of a lack of institutional control, how these charges are decided upon and applied to member institutions. Research Meets Practice: Ethical Theory Understanding why some institutions fail to maintain control of their intercollegiate athl etics programs is a very practical issue that athletic administrators at NCAA institutions all across the country face every day. These administrators look at how and why other institutions have failed to maintain this control, in order to determine wheth er the systems they have in place to avoid similar violations are adequate. In looking at this complex issue it may be helpful for the athletic administrators, or practitioners, to look to academic research in an area such as ethical theory to attempt to provide some guidance on how ethics can impact institutions maintaining and failing to maintain control of their intercollegiate athletic programs. When a violation of rules occurs in any organization it is because someone or a group of people, intention ally or unintentionally, broke an agreed upon set of rules. Because people, acting for themselves or on behalf of others, are the ones that commit actions that are against the rules, it is helpful to look to research to understand the possible reasons why people choose to
38 break rules. Intercollegiate athletic practitioners looking to ethical theory can potentially begin to determine why those individuals that are involved in NCAA rules violations chose to violate Association rules. Ethics explains what is typically accepted by society or a group of individuals as right and what is typically accepted by society as wrong, regardless of whether or not the action is legal or not under laws determined by the society (Rainbow, 2002). Ethical theories describe d ifferent beliefs in how what is right and what is wrong are determined. Ethical theories in general follow principles of doing what is good (benefice), causing no or the least harm to all individuals own decisions, and choosing actions or decisions that are fair to those individuals involved (Rainbow, 2002). Although there are multiple ethical theories three major categories of ethical theories relevant to the current study are Consequentialism, Deont ology and Virtue Theory (Barry, 2002; Brown, 2001). Consequentialism is the ethical theory that states that the action chosen should promote the greatest good for the most people (Barry, 2002; Brown, 2001). In selecting the right option for the most peop le, this means that the option selected as right is not necessarily the best option for all people. For example, under the umbrella of Consequentialism a head women's basketball coach may know that one of her players is ineligible, because of receiving a large extra benefit the championship game. Based on this ethical theory, the coach believes that winning the championship is best for the greater good of t he team and therefore for the greater good of the university. In actuality, the costs and shame incurred by the university from the major NCAA rules violations, if the violations are discovered, can be far greater than the benefits received from winning t he championship. In this example the coach may believe that she is making the
39 right decision for all but in actuality it hurts the group more. Practioners that look at the theory of Consequentialism may help their institutions avoid violations and mainta in institutional had prior knowledge about what the administrators believe is the greatest good for all, the coach may have instead not allowed the ineligibl compliance office of the potential violations. Deontology is the ethical theory that states an individual should only choose actions that are considered 'right' by the society or group the individuals are in (Barry, 2012; Rainbow, 2002). The right action is considered by Deontology as the action that is in accordance with moral and societal rule or principle. For example, according to the Deontology perspective, a head football coach should make the c hoice to follow all NCAA rules because he knows it is the right thing to do, as his school is a member of the Association. The Association expects member institutions to follow the rules and member institutions expect their staff members to follow Associa tion rules. Practioners looking to Deontology can help their institutions avoid violations and maintain institutional control by explaining the importance of staff members making the that they fully grasp what is considered the 'right' action to take. Virtue Theory is the ethical theory that states an individual should choose the action that an individual of the highest ethical standards or virtues would choose (Barry, 2012; Rainbow, 2 002). An example of Virtue Theory is an assistant wrestling coach choosing to report information he received about potential major NCAA violations in another sports program at his own institution because he knows his mentor, a highly virtuous former wrest ling coach at the institution, would have done the same action. According to Virtue Theory, the assistant coach
40 would report the information regardless of the consequences for the institution because he believes that is what the most virtuous of individua ls would do if in the same situation. Practitioners responsible for maintaining institutional control at their institutions could look to Virtue Theory and inform their staff members of what actions the most virtuous of staff members would take. If clear ly explained, staff members could be better guided when faced with difficult situations and decisions to make. It is important to note though that when looking at Virtue Theory, individuals and institutions must be careful when selecting who is the most virtuous individual or individuals, as this status these individuals are given has the potential to be deceiving. For example, an individual may be given the unwarranted status of having high ethical standards, resulting in them being an unmerited ethical leader, who unfortunately then is in the position to influence the decisions of others. Extensive research would be necessary to better understand how ethical theories could potentially further impact institutional control in intercollegiate athletics. W hat is clear is that intercollegiate athletics practitioners can look to academic research in areas such as ethical theory for solutions as to how to educate staff members in making ethical decisions and maintaining institutional control.
41 CHAPTER 3 METH ODS C hapter 3 outlines the methods that were used to identify the commonalities of institutions that have faced charges of a lack of institutional control by the NCAA. More specifically this chapter illustrates how document analysis of Public Infractions Reports published by the NCAA was used to discover any similarities that may be present in these cases. In addition to explaining the process of document analysis, this chapter also details any opportunities, challenges and special considerations that pre sented themselves throughout the research process. Document Analysis Document analysis was chosen as the research method in this study because it allowed the researcher to conduct an exploratory and basic review of currently published documents produced by that NCAA that can illustrate what commonalities, if any, exist in the documents (Patton, 2002). After the NCAA completes the entire investigative and charging process with an institution, if any major violations are found to have been committed, they pu blish the findings by the NCAA Committee on Infractions in a Public Infractions Report (NCAA Charging, 2011). Document analysis of a group of Public Infractions Reports was conducted to determine commonalities in the findings of the reports. After each in fractions report was reviewed, data from that report was coded by grouping key words and phrases into categories; where categories ultimately represented coded data that is similar across reports. It was the goal of the research to have the categories cre ated by the coding answer the six research questions t hat were outlined in Chapter 1 For example, if the sport of baseball was listed as being involved in a major violation in one of the selected reports, ory. Once all of the reports are analyzed, the
42 in major violations. This process was completed for all sports listed as being involved in the reports analyzed Depending on the complexity of the case, one report may have appeared in n the report. After all reports were reviewed, it was determined which sports were most often involved in the major violations listed in the reports. This analysis process provided the answer to research question one. A similar coding method occurred t o determine the answer to each research question. Once all of the reports were grouped into their various categories, the coded data in these categories was analyzed further to determine any other emergent themes that were present. Special attention focu Additionally, key words and phrases were specifically sought out as they related to the categorie s addressed in the literature review (e.g., student athlete welfare). It is important to note that all Public Infractions Reports where a lack of institutional control was noted anywhere in the report for the selected time frame were included in the revi ew. This includes reports where a lack of institutional control was charged by the Committee on Infractions, as well as reports where the Committee on Infractions merely noted the phrase in the rationale that was provided throughout the report. This was chosen as a method because in those reports where a lack of institutional control was noted but not charged, the Committees often stated specific circumstances from the cases for why the Committees chose not to add the charge of a lack of institutional con trol to the institutions. This provides insight on how some institutions were able to avoid a charge of a lack of institutional control, which is valuable
43 knowledge to have for those individuals at institutions responsible for overseeing compliance with N CAA rules and maintaining institutional control of intercollegiate athletics. The document analysis of the Public Infractions Reports was conducted by using two different processes. The first process was analyzing the reports using the NVivo 9 computer so ftware program developed by the QRS International Corporation (About QSR, 2011). This program assists with the systematic and detailed examination of data that lacks structure, often used in qualitative research (About QSR, 2011). This software used for the analysis of data enabled the researcher to easily discover, highlight and classify critical words presented in the Public Infractions Reports. Further, the use of the NVivo software program enhanced the trustworthiness of the information collected in the review, as well as increased the credibility of the results presented by providing a final analysis that can be easily audited for review. The second process used in the document analysis of the Public Infractions Reports was systematically gathering specific information selected from reports that answer the questions of the research and placing that data in tracking charts developed to easily classify the data collected. These tracking charts added to the reliability of the study by allowing the rese archer to verify the findings found from the NVivo analysis. In addition to the use of NVivo and the developed tracking charts for document analysis, a knowledgeable research adviser also examined the results to confirm trustworthiness and credibility of the findings presented. Case Selections Due to the large number of cases where NCAA member institutions have been charged with a lack of institutional control since the beginning of the NCAA, the document analysis was delimited to a specific classification of institutions and a specific time period. These delimitations allowed the researcher to focus on recent cases that reflect problem areas that
44 member institutions of the same division are still currently facing. This narrowing of cases also eliminated historic cases that may not be relevant to the current intercollegiate athletic context. The first delimitation to the document analysis was the inclusion of only those major infractions cases involving current Division I Football Bowl Subdivision insti tutions. This delimitation to Division I FBS institutions was chosen because these are the institutions with the largest athletic programs (i.e., football and basketball), which may face the highest level pressure to maintain national prominence and win national championships. The factors that may cause Division I FCS, Division II and Division III institutions to fail to follow NCAA rules resulting in major violations may be significantly different than those factors of Division I FBS. Furthermore, with each division of the NCAA having a completely different set of rules, actions that may cause violations at one level may not necessarily cause a violation if committed at a different division level (How Athletics Programs are Classified, 2010). Thus, a focus on conducting this same research study with institutions at other divisions may be suggested for future research. The document analysis selection only included those Public Infractions Report that were published between January 1, 2000 and March 1, 2012. This specific twelve year period is relevant as it includes a critical time period for NCAA, specifically regarding major infractions. Beginning in the early part of the decade, several Division I FBS institutions found themselves to be involved in NCAA major rules violations and it was around this time that the NCAA Enforcement Staff and Committee on Infractions took a hard stance on rule violators, especially those who blatantly and knowingly broke the rules. It is important to note that the repor ts published in this time period included investigations that began prior to the year 2000 and that the reports selected excluded those cases where the investigations were not completed by March
45 of 2012. Also there were several legislative changes during this time period. Despite this, the recent time period gives an accurate picture of issues in intercollegiate athletics that are still relevant today. With these selection criteria in place, the number of Public Infractions Reports that was selected for t his research was delimited to 32 reports. The reports were selected by gathering all Public Infractions Reports published by the NCAA between January 1, 2000 and March 1, 2012. All of the selected reports included only those major infractions cases at Di vision I FBS institutions, where either a charge of a lack of institutional control was handed down by the the report. The number of reports published in this time period where a charge of a lack of institutional control was found was 19 and the number of reports published during this time (N = 32) allowed the re searcher to thoroughly review all cases and uncover any current common themes present within the cases. In this study, the researcher choose to not limit the Public Infractions Reports by sports involved, such as only including those cases in which footbal were found to have committed the violations. It was decided to not exclude certain sports from this study because understanding the causes of why institutions fail to maintain control of their athletic programs may not be cl ear when only focusing on select sports, such as only focusing on the revenue generating sports. Interviews After completing the document analysis of the 32 Public Infractions Reports that were included in the study, the researcher then conducted interview s with multiple NCAA compliance administrators from different Division I FBS institutions. These interviews, conducted in
46 accordance with University of Florida Institutional Review Board policies, were performed in order to gain further insight on the r esults the researcher collected from the document analysis. The compliance administrators interviewed were all full time compliance administrators at their present institutions and have vast previous knowledge, of the field of Division I NCAA compliance. To avoid guiding the compliance administrators interviewed to particular desired answers, the researcher only provided the interviewees with scant details of the document analysis results. From there, the compliance administrators were asked to respond t o questions, similar to the research questions from their overall knowledge of the field. The answers given by the compliance administrators interviewed were included in the discussion section of each r esearch question in Chapter 4 The complete intervie w guide can be found in Appendix D. The researcher reached out by email to ten compliance administrators selected at random to see if they would be interested and able to participate in the study. Although some interest was shown from some emailed adminis trators about participating in the interviews, ultimately the researcher interviewed three compliance administrators with whom they had previous professional relationships and that voluntarily agreed to participate in the interviews. Of those that showed interest but did not participate, busy schedules were noted as why they did not respond back to the researcher. The interviews took place in person and over the phone. Each interview lasted between thirty and forty five minutes. The interviews were not r ecorded and all transcripts were developed through handwritten notes. In dealing with a somewhat sensitive topic of institutional control in intercollegiate athletics, the researcher was highly aware of ensuring that all administrators interviewed spoke ab out the larger picture of institutional control rather than specific issues that may relate to the
47 topic on their campuses, to reduce any risks associated with participation. A limitation that must be noted is that some of the interviewees had prior perso nal or professional connections with the researcher. To reduce any potentially negative effects of this limitation, the researcher reminded all interviewees that participation was completely voluntary. Ultimately, the interviews provided the researcher w ith helpful feedback regarding the research questions and the results of the document analysis portion of this study. Challenges and Special Considerations When conducting this research it was important to note the potential challenges that may have been e ncountered in this research and any special considerations. First, given the chosen limitations set for the document analysis, the review may not have included enough cases to adequately represent the current state of rules violations in the NCAA. Howeve r, if the review of cases included all cases of a lack of institutional control, the results may not be reflective of the current causes of a lack of institutional control in athletic programs. As such, the delimitation to cases from 2000 to the present w as deemed most appropriate as a significant number of changes to the rules have occurred. Second, another potential challenge was accurately interpreting the information provided in the Public Infractions Reports. As each Committee on Infractions can inc lude a different group of individuals, each report is written from a different perspective. Therefore, each report may have presented information in a different way from other reports within the review. As a result, this could lead to misinterpretations b y the researcher when conducting this review. To combat this challenge, the NVivo software and the tracking charts were used to potentially minimize error when analyzing the information presented in the Public Infractions Reports. NVivo created a databas e that displays the data that was coded under each category; allowing for additional coders to review the codes and coding categories. This process may enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings (Patton, 2002).
48 A special consideration is that data collection and analysis was limited by the information infractions cases can take years for the NCAA Enforcement Staff to investigate, creating a vast amount of information that must be summarized for a report that typically ranges from just a few pages up to a few dozen pages. Parts of the investigations may be extremely sensitive in nature, therefore the NCAA may choose to not include or provide vague detail s on a certain portion of the investigations. Any information that was not included in the reports by the NCAA was therefore not included in this analysis. Thus, this research was limited by anything not presented in the Public Infractions Reports. Also this review did not take into account any appeals that may have occurred. This research is focusing on developing a basic foundation of research of Public Infractions Cases that include a lack of institutional control. An area of future research could i ncorporate appeals and the findings by the Committee on Infractions. That would require a more complex understanding of NCAA process and rules which will be present as a result of the findings presented here.
49 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSI ON With the go al of better understanding factors that influence institutional control in intercollegiate athletics as a focus, the researcher began analyzing the data collected in the study. Once all of the Public Infractions Reports included in the study were thorough ly analyzed, the results were organized according to each research question. Of the total number of reports analyzed (N = 32), the reports were divided and analyzed in two major groups. The first major group represented all of the reports in which the in stitutions were charged and found by the Committee on Infractions to lack institutional control of their intercollegiate athletics programs. For clarity purposes in the data analysis process, this first group that consisted of 19 of the 32 reports will be further referred to as the ICG, which stands for Institutions Charged Group. The second major group represented all of the reports where the institutions were not necessarily referenced somewhere throughout the report. For clarity purposes, this group that consisted of 13 of the 32 reports analyzed will be further referred to as the INCG, which stands for Institutions Not Charged Group. It should be noted that although in two cases, violations of Article Six (Institutional Control) were referenced, a finding of lack of institutional control did not occur (as outlined in the rationales provided in the reports) and therefore these cases were included in the INCG. This confusion could be due to legislative and interpretive changes that occurred during the time frame. The researcher believed that it was critical to review all Public Infractions Reports from the selected time frame that had a lack of institutional control referenced (either as a charge or as simply as being stated throughout the rationale provided in the report) because collectively the reports show not only the similarities of those major rules infractions cases where the charge was
50 found, but can also demonstrate similarities in the major infractions cases where the institutions avoided the charge. This information can provide intercollegiate athletic practioners with valuable data to help them identify commonalities in major infractions cases tha t included a lack of institutional control and also identify commonalities that could potentially help them guide their institutions away from a charge of a lack of institutional control. The following section outlines the results found for each research question and provides some insight to what each result may mean overall for institutional control in intercollegiate athletics. Research Question 1: Which sports were involved in the selected major infractions cases that led to the NCAA charging institut ions with lack of institutional control? It was clear that of all of the sports that the NCAA sponsors at the Division I level, the sports that most often had individuals involved in the major infractions cases of the selected Public Infractions Reports we both groups together (the ICG and the INCG), 23 of the 32 total reports included the sport of reports reviewed, the only other sports that were involved in major infractions cases were as field were each a part of five major infractions cases; baseball, softb case. The rest of the sport s sponsored at the Division I level were not believed to be involved in
51 any infractions cases included in this research although it is important to note that in three of the reports it was indicated that rules violations at those institutions were widespre ad and across various sports not specified. There is a chance that those violations that occurred could have included other sports that were listed as being not involved in any of the major infractions cases or possibly that those violations occurred in s ome of the sports that were previously listed as being involved in major infractions cases, leaving the potential that some of the totals found in the data analysis could be s lightly misrepresented. Table 4 1 provides a list of all the sports listed in bo th the ICG and the INCG. Regarding research question one, it may be helpful to further examine the data collected separately on both the ICG and the INCG to uncover additional commonalities that could be present. When looking at the ICG, 14 of the 19 case s involved the sport of football and 10 of the rest of the sponsored Division I sports. In the ICG, the sports with the next highest total of being involved i those sports being involved in four major infractions cases each. Table 4 2 represents a summary of all the sports listed in the ICG. The results for the INCG show that 9 out of the 13 cases involved the sport of football and involved in more than 2 of the 13 major infracti ons cases in the group. Table 4 3 represents a summary of al l the sports listed in the INCG. RQ1: Discussion Overwhelmingly the data collected from the selected Public Infractions Reports proved violations that led to a lack of institutional control. These results may not be very surprising, as
52 tball programs, specifically at the Division I level, can bring national prominence to not only the athletic departments but their universities as a whole, many coaches and sports staff may feel great pressure to win at all costs, even if this means violat ing NCAA rules (Hopkins, 2003; Marsh & Robbins, 2003). An interesting find that was discovered in the data was that in several of the selected Public Infractions Reports when information came to light about potential major NCAA rules infractions, the info rmation discovered often involved the sports of football and violations were found by the Enforcement Staff or by the institutions themselves in other sports unconnected with the original allegations. This could potentially mean that violations that could lead to a charge of a lack of institutional control may occur more frequently in sports other than this information only is discovered during the course of those investigations. One possible factor could be that greater rules sports at many institutions (M arsh & Robbins, 2003). This factor could be related to the ethical theory of Consequentialism. It is possible that university and compliance administrators choose an equal focus on all sports, because they believe if the individuals involved in these sports are the NCAA for violating Association rules. Therefore th is could in their opinions be in the best interest of the institutions to avoid the negative publicity and costly violations.
53 Other observations were found in the data collected for research question one. Although there is not enough data to assume any ki nd of significance, when looking at the number of infractions cases, although in a few instances they were. This could potentially be traced back to gender equity issues, although greater focus and future research would need to be given to this issue. Also for those sports that were not involved major infractions cases described in the Public Infractions Reports selected for the research, they could potentially be sports not commonly offered by most institutions (at least at the bowling. It should be noted that there did not appear to be any major difference between the sports involved in ICG and the INCG. It is important to mention that this data could be slightly skewed due to the fact that all schools at the Division I FBS level (category used to describe certain schools only in football) sports offered, as displayed in the selected report s. This could mean that the some sports were not offered by the institutions that were involved in the major infractions cases described in the selected Public Infractions Reports and therefore the number of cases that involved those sports could be signi basketball were involved in considerably more major infractions cases than any other sports sponsored at the Division I level. The compliance administrators (N = 3) intervie wed for the study all confirmed that the
54 typically involved in the most major infractions cases, especially those cases with a lack of institutional control. One administrator noted that the stakes are much higher in the sports of higher price. Administrators (N = 2) noted that if any coaches will cheat, it would be anticipated that it is the coaches where the return on investment is highest and the reward is worth the risk ical decisions and break NCAA rules. Again the ethical theory of Consequentialism can be applied for this research question. These coaches may believe it is in the best interest of their sport programs and the institutions as a whole, to break rules in o rder to win, even though athletic administrators would probably disagree with this rationale. As for the student lucrative professional leagues. An administrator noted that this greatly incr eases the likelihood that rules will be broken. Additionally the enormous media and news coverage associated with football and basketball brings increased scrutiny which often brings potential violations of rules to light. Overall the compliance administ basketball and football were the two sports most involved in major infractions cases that led to a lack of institutional control. Research Question 2: Which areas of NCAA legislation, specifically the Articles where the violations were found, were most often involved in the major infractions cases that led to the NCAA charging institutions with lack of institutional control? A critical component for practioners looking to learn from other institutions that have been found by the NCAA to lack institutional control, is to understand what topic areas, or NCAA Articles, are cited as areas where violations occurred during major infractions cases including the charge. When looking at the areas of NCAA legisl ation that were cited for violations in both the
55 ICG and the INCG, there were obvious areas where violations occurred more frequently. Prior to discussing results for this question, the process used to analyze data for this research question should be fur ther explained. To collect data for this question, each time a violation was listed as being charged by the NCAA in a report, the Article that violation was categorized in was selected and noted in both NVivo and the tracking chart. For example, if in th e findings section of a Public Infractions Report a charge of recruiting violations in the area of impermissible benefits occurred (such as violations of NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 188.8.131.52 b), the researcher would categorize those findings for that report und er Article Thirteen titled Recruiting (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.100). Even though different violations categorized in the same Article were often cited in one Public Infractions Report (as in the previous example), the Article was only not ed once for that particular report. At the conclusion of the analysis of one single report, there was a list of all Articles where major violations occurred at least once in each report. This data collection method allowed for the researcher to obtain a general overview of what areas in intercollegiate athletics were typically involved in the major infractions cases. Very informative and possibly revealing data could come from determining exactly how many of each specific violation (for example Bylaws 13 .2 titled Offers and Inducements) were cited in the selected cases (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.100). This however enlightening, would be exceptionally time consuming and burdensome, considering bylaw numbering changes and adaptations to the p articular rule would have to be accounted for. An area for extensive further research could look into this issue however an advanced knowledgebase of NCAA Rules would be necessary to conduct and understand this research. Analysis of the data collected fro m the ICG and the INCG revealed that the Article cited in
56 value can be co nfusing because many individuals may just quickly assume that the highest area of violations may be an area such as Article Thirteen (Recruiting) as this is an area of rules violations that receives a great deal of media coverage (Clark & Batista, 2009). But what may not be understood about this finding is that when institutions are cited with violations, such as in the area of Article Thirteen, often times (N = 20) those violations are often accompanied with a violation of Article Two because in the proce ss of violating the rules for the recruitment of prospective student athletes, the institution also failed to adhere to one the basic principles of the NCAA, which is outlined in Article Two (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.3). It was found that s pecifically Bylaw 2.8.1 titled Responsibility of Institution (under Bylaw 2.8 which is titled The Principle of Rules Compliance) was cited in nearly every selected Public Infractions Report (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.4). Continuing to look at the results of both groups combined, other than Article Two as discussed previously, Articles Thirteen titled Recruiting and Article Sixteen titled Awards, Benefits and Expenses for Enrolled Student Athletes were cited most frequently in the selected Pu blic Infractions Reports as being areas that included violations (each being cited in 22 of the 32 Public Infractions Reports). Article Six titled Institutional Control was next, being noted in 21 of the 32 Public Infractions Reports. Article Ten titled Ethical Conduct followed, having been noted in 20 of the 32 infractions reports. Considerably lower were the number of charges of all of the other Articles in the reports. The rest of the Articles occurred as following: Article Fourteen titled Eligibili ty: Academic and General Requirements was cited in 13 of the 32 reports; Article Fifteen titled Financial Aid was cited in 12 of the 32 reports; Article Eleven titled Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel was cited in 10 of the 32 reports; Article
57 Seventeen titled Playing and Practice Seasons was cited in 7 of the 32 reports; Article Twelve titled Amateurism was cited in 5 of the 32 reports; Article Nineteen titled Enforcement was cited in 3 of the 32 reports, Article Three titled NCAA Membership wa s cited in 1 of the 32 reports, Article Twenty Two titled Athletics Certification was cited in 1 of the 32 reports, Article Thirty Two titled Enforcement Policies and Procedures was cited in 1 of the 32 reports and Article Thirty Three titled Athletics Cer tification Policies and Procedures was cited in 1 of the 32 reports. Due to the reorganization of the Division I Manual after the 2009 2010 year, Article Thirty titled Administrative Regulations, which was cited in 3 of the 32 reports, was eliminated and all of its legislation was consolidated into other Articles (2010 11 NCAA Division I Ma nual, 2010, p.381 382). Table 4 4 represents all the Articles listed in both groups. Data analysis of both the ICG and the INCG separately show that the INCG in general had fewer charges in nearly all Articles overall than the ICG. This could be due to the fact that there were less Public Infractions Reports in the INCG than the ICG. Tables 4 5 and 4 6 demonstrate all the Articles listed in the ICG and the INCG. RQ2: Dis cussion At the conclusion of the analysis for the data collected for this research question, the researcher found that the areas of legislation, specifically Articles, that were cited in cases where a lack of institutional control was charged or referenced were several of the NCAA Operating Bylaws (Articles Ten Twenty Three) (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.viii). In those Operating Bylaws, the three Articles most often cited as areas of violations in the selected Public Infractions Reports were Article Thirteen (Recruiting), Article Sixteen (Awards, Benefits and Expenses) and Article Ten (Ethical Conduct). As noted in the literature review, the areas of recruiting and extra benefits have historically been problem areas that are involved in many violations (Batista & Clark, 2009; Klenonsky, Templin & Troutman 2001). This finding would
58 probably not be surprising to anyone who follows collegiate sports in the news. The pressure to bring in the best recruits often leads for universities, their staf f members and their boosters to act unethically and provide impermissible recruiting inducements to prospective student athletes (Clark & Batista, 2009; Fink, Mahony & Pastore, 1999). Current student athletes are often somewhat celebrities on their campu ses and often find themselves in situations where individuals, that want to be associated with the student athletes, are providing them with impermissible benefits. This data shows that these specific Articles are areas that athletic administrators need t o focus on when implementing and evaluating their rules education and monitoring processes. Athletic administrators looking to curb unethical behaviors in these areas by using the theories of Deontology or Virtue Theory, could give their staff members pot ential scenarios of what is right in recruiting, awards and benefits and ethical conduct; and lay out what a virtuous individual would do when faced with these issues. In addition to those three Operating Bylaws, Article Six titled Institutional Control wa s one of the Articles that was referenced most frequently (noted in 21 of the 32 reports). As it was the Article that was the focus for this research, Article Six was expected to have one of the highest totals of all Articles. Also as previously mentione d, Article Two titled Principles for Conduct in Intercollegiate Athletics had high totals and was also cited in 30 of the 32 reports. The data analysis showed that although some of the Articles of the Operating Bylaws were among the Articles where violat ions were cited the most often in the selected cases, it should be stated that other violations in Articles of the Operating Bylaws were cited very few times. Article Twelve titled Amateurism was only cited in five Public Infractions Reports. This provid es some insight that although there are still issues with Amateurism, such as noted in the article from the literature review about Jeremy Bloom, these issues are much less prevalent than
59 other issues, like violations of recruiting bylaws (Callanan, 2005). Also Article Seventeen titled Playing Seasons was cited only in seven Public Infractions Reports overall. This article, which provides guidance on how actions such as how much student athletes can practice, when they can compete and what they can do duri ng the summer, was cited far less in the selected reports than Article Thirteen (Recruiting) or Article Sixteen (Awards, Benefits and Expenses). It is possible that certain violations are easier to detect than others. It is also possible that these are a reas that athletic administrators have put in place effective monitoring systems. Further research would be needed to determine specifically why violations of certain NCAA Articles occur more frequently than others. It is important for athletic administr ators to understand the areas where violations are occurring, especially those violations that have an accompanying charge of a lack of institutional control so athletic administrators can implement adequate education and monitoring processes to avoid thos e potential violations. In looking at major infractions cases that include a charge of a lack of institutional control, the compliance administrators interviewed all confirmed that the results provided on which areas are cited the most as violations make s ense in the current state of intercollegiate athletics. The third compliance administrator pointed out that Article Thirteen and Article Sixteen are the two main areas where they are currently seeing violations. That administrator noted that once major v iolations occur, typically an Article Ten charge follows as individuals fail to provide complete truthful information regarding the violations. As described in the ethical theory of Consequentialism, these individuals that fail to tell the truth in an inv estigation often think it is in the best interest of themselves and the greater good of the institution. They may believe that by not telling the truth to NCAA investigators, the institutions may be able to avoid the alleged penalties if the allegations c annot be substantiated. Again this is not necessarily what the athletic
60 administrators at the institutions believe. Athletic administrators, understanding that this is what individuals, such as their staff members and student athletes may think, can comb at this by clearly outlining to the entire university what is in the best interest of the athletic department and the university as a whole. Finally, in those cases where a lack of institutional control is occurring, Article Six and Article Two violations would inevitably occur, as they are dealing specifically with areas of institutional control and core principles of the Association. Two compliance administrators each separately noted that they are not surprised by the results but would also believe tha t Article Fifteen titled Financial Aid would be a related area where relatively high numbers of violations are occurring. Although the results of this study show that Article Fifteen violations only occurred in 12 of the 32 reports, it could be a more re cent and increasing occurrence that is not fully reflected in the results. A compliance administrator noted that with the because the areas of Article Thirteen (Recruiting) and Article Sixteen (Awards and Benefits) are typically run by athletics, it would not be surprising that these would be areas where there is a widespread issue that could rise to the level of bringing a charge of a lack of institutional control, rather than a rogue professor who participated in an Article Fourteen violation that would be an isolated situation. All interviewees noted that these results should be anticipated. Research Question 3: What individuals were listed as being involved in violations in the major infractions cases where the NCAA charged the institutions with a lack of institutional control? The data collected for this research question was problematic to analyze for several reasons. In some of the Public Infractions Reports there were a large number of individuals involved in the multiple violations included in the case. It was found throughout this research
61 that it can be extremely difficult to determine which individuals listed in a Public Infractions Report were involved, and more specifically had culpability, in the NCAA violations that were described in a Public Infractions Report and which individuals were not involved. For example, a Public Infractions Report stated a PSA received an impermissible inducement from a representative of athletics interest in the form of a cash payment. In this example altho ugh it may be indisputable that this is a violation of NCAA rules, it cannot always be determined when reading the report if the PSA or the representative of athletics interest actually knew that what they were doing was in violation of NCAA rules. While it can be concluded which individuals were involved in the case, it cannot be determined through reading the reports if their intent was to break the rules or if they were aware they were a part of a violation of NCAA rules. During the data analysis for th is question the researcher went through the list of all individuals that had a role in each major infractions case and were listed in the Public Infractions Reports in both the ICG and in the INCG. The researcher then placed the individuals from each case into one of the following ten categories of individuals: Prospective student athletes and/or student athletes; Head coaches; Assistant coaches (including graduate assistant coaches); Family and friends of prospective student athletes and/or of student at hletes; Athletic department staff members; Representatives of athletics interests; University staff members (non athletics staff members); High school or club coaches; Agents and/or runners; and a group for all other individuals who cannot be categorized i nto any of the previously listed categories. To analyze this data the researcher obtained a general overview of who was involved in each of the selected cases by looking at what categories of individuals were found in each case, rather than looking for a specific number of individuals from each report that belonged in each category. That process would have been extremely time consuming and pointless considering the data would
62 still not always show who had a direct role in the case and who was merely part of the background in the story. The analysis of the data collected for research question three showed that every major infractions case selected involved in some way student athletes or prospective student athletes (and in many cases both). As it is the p urpose and mission of the NCAA to protect student athlete welfare, the rules in place are to ensure just that (National Collegiate Athletic Association History, 2010). If a violation occurs, it in some way is connected with student athletes or prospecti ve student athletes. Due to the length of time in a major violations investigation or the length of time before the allegation of violations come to light, in several cases prospective student athletes became student athletes before the cases were conclud ed. Other than prospective student athletes or student athletes, the individuals that were involved in nearly every selected Public Infractions Report were head coaches, assistant coaches, and athletic department staff members (such as senior administrator s and compliance officials). In the Public Infractions Reports these individuals were involved in the violations or had direct knowledge of the violations. The individuals that were involved in fewer reports were family and friends of prospective studen t athletes or student athletes, representatives of athletics interests, university staff members (non athletics staff members), high school or club coaches, agents or runners and those individuals that do not fit into any previously mentioned categories. A s each report was extremely complex, it was difficult to identity who was the root cause of the major violations that led to a lack of institutional control, as in each cases there was often several major violations that involved different sports and indiv iduals. RQ3: Discussion When analyzing the Public Infractions Reports for this research question, several surprising and informative commonalities emerged. As previously mentioned and expected
63 student athletes and or prospective student athletes were invo lved in every selected Public Infractions case. Nearly all of the cases involved at least one head coach at the institution involved in the major infractions case. An interesting find was that in several of the cases the head coaches deliberately chose a ctions that were against Association rules. The unethical decisions made by the coaches caused many of them to receive violations in Article 10 titled Ethical Conduct, in addition to the original charges (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.45; Clark & Batista, 2009; Fink, Mahony & Pastore, 1999). Also involved in nearly every case, in addition to the individual who violated the rules, were other staff members such as assistant coaches or sport specific office staff members who were directed to violat e the rules as well or had knowledge of rules violations and did little to handle the allegations according to institution and NCAA policy. As outlined earlier in the section on how the ethical theory of Deontology could meet practice, to combat unethical decision of staff members, institutions can confusion or variance in ethical decision making processes. Athletic administrators looking to reduce the unethic al behaviors of their head and assistant coaches, could also ask these individuals during the hiring process a series of questions to assess their personal philosophy towards ethics and how they determine which decisions to select. This would help athleti c administrators evaluate what types of ethical compasses these individuals have and would also provide information on what ethical theory these individuals tend to use. For those individuals found to be less involved in the selected public infractions cas es, such as family and friends of prospective student athletes or student athletes, representatives of athletics interests, university staff members (non athletics staff members), high school or club coaches, agents or runners and those individuals that do not fit into any previously mentioned
64 categories, it could be that they were involved in fewer cases because of effective rules education and monitoring processes. Athletic administrators can, to a certain degree, restrict which individuals have regular access to student athletes and athletic facilities, which could reduce others involvement in violations. It is important that even though these individuals were not found to be as involved in violations as others, such as head or assistant coaches, athlet ic administrators still monitor the activities of all individuals with connections to their athletic programs. Despite the fact that the Committee on Infractions does attempt to paint an accurate picture of facts of the entire case in the Public Infraction Report, including all involved individuals, they describe (without naming) most individuals involved in a case, at times providing information that is vague and problematic to find throughout the report. This protects the identities of those involved, so me of which may have not been involved in the case or merely provided the NCAA information regarding the case, but at times can confuse the reader of the report as to who exactly was involved and to what extent. This added some difficulty to the data anal ysis process in this research. Also it should be mentioned that the NCAA only has jurisdiction over its member institutions (including all of their staff members and representatives of athletic interests), student athletes at member institutions and prosp ective student athletes that want or plan to attend member institutions. This means that the individuals in cases that are found to have been involved in a violation who are outside of NCAA jurisdiction, cannot be required to participate in the investigat ive process or subject to any penalties, although the institution involved in case can at times still be held responsible in the violation. During the interviews for this study, each compliance administrator noted that typically head coaches and assistant coaches are unfortunately the individuals most often involved in
65 major infractions cases. A compliance administrator noted that the expectation of monitoring must be realistic and institutions must focus on areas where they are most vulnerable, such as t he activities of head coaches, to attempt to avoid major violations. Another administrator noted that in many cases, violations usually involve the head coaches and spread out from there to those involved around them, such as assistant coaches, operations staff, academic advisors, and university staff members. It was pointed out by compliance administrator one interviewed that for individuals to commit violations, there has to be some type of buy in from other individuals and therefore typically many peop le are aware or involved in a major infractions case. Also noted was that the NCAA now has an expectation that the head coach is aware of all activities occurring in their athletic programs and is responsible for those activities. Overall the compliance administrators agreed that major violations usually start with the head coaches of athletic programs. Research Question Four: What were the penalties that were given in the major infractions cases where the NCAA charged the institutions with a lack of ins titutional control? The list of penalties the NCAA imposed for major infractions of NCAA rules are listed in Bylaw 19.5.2 of the 2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 322 23). Some typical penalties are public reprimand and censure, probation for a period of time, a ban on postseason competition or specified competition, a reduction of scholarships in certain sports, reduced recruiting opportunities, a reduction in the number of Official Visit allowed, reduced practice op portunities, financial penalties, a vacation of wins that included ineligible athletes, the suspension of staff members, a show cause order on staff members involved in violations and other penalties as deemed applicable (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2 011, p. 322 23). The bylaws provide the Committee on Infractions the ability to impose other penalties as well, such as the prohibition of the recruitment of particular
66 prospective student athletes, ordering the release of prospective student athletes fro m their National Letter of Intent Obligations (agreements they sign as a type of contract with institutions requiring them to stay at the institution for at least one full year in return for some type of financial aid agreement), disassociation of particul ar individuals from the athletic programs, and limited access particular individuals have to certain teams or events (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 322). Of this list of penalties each institution received penalties that were to minimize or can cel out the advantage gained by the rule violation. Once the institution imposed its own penalties, the NCAA Committee on Infractions reviewed the penalties and imposed harsher penalties such as those listed above if they deemed it necessary. The data a nalysis of the penalties in both the ICG and the INCG revealed that standard penalties listed in all 32 Public Infractions Reports were public reprimand, censure and probation. In each case the length of probation varied depending on the circumstances. D epending on the types of violations committed, there were different types of penalties. When looking at both groups combined, in addition to public reprimand, censure and probation, the most common penalties conducted include a limit of scholarships (in 2 7 of the 32 cases), a show cause order placed on institutional staff ( in 19 of the 32 cases), a reduction of recruiting opportunities, such as a reduced number of telephone calls allowed or in person contacts allowed (18 of the 32 cases) and a reduced num ber of Official Visits paid by the institution ( 18 of the 32 cases). Table 4 7 shows all the penalties listed in both groups combined. Separately reviewing both the ICG and the INCG, the penalties imposed were typically the same in both groups. Table s 4 8 and 4 9 demonstrate all of the penalties listed separately in the ICG and the INCG.
67 RQ4 : Discussion: Article Thirteen titled Recruiting was one of the Articles most cited in the selected Public Infractions Cases from both the ICG and the INCG, so it i s logical that penalties involving a reduction of recruiting opportunities, reduced official visits, and reduced grant in aids (scholarships) were some of the penalties most often handed down by the NCAA and self imposed by institutions. Further research would be needed to determine if penalties handed down from recruiting violations reduce the chances of institutions or other institutions committing the same violations. Prior research has shown that penalties are often not deemed as harsh enough because universities find themselves facing penalties from additional major violations (Hopkins, 2003). It should be stated that a few institutions within the selected time period were cited multiple times for recruiting violations, many of which became repeat vi olators as defined in Bylaw 184.108.40.206 (referring to those institutions that commit additional major violations during their probation period from previous a previous major infractions case) (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.323 324). As found in th e literature review, it has been highly debated if penalties given out by the NCAA are harsh enough to deter institutions from repeating breaking the rules in the future and to prevent other institutions from committing similar violations (Hopkins, 2003). As shown in the review of the selected cases where a lack of institutional control was charged or noted, only 9 of the 32 Public Infraction Reports listed the institutions received a financial penalty. In those cases, the financial penalty was listed as an institution penalty and not specifically linked to those individuals involved in the cases. Stated by Hopkins (2003), financial penalties could potentially act as a deterrent against future major violations if head coaches, Athletic Directors and even Presidents received financial penalties if their athletic programs are found to have major violations. This could potentially make those individuals more accountable and invested in the
68 conduct of their coaching staff members and athletic programs. Furth er research should be conducted to determine if the penalties given by the Committee on Infractions on cases where a lack of institutional control is cited are in fact harsh enough to minimize the advantage gained, (such as a recruiting advantage gained) a nd deter other institutions from committing the same violations. Feedback on the results found for research question four showed that the compliance administrators interviewed did not believe the NCAA was harsh enough on individuals that break rules, spe cifically head and assistant coaches, because these individuals often continue to break NCAA rules. It was often mentioned that the current penalty structure did not deter future violations. Compliance administrator one expressed concern that the curren t penalties typically given hurt student athletes at the institution, who were not even involved in the violations, more than it hurts the offending coaches or staff members. All three interviewees noted that suspending offending staff members, especially coaches, without pay from all activities for a period of time may decrease the likelihood that they will commit the violations again. When asked about their feelings on the financial penalties for Presidents or other university administrators, as describ ed by Hopkins, all compliance administrators noted that caution would be needed when financially penalizing those that were not directly involved in the major violations (Hopkins, 2003). Athletic administrators looking to minimize violations and penalties associated with a lack of institutional control can look to guiding the rule following actions of those individuals involved in their athletic programs, so that they can, as a university, avoid penalties from any violations. Again following the ethical th eory of Deontology, athletic administrators should
69 clearly layout what behaviors are correct and what behaviors help the university avoid costly penalties from the NCAA. Question Five: What themes emerged throughout the document analysis of the Public Inf ractions Reports selected that noted a lack of institutional control? Through the process of document analysis several themes emerged from the review of the Public Infractions Reports selected for the research. It became clear from the beginning of the da ta analysis that most of the institutions involved in the selected major infractions cases described in the Public Infractions Reports had previously been involved in major violation cases with the NCAA. The theme of institutions repeatedly breaking rules even after facing NCAA penalties, became apparent. Of the 32 Public Infractions Reports selected, 25 involved institutions that were previously charged with major violations, and 5 of those 25 institutions were involved in 2 different major infractions cases in the total of 32 cases. Also 11 of the institutions selected for the research were considered repeat violators and were potentially subject to additional penalties, with one of those institutions being a repeat violator twice in the selected repor ts. These institutions had previous major violations and unfortunately other violations were not deterred by the penalties given from the previous cases. Another theme that emerged from the document analysis was that in several cases, prospective student a thletes moved to the locale of the institution prior to becoming student athletes and received impermissible recruiting inducements (such as money or reduced cost rent) in order to cover their living expenses. In several of the rationales in the reports, the NCAA noted that heighted monitoring should be put in place for those PSAs who will be at the institutions locale prior to enrollment and athletic administrators should have knowledge of exactly what these PSAs will be doing, where they will be staying and how they will be able to pay for living expenses until enrollment. Violations in this area occurred in over 8 of the 32
70 cases. In many of these situations institutional staff members were aware of the potential violations occurring but did not follow up on information of potential violations. In the rationales of multiple selected Public Infractions Reports several overarching themes presented themselves. A lack of communication between different departments in the university and the athletic departm ent, as well as a lack of regular education of NCAA rules by institution staff members was common among the institutions that faced a lack of institutional control. Also a charge that is considered less damming than a charge of a lack of institutional con trol but is still extremely damaging is a failure to monitor and it was cited in numerous selected Public Infractions Reports. Even though it was not as common as other themes, a few other commonalties found throughout the reports include issues with the universities book loan programs for student athletes, academic fraud involving tutors or athletic department staff members and institutional staff members lying to their institutions and NCAA enforcement staff during the course of an investigation. A fin al but intriguing find that was uncovered was that in multiple cases local or national media writers (such as newspapers writers or journalists) were the individuals that broke the stories of potential rules violations at the institutions. Connected to th is find was that once an investigation began into these potential rules violations (typically in the revenue generating Throughout the general course of an investigat ion often other information presented itself that led to additional violations, often in sports other than the sport connected to the first allegations. RQ5 : Discussion: Nearly all of the institutions involved in the selected Public Infractions Reports we re involved in previous major infractions cases, with several being repeat offenders. This theme should be alarming to institutions looking to avoid a lack of institutional control. Institutions that
71 have had previous major infractions cases should look to their previous infractions cases to avoid similar violations, as well as review the Public Infractions Reports of those institutions that have avoid simil ar violations. One specific area where institutions looking to avoid a charge of a lack of institutional control can take measures to better monitor is prospective student athletes coming to the locale of the institution prior to enrollment. Being in the locale of the institution increases the chances that PSA will be given an improper inducement. An institution can avoid this violation by office listing the ir plans for the time period prior to the first term of enrollment at the institution. The institution can gain information about where the PSA will be located and what activities they will be participating in and follow up on the information if any quest ionable information is obtained. Overall institutions should continuously work on building communication between departments and educating staff members of NCAA rules. Adequate monitoring systems that are regularly reviewed for effectiveness are also cri tical to maintain institutional control. Acknowledging that there are current issues in intercollegiate athletics that impact institutional control, such as previously mentioned, in the response to research question five the compliance administrators all provided their vision of the future of institutional control. One compliance administrator noted that a focus on deregulation of NCAA rules has the potential to decrease the number of institutions that are being charged with a lack of institutional contr ol. Although institutions with a lack of institutional control have widespread issues, this reduction in rules means actions that were once violations may no longer be violations. Another topic mentioned that could impact institutional control is social media. It was noted by multiple
72 administrators as an area of concern. A compliance administrator did mention however that the increased use of technology may actually help institutions maintain institutional control. When looking at how the themes that p resented themselves in the study could help athletic administrators maintain better institutional control, it is clear that they all have to do with the actions of individuals. Actions of individuals cause violations of NCAA rules. Previous violations co mmitted by individuals, poor communication between individuals in departments and actions of tutors are just three examples of themes presented that show how actions of individuals are what determines institutional control, or often in these instances a la ck of institutional control. Practioners can use ethical theory, such as Deontology, to focus on Question Six: How were institutions that were ultimately not charged with a lack institutional control abl e to avoid the findings and penalties associated with charges? Even though it cannot be determined what spared some institutions from the charge of a lack of institutional, inferences can be made in many cases from information provided in the rationales. In the data analysis of the INCG it was determined that reasons stated in some of the rationales as of why institutions were able to avoid a charge of a lack of institutional control were that institutions had adequate monitoring systems in place and that the violations were committed willfully by staff members whose actions were to avoid detection by their institutions. Also in some cases, there was not enough evidence to charge institutions with a lack of institutional control. These results although br ief can provide athletic administrators a good starting point at how to avoid a lack of institutional control. RQ6 : Discussion: It is critical for athletic administrators attempting to avoid a charge of a lack of institutional control to understand how in stitutions avoided the charge. From this, athletic administrators can
73 learn what their institutions can do to maintain better institutional control. The feedback provided by the compliance administrators from the interviews in this research stated that t o help institutions avoid a charge of a lack of institutional control, everyone in the institution from the President down to the support staff need to play a role in ensuring adherence to NCAA, conference (if applicable) and institution rules. When looki ng the previously discussed ethical theories, athletic administrators can make sure everyone is choosing the right actions, which the most virtuous of individuals would choose and that ultimately are in the best interest for all. Compliance administrator three noted that having defined chain of commands and empowering those individuals in the chains to have the final say on decisions, can help remove coaches or staff members from certain processes where they are willfully trying to overrule those staff mem bers in the chains of commands to get want they want. A compliance administrator noted that having institution administrators, such as the president of the institution, who are engaged in the process of athletic administration may help ensure that adequat e funds are available to compliance departments, that working monitoring systems are in place and that rules education is made a priority at institutions. All of these systems can help institutions avoid major rules violations and more importantly a lack of institutional control.
74 Table 4 1. Sports involved in major rules violations in the selected public infractions reports. T his chart includes both th e ICG and the INCG. Sport Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Baseball 4 12.5 Basketball (Men's) 17 53.125 Basketball (Women's) 5 15.625 Bowling (Women's) 0 0 Cross Country (Men's) 3 9.375 Cross Country (Women's) 2 6.25 Fencing (Men's) 0 0 Fencing (Women's) 0 0 Field Hockey 1 3.125 Football 23 71.875 Golf (Men's) 2 6.25 Golf (Women's) 3 9.3 75 Gymnastics (Men's) 1 3.125 Gymnastics (Women's) 2 6.25 Ice Hockey (Men's) 0 0 Ice Hockey (Women's) 0 0 Lacrosse (Men's) 1 3.125 Lacrosse (Women's) 0 0 Rifle ( Co ed) 0 0 Rowing (Women's) 0 0 Skiing (Men's) 0 0 Skiing (Women's) 0 0 Soccer (Men 's) 3 9.375 Soccer (Women's) 3 9.375 Softball 4 12.5 Swimming and Diving (Men's) 2 6.25 Swimming and Diving (Women's) 4 12.5 Tennis (Men's) 3 9.375 Tennis (Women's) 5 15.625 Track and Field (Men's) 5 15.625 Track and Field (Women's) 5 15.625 Volle yball (Men's) 0 0 Volleyball (Women's) 2 6.25 Water Polo (Men's) 0 0 Water Polo (Women's) 0 0 Wrestling 1 3.125 Various Sports (Not Specified) 3 9.375
75 Table 4 2. Sports involved in major rules violatio ns in the selected public infractions reports This chart includes only results from the ICG. Sport Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Baseball 3 15.789 Basketball (Men's) 10 52.632 Basketball (Women's) 3 15.789 Bowling (Women's) 0 0 Cross Country (Men's) 3 15.789 Cros s Country (Women's) 2 10.526 Fencing (Men's) 0 0 Fencing (Women's) 0 0 Field Hockey 1 5.263 Football 14 73.684 Golf (Men's) 1 5.263 Golf (Women's) 2 10.526 Gymnastics (Men's) 0 0 Gymnastics (Women's) 0 0 Ice Hockey (Men's) 0 0 Ice Hockey (Women's ) 0 0 Lacrosse (Men's) 1 5.263 Lacrosse (Women's) 0 0 Rifle ( Co ed) 0 0 Rowing (Women's) 0 0 Skiing (Men's) 0 0 Skiing (Women's) 0 0 Soccer (Men's) 3 15.789 Soccer (Women's) 2 10.526 Softball 3 15.789 Swimming and Diving (Men's) 1 5.263 Swimmin g and Diving (Women's) 2 10.526 Tennis (Men's) 2 10.526 Tennis (Women's) 4 21.053 Track and Field (Men's) 4 21.053 Track and Field (Women's) 4 21.053 Volleyball (Men's) 0 0 Volleyball (Women's) 1 5.263 Water Polo (Men's) 0 0 Water Polo (Women's) 0 0 Wrestling 1 5.263 Various Sports (Not Specified) 2 10.526
76 Table 4 3. Sports involved in major rules violations in the selected public infractions reports This chart includes only results from the INCG. Sport Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Baseball 1 7.692 Basketball (Men's) 7 53.846 Basketball (Women's) 2 15.385 Bowling (Women's) 0 0 Cross Country (Men's) 0 0 Cross Country (Women's) 0 0 Fencing (Men's) 0 0 Fencing (Women's) 0 0 Field Hockey 0 0 Football 9 69.231 Golf (Men's) 1 7.6 92 Golf (Women's) 1 7.692 Gymnastics (Men's) 1 7.692 Gymnastics (Women's) 2 15.385 Ice Hockey (Men's) 0 0 Ice Hockey (Women's) 0 0 Lacrosse (Men's) 0 0 Lacrosse (Women's) 0 0 Rifle ( Co ed) 0 0 Rowing (Women's) 0 0 Skiing (Men's) 0 0 Skiing (Wom en's) 0 0 Soccer (Men's) 0 0 Soccer (Women's) 1 7.692 Softball 1 7.692 Swimming and Diving (Men's) 1 7.692 Swimming and Diving (Women's) 2 15.385 Tennis (Men's) 1 7.692 Tennis (Women's) 1 7.692 Track and Field (Men's) 1 7.692 Track and Field (Wome n's) 1 7.692 Volleyball (Men's) 0 0 Volleyball (Women's) 1 7.692 Water Polo (Men's) 0 0 Water Polo (Women's) 0 0 Wrestling 0 0 Various Sports (Not Specified) 1 7.692
77 Table 4 4. Articles where violations occurred in the selected major infractions cases. This chart includes both the ICG and the INCG Article Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Article 1 Name and Purpose 0 0 Article 2 Principles 30 93.75 Article 3 NCAA Membership 1 3.125 Article 4 Organization 0 0 Article 5 Legislati ve Process 0 0 Article 6 Institutional Control 21 65.625 Article 10 Ethical Conduct 20 62.5 Article 11 Personnel 10 31.25 Article 12 Amateurism 5 15.625 Article 13 Recruiting 22 68.75 Article 14 Eligibility 13 40.625 Article 15 Financi al Aid 12 37.5 Article 16 Awards, Benefits and Expenses 22 68.75 Article 17 Playing Seasons 7 21.875 Article 18 Postseason Events 0 0 Article 19 Enforcement 3 9.375 Article 20 Division Membership 0 0 Article 21 Committees 0 0 Article 22 Athletics Certification 1 3.125 Article 23 Academic Performance Program 0 0 Article 31 Executive Regulations 0 0 Article 32 Enforcement Procedures 1 3.125 Article 33 Athletics Certification Process 1 3.125 Article 30 Administrative Regulat ions 3 9.375 Denotes an NCAA Article that as of the 2010 2011 Division I Manual is no longer in existence.
78 Table 4 5. Areas where violations occurred in the major infractions cases that led to the NCAA charging institutions with a lack of institutional control. T his chart includes only the ICG. Article Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Article 1 Name and Purpose 0 0 Article 2 Principles 18 94.737 Article 3 NCAA Membership 0 0 Article 4 Organization 0 0 Article 5 Legislativ e Process 0 0 Article 6 Institutional Control 19 100 Article 10 Ethical Conduct 13 68.421 Article 11 Personnel 7 36.842 Article 12 Amateurism 4 21.053 Article 13 Recruiting 13 68.421 Article 14 Eligibility 11 57.895 Article 15 Financia l Aid 9 47.368 Article 16 Awards, Benefits and Expenses 15 78.947 Article 17 Playing Seasons 5 26.316 Article 18 Postseason Events 0 0 Article 19 Enforcement 2 10.526 Article 20 Division Membership 0 0 Article 21 Committees 0 0 Article 2 2 Athletics Certification 1 5.263 Article 23 Academic Performance Program 0 0 Article 31 Executive Regulations 0 0 Article 32 Enforcement Procedures 1 5.263 Article 33 Athletics Certification Process 1 5.263 Article 30 Administrative Regul ations 3 15.789 Denotes an NCAA Article that as of the 2010 2011 Division I Manual is no longer in existence.
79 Table 4 6. Areas where violations occurred in the major infractions cases that led to the NCAA nearly charging institutions with a lack of institutional control This chart includes only the INCG. Article Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Article 1 Name and Purpose 0 0 Article 2 Principles 12 92.308 Article 3 NCAA Membership 1 7.692 Article 4 Organization 0 0 Artic le 5 Legislative Process 0 0 Article 6 Institutional Control 2 15.385 Article 10 Ethical Conduct 7 53.846 Article 11 Personnel 3 23.077 Article 12 Amateurism 1 7.692 Article 13 Recruiting 9 69.231 Article 14 Eligibility 2 15.385 Articl e 15 Financial Aid 3 23.077 Article 16 Awards, Benefits and Expenses 7 53.846 Article 17 Playing Seasons 2 15.385 Article 18 Postseason Events 0 0 Article 19 Enforcement 1 7.692 Article 20 Division Membership 0 0 Article 21 Committees 0 0 Article 22 Athletics Certification 0 0 Article 23 Academic Performance Program 0 0 Article 31 Executive Regulations 0 0 Article 32 Enforcement Procedures 0 0 Article 33 Athletics Certification Process 0 0 Article 30 Administrative Regu lations 0 0 Denotes an NCAA Article that as of the 2010 2011 Division I Manual is no longer in existence.
80 Table 4 7. Penalties given in the major infractions cases that led to the N CAA charging institutions with a lack o f institutional control This chart includes the ICG the INCG. Penalty Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Public Reprimand and Censure 32 100 Probation 32 100 Postseason Ban/ Prohibition Against Competition 13 40.625 Limit of Grant in Aids 27 84.375 Reduced Practice O pportunities 6 18.75 Limit Official Visits 18 56.25 Reduced Recruiting Opportunities 18 56.25 Prohibition of Recruitment of PSA(s) 4 12.5 Financial Penalty 9 28.125 Vacation of Wins and/or Individual Records 12 37.5 Show Cause 19 59.375 Disassociat ion of Individuals 11 34.375 Release PSAs from NLIs 1 3.125 Limit Access to Teams and Athletes 3 9.375 Other Penalties 21 65.625 Table 4 8. Penalties given in the major infractions cases that led to the NCAA charging institutions with a lack of institutional control This chart includes only the ICG. Penalty Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Public Reprimand and Censure 19 100 Probation 19 100 Postseason Ban/ Prohibition Against Competition 9 47.368 Limit of Grant in Aids 17 89.474 Reduced P ractice Opportunities 4 21.053 Limit Official Visits 10 52.632 Reduced Recruiting Opportunities 10 52.632 Prohibition of Recruitment of PSA(s) 3 15.789 Financial Penalty 6 31.579 Vacation of Wins and/or Individual Records 8 42.105 Show Cause 12 63.1 58 Disassociation of Individuals 6 31.579 Release PSAs from NLIs 1 5.263 Limit Access to Teams and Athletes 2 10.526 Other Penalties 10 52.632
81 Table 4 9 Penalties given in the major infractions cases that led to the NCAA nearly charging institutions wi th a lack of institutional control This chart includes only the INCG. Penalty Number of Reports Cited Percentage (%) Public Reprimand and Censure 13 100 Probation 13 100 Postseason Ban/ Prohibition Against Competition 4 30.769 Limit of Grant in Ai ds 10 76.923 Reduced Practice Opportunities 2 15.385 Limit Official Visits 8 61.538 Reduced Recruiting Opportunities 8 61.538 Prohibition of Recruitment of PSA(s) 1 7.692 Financial Penalty 3 23.077 Vacation of Wins and/or Individual Records 4 30.769 Show Cause 7 53.846 Disassociation of Individuals 5 38.462 Release PSAs from NLIs 0 0 Limit Access to Teams and Athletes 1 7.692 Other Penalties 11 84.615
82 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Concluding Remarks The exploratory research presented in this study to better understand why some institutions are lacking institutional control of their intercollegiate athletics programs was successful in laying a solid groundwork of knowledge in the topic area and preparing for further extensive research to continue to fin d answers to this question. Although for many of the research questions the results found may not have come as a surprise, the results did confirm some generally accepted beliefs related to the topics of institutional control and a lack of institutional control. As shown throughout the introduction, the principle of institutional control is one of the most central principles in the NCAA and intercollegiate athletics. Without institutional control, institutions would run athletic programs however they see fit, student athlete welfare would be at risk and parity would be lost. The review of previous literature on intercollegiate athletics found that literature specifically on how different areas impact institutional control was lacking and when present, mi nimal. It was shown in this research that it may be useful for practioners to look to academic research, such as in ethical theory, to determine why certain individuals such as coaches make decisions that are not in accordance with NCAA rules. Continued exploration on how academia can assist practioners with maintaining institutional control appears to be one way athletic administrators can stay on top of the issue. Through a deeper look at ethical theories throughout the study, the researcher was able t o provide practical solutions and steps athletic administrators can follow to maintain control of their athletic programs. As previously mentioned, the theories of Consequentialism and Deontology can both be used by administrators to outline to all indivi duals involved in their
83 Conference and Institution regulations. Virtue Theory can also be used to maintain better control of athletic programs, but athletic admini strators must be extremely careful when choosing a virtuous person to be an example for their athletic department. Choosing the wrong person, who in fact does not have the highest virtues, could potentially cause major issues for the institution, should f uture violations involving that individual be uncovered. Athletic administrators could in the hiring process vet out the ethical lens and preferred theories of applicants, especially in the with high ethics. It should be noted that when looking at ethical theory to help maintain control of their athletic programs, administrators should be aware theories could be in conflict with each other at times. For example, sometimes selecting what is to be what is best for all (Consequentialism). Regardless of this conflict and the confusion that it could potentially create, practioners should not hesitate when looking to ethical theory to help better understand the topic institutional control. Future Implications With the knowledge gained from this research study, there are several areas of research that should be further explored in the future. For each research question more in depth and desc riptive data could be explored. For instance, with regards to research question three that looked at individuals involved in charges of lack of institutional control, the extent to the involvement of each individual could be investigated in detail. This would better help athletic administrators determine what role each individual plays in a major violation that leads to a lack of institutional control. Furthermore, factors that could impact an institution being charged with a lack of institution control, such as what types of education are institutions failing to provide their staff members, could be reviewed. The specific monitoring systems that are in place at the
84 institutions that are maintaining control of their athletic programs versus the systems a t those institutions that lack control of their athletic programs could also be the target of future exploration. Instead of using document analysis of public infractions reports, more detailed information could be gathered from conducting a greater number of interviews with individuals such as compliance administrators or athletic directors. Interviews can be extremely valuable, especially with experts in the field, and it would add to the growing knowledgebase on institutional control. The sensitive nat ure of the topic should be considered when pursuing interviews with administrators regarding institutional control (or a lack thereof). Managerial Implications Through this research several conclusions can be made, allowing for recommendations to pract ioners looking to better maintain institutional control. The research showed that the sports institutional control than any other sports. Additional monit oring and education in these areas is warranted. Areas where institutions should be concerned about violations occurring, specifically violations that have been shown to also bring a charge of a lack of institutional control, are the areas of Recruiting ( Article Thirteen) and Awards and Benefits (Article Sixteen). In addition to these areas, institutions should be concerned about the area of Ethical Conduct (Article Ten) if they find themselves facing major violations. These violations tend to ultimately lead to violations of Institutional Control (Article Six) and Principles (Article Two). Athletic Administrators should be aware of this and continue to increase monitoring efforts in these areas. The individuals most often involved in major infractions t hat led to a lack of institutional control (other than student athletes and prospective student athletes) were head coaches and assistant coaches. It was found that penalties currently given by the NCAA in major infractions cases were not harsh enough to deter future violations from the offenders or others. It is critical that
85 administrators in the administration of athletics programs is critical. As stated by one of the compliance administrators in the interviews for this study, maintaining institutional control is the job that athletic administrators come to work each day to fulfill. For institutions to continue to compete at this highest level of athletic competition, their administrators must continue to increase efforts to maintain institutional control of their athletic programs. As the number of NCAA member institutions that are charged with a lack of institutional control continues to increase, it wi ll become increasingly more important to expand the knowledgebase on the topic and better understand why institutions are failing to maintain control of their athletic programs.
86 How does the infractions process work? Figure 1 1. Processing of a typical major infractions case The chart desc ribes the typical process of an investigation into a major violation of NCAA rules Adapted from Hosick, M. B. (2010). Many NCAA infractions cases move quickly, but complications can slow the process. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org /wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/ About+the+NCAA/How+We+Work/Enforcement+process/Infractions
87 APPENDIX A ORGANIZATION OF THE NCAA MANUAL The organizational list of NCAA Arti cles below is taken directly from the 2011 2012 NCAA Division I Manual (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. viii). Constitution Article 1 Name, Purposes and Fundamental Policy Article 2 Principles for Conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics Article 3 NCAA Membership Article 4 Organization Article 5 Legislative Authority and Process Article 6 Institutional Control Operating Bylaws Article 10 Ethical Conduct Article 11 Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel Article 12 Amateurism Ar ticle 13 Recruiting Article 14 Eligibility: Academic and General Requirements Article 15 Financial Aid Article 16 Awards, Benefits and Expenses for Enrolled Student Athletes Article 17 Playing and Practice Seasons Article 18 Championships and Postseason Football Article 19 Enforcement Article 20 Division Membership Article 21 Committees Article 22 Athletics Certification Article 23 Academic Performance Program Administrative Bylaws Article 31 Executive Regulations Article 32 Enfo rcement Policies and Procedures Article 33 Athletics Certification Policies and Procedures
88 APPENDIX B PENALTY STRUCTURE FOR SECONDARY NCAA VIOLATIONS The penalties for secondary NCAA violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.5.1) as stated in the 2011 2012 NCAA Division I Manual are listed below (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p.322). Title: 19.5.1 Penalties for Secondary Violations. The vice president for enforcement services, upon approval by the chair or another member of the Committee on Infraction s designated by the chair, or the committee may determine that no penalty is warranted in a secondary case, that an institutional or conference determined penalty is satisfactory or, if appropriate, impose a penalty. Among the disciplinary measures are: ( Revised: 1/11/94) (a) Termination of the recruitment of a prospective student athlete by the institution or, if the prospective student athlete enrolls (or has enrolled) in the institution, permanent ineligibility to represent the institution in intercolle giate competition (unless eligibility is restored by the Committee on Student Athlete Reinstatement upon appeal); (b) Forfeit/vacate contests in which an ineligible student athlete participated; (c) Prohibition of the head coach or other staff members in t he involved sport from participating in any off campus recruiting activities for up to one year; (Revised: 1/11/94) (d) An institutional fine for each violation, with the monetary penalty ranging in total from $500 to $5,000, except when an ineligible stud ent athlete participates in an NCAA championship or other postseason competition, in which case the $5,000 limit shall not apply; (Revised: 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01) (e) A limited reduction in the number of financial aid awards that may be awarded during a specified period in the sport involved to the maximum extent of 20 percent of the maximum number of awards normally permissible in that sport; (f) Institutional recertification that its current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations; (g) Suspension of the head coach or other staff members for one or more competitions; (Adopted: 1/11/94) (h) Public reprimand (to be invoked only in situations in which the Committee on Infractions or the vice president for enforcement services, upon approval by the committee, determines that a penalty, in addition to any institutional or conference determined penalty, is warranted); and (Adopted: 1/11/94)
89 (i) Requirement that a member institution that has been found in violation, or t hat has an athletics department staff member who has been found in violation of the provisions of NCAA legislation while representing another institution, show cause why a penalty or an additional penalty should not be imposed if it does not take appropria te disciplinary or corrective action against the athletics department personnel involved, any other institutional employee if the circumstances warrant or representatives of the institution's athletics interests. (Adopted: 1/11/94)
90 APPENDIX C PENALTY STRU CTURE FOR MAJOR VIOLATIONS The penalties for major NCAA violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2) as stated in the 2011 2012 NCAA Division I Manual are listed below (2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, pp.322 323). Title: 19.5.2 Penalties for Major Violation s. Penalties for a major violation shall be significantly more severe than those for a secondary violation and shall be consistent with the penalty structure and guidelines used by other regulatory committees (e.g., Division I Committee on Academic Perfor mance). The Committee on Infractions may impose one or more of the following penalties: (Revised: 4/28/11 for any institution that receives a notice of inquiry after 4/28/11) (a) Public reprimand and censure. (b) Probationary period for up to five years (including a periodic in person monitoring system, written institutional reports, and institutional affirmation that current athletics policies and procedures conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations). (c) Suspension of institutional staff members from their duties for a specified period if such staff members are determined by the Committee on Infractions to have engaged in or condoned a major violation. (d) Reduction in the number of financial aid awards (as defined in Bylaw 15.02.4.1) that may be awarded during a specified period. (e) Reduction in the number of expense paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport. (f) Prohibition against, or limits on, recruiting activities by some or all coaching staff members in an involved spo rt. (g) Prohibition against specified competition in the sport (including, but not limited to, postseason competition, invitational tournaments and exempt contests or dates of competition, such as foreign tours or contests in Alaska or Hawaii), particularl y in cases in which: (1) An involved individual remains employed at the institution; (2) A significant competitive advantage resulted from the violation; (3) The violation reflects a lack of institutional control, failure to monitor a program, or a violati on of the cooperative principle set forth in Bylaw 32.1.4;
91 (4) The violation includes findings of academic fraud; or (5) The institution is a repeat violator (as defined in Bylaw 220.127.116.11). (h) Vacation of a record in a case in which a student athlete has competed while ineligible, particularly in a case involving academic fraud, serious intentional violations, direct involvement of a coach or a high ranking school administrator, a large number of violations, competition while academically ineligible, a fin ding of failure to monitor or lack of institutional control, a repeat violator, or a case in which vacation or a similar penalty would be imposed if the underlying violations were secondary. The penalties may include one or more of the following: (1) Vaca tion of individual records and performances; (2) Vacation of team records and performances, including wins from the career record of the head coach in the involved sport, or, in applicable cases, reconfiguration of team point totals; or (3) Return of indiv idual or team awards to the Association. (i) Financial penalty. (j) Prohibition against television appearances of the institution in the sport in which the violation occurred. (k) Requirement that an institution that has been found in violation, or that ha s an athletics department staff member who has been found in violation of the provisions of NCAA legislation while representing another institution, show cause why a penalty or additional penalty should not be imposed, if, in the opinion of the Committee o n Infractions, the institution has not taken appropriate disciplinary or corrective action against athletics department personnel involved in the infractions case or any other institutional employee, if the circumstances warrant, or a representative of the institution's athletics interests. (1) The penalty imposed under this provision may include a recommendation to the membership that the institution's membership in the Association be suspended or terminated. (2) "Appropriate disciplinary or corrective act ion" may include severance of relations with any representative of the institution's athletics interests who may be involved; the debarment of the head coach or any assistant coach involved in the infraction from coaching, recruiting, or speaking engagemen ts; and the prohibition of all recruiting in a specified sport for a specified period. The nature and extent of such action shall be determined by the institution, but the determination of whether the action is appropriate in the fulfillment of NCAA polic ies and principles, and its resulting effect on any institutional penalty, shall be solely that of the Committee on Infractions (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2). (3) In the event the Committee on Infractions imposes additional penaltie s upon an institution, the institution shall be provided the opportunity to appear before the committee, further, the
92 institution shall be provided the opportunity to appeal (per Bylaw 19.6.2) any additional penalty imposed by the Committee on Infractions. (l) Other penalties as appropriate.
93 APPENDIX D RESEARCH STUDY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TEMPLATE Research Study Interview Questions Template The overall purpose of this research is to better understand why institutions and athletic administrators are failing to maintain control of their athletic programs. The goal of this interview is to further enhance the research by having individuals knowledgeable in the field of intercollegiate athletics and NCAA rules provide their opinions on the state of NCAA rules vi olations. In the document analysis portion of my research, I analyzed all NCAA Public Infractions Reports involving Division I FBS institutions released between January 2000 and December 2012 that involved a charge of a lack of institutional control, whic h resulted in the analysis of 19 reports. In addition to this, I analyzed all NCAA Public Infractions Reports involving Division I FBS institutions during the same time frame that had a mention of a lack of institutional control listed anywhere in the repo rt (even though they were not charged with it), which resulted in the analysis of 13 reports. The total number of Public Infractions Reports analyzed was 32. During my analysis I identified those individuals directly involved in the violations in each case, sports involved in each case, penalties given in each case and NCAA Articles of the violations committed in each case. I also looked for themes that were present throughout the cases. Please note that you may withdraw at any time during participati on, and you may refuse to answer any question you are not comfortable with. It is important to note that we are not asking you about your specific institution, but rather your impressions of the larger intercollegiate context. You will have the opportunit y to review the transcript and make changes if you wish. I am the only person who will see the official transcript. 1. In your own words, please describe what institutional control is, what a lack of institutional control is, and how institutions maintai n control of their intercollegiate athletic programs. were found to be the sports most involved in major violations that led to a lack of institutional cont rol. Please give your thoughts on these findings. For example, please state if the results were what you expected or are you surprised at the results. Provide a rationale for your answer. 3. NCAA Articles 2 (Principles), 6 (Institutional Control), 10 ( Ethical Conduct), 13 (Recruiting) and 16 (Awards and Benefits) were found to be the areas of NCAA regulations that were cited most in major infractions cases that included institutions being charged with a lack of institutional control. Please give your thoughts on this finding and provide a rationale for your answer. 4. In the examination of the research results, it was determined that the individuals most often directly involved in major infractions cases that included a charge of a lack of institution al control were head coaches and/or assistant coaches (specifically in the sports of football and Are these results what you expected or are you surprised at the results? Provide a rationale for your answer.
94 5. Of the Public Infractio ns Cases analyzed in the research, the major penalties that were most often given in the cases where a lack of institutional control was charged were reduced grant in how Do you believe that these penalties were harsh enough to deter the offending institutions from repeating similar violations or do you believe that the penalties given may not necessarily have an effect on deterring the institutions from repeating the same violations? 6. Based on your experiences with intercollegiate athletics, what are the factors or themes present in intercollegiate athletics today that specifically relate to issues of a lack of institutional control? 7. Of the Public Infractions Reports analyzed, 32 reports included a mention of a lack of institutional control and only 19 were actually found to lack control of their intercollegiate athletics programs. From the data analysis, it was determined that some causes of how institutions were able to avoid the finding of a lack of institutional control and associated penalties were having adequate compliance monitoring systems in place and the violations being committed willfully by staf f members who make significant attempts to avoid detection. Please give your thoughts on these findings. How else do you believe institutions would be able to avoid the finding of a lack of institutional control and the penalties that come with the findin g? 8. Overall what are your thoughts, opinions on the results of this research study? 9. As an athletic administrator, what other areas would you be interested in knowing more about that could help you maintain better control of your intercollegiate athl etic program? 10. Do you have any other questions, comments or concerns that you would like to be included with your response. Thank you for your time and participation in this research. Your responses are greatly appreciated.
95 LIST OF REFERENCES 2011 12 NCAA Division I Manual (2011). Indianapolis, Indiana: NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs Staff. About QSR. (2011). QSRInternational.com Retrieved from http://www.qsrinternational. com/abou t qsr.aspx Andre, C., S. J ., Meyer, M., Shanks, T., & Velasquez, M. (2010). What is Ethics? Santa Clara University Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/dec ision/ whatisethics.html B arry, A. (2012). Ethical Theory [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://elearning2. courses.ufl.edu/portal/site/UFL HSC6735 5467 12012 Ba xter, V., Margavio, A., & Lambert, C. (1996). Competition, Legitimation, and the Regulatio n of Intercollegiate Athletics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13, 51 64. Brown, C. (2001). Ethical Theories Compared. Introduction to Philosophy Trinity University Retrieved from http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ethical_theories.html To NCAA Amateurism Regulat ions. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 56:3, 687 694. Chronology of Enforcement. (2011) NCAA.org Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org /wps/wcm/con nect/public/NCAA/Enforcement/Resources/Chronology+of+Enforcement C lark, R., & Batista, P. (2009). Do BCS National Championships Lead to Recruiting Violations? A Trend Analysis of NCA A Division I (FBS) Infractions. Journal of Sport Administration & Superv ision 1:1, 8 22. Composition & Sport Sponsorship of the NCAA. (2011). NCAA.org Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/abo ut+the+ncaa/membership/membership_breakdown.html Crowley, J. ( 2006). NCAA. Davis, T. (1995). A Model of Institutional Governance For Inte rcollegiate Athletics. Wisconsin Law Review, 599 645. DeSchriver, T., & Stotlar, D. (1996). An Economic Analysis of Cartel Behavior Within The NCAA. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 388 400. Differences Among the Three Divisions: Division I. (March 31, 20 11). NCAA.org Retrieved from http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/About+the+NCAA/Who+We+Are/ Differences+Among+the+Divisions/
96 Dixo n, M., Turner, B., Pastore, D., & Mahony, D. (2003) Rule Violations In Intercollegiate Athletics A Qualitative Investigation Utilizing An Organizational Justice Framework. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1, 59 90. Fink, J, Mahoney, D. & Pastore, D. (1999) Et hics in Intercollegiate Athletics: An Examination of NCAA Violations and Penalties. Journal of Professional Ethics 7, 53 74. Frey, J. (1987). Institutional Control of Ath l etics: An Analysis of The Role Played by Presidents, Faculty, Trustees, Alumni, and the NCAA. of Sport in Society, 49 59. Frey, J. (1984). Gambling and College Sports: Views of Coaches and Athletic Directors. Sociology of Sport Journal 36 45. he Unauthorized Practice of Law, the NCAA, and Athletic Compliance Directors. New York Law School Law Review, 54, 495 516. Glazier, M. & Jones, K. (1991). A Sea of Rules. Collegiate Athletic Management, 3:3, 14 18. Goff, B. (2000). Effects of University At hletics on the University: A Review and Extension of Empirical Assessment. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 85 104. Hopkins, J. (2003). NCAA Penalties: Corporate Accountability For Coaches and Presidents. DePaul Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problem s 1:2, 179 188. Hosick, M. B. (2010). Many NCAA infractions cases move quickly, but complications can slow the process. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org /wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/About+the+NCAA/How+We+Work/Enforcement+proce ss/Infractions How Athletics Pro grams are Classified. (2010). National Collegiate Athletic Assoc i ation. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/About+the+NCAA/ Who+We+Are/About+the+NCAA+How+Programs+are+Classified Humph reys, B., & Mondelto, M. (2007). Intercollegiate Athletic Success and Donations at NCAA Division I Institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 265 280. Klenosky, D., Templin, T., & Troutman, J. (2001). Recruiting Student Athletes: A Means End Investigat ion of School Choice Decision Making. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 95 106. Kuga, D. (1996). Governance of Intercollegiate Athletics: Perceptions of Faculty Members. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 149 168. London, H. (1989). Fair Play for College Athl etes: Racism and NCAA Rules. Academic Questions, 18 20.
97 M arsh, G., & Robbins, M. (2003). Weighing The Interests Of The Institution, The Membership And Institutional Representatives In An NCAA Investigation. Florida Law Review 55 667 709. Matula, T. D. (2 011). Pony Excess Owensboro: ESPN Films. McQuilkin, S. (2002). Brutality in Football and the Creation of the NCAA: A Codified Moral Compass in Progressive America. Sport History Review 33 1 34. Meggyesy, D. (2000). Athletes in Big Time College Sport. So ciety 24 28. Murphy, G., Petitpas, A., & Brewer, B. (1996). Identity Foreclosure, Athletic Identity, and Career Maturity in Intercollegiate Athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 239 246. National Collegiate Athletic Associat ion, Committee on Infractions. (2011). Boise State University Public Infractions Report. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/ connect/publ ic/ncaa/pdfs/2011/boise+state+university+public+infractions+report+septemb er+13,+2011 National Collegiate Athletic Associat ion, Committee on Infractions. (2011). University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm /connect/public/NCAA/PDFs/2011/UNIVERSITY+OF+CONNECTICUT+PUBLIC+INF RACTIONS+REPORT National Collegiate Athletic Association, Co mmittee on Infractions. (2010). University of Michigan Public Infractions Report. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/ connect/public/ncaa/pdf s/2010/20101104+univ+of+michigan+report National Collegiate Athletic Association History. (Nov. 8, 2010). NCAA.org Retrieved from http://www. ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/About+the+NCAA/Who+ We+Are/About+the+NCAA+history NCAA Division I Manual. PAC 12 Compliance Corner Retrieved from http://compliance.pac 12.org/items/06man ual.pdf Pastore, D., Goldfine, B., & Riemer, H. (1996). NCAA College Coaches and Athletic Administrative Support. Journal of Sport Management 10, 373:387. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Principles of Institutional Control. PAC 12 Compliance Corner 1996. Retrieved from http://compliance.pac 12.org/thetools/instctl.pdf Processing of a T ypical Major Infra ctions Case. (2011). National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Enforcement/ Process/Charging
98 Rainbo w, C. (2002). Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles. Biology 372. Retrieved from http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories.htm Segga r, J., McBride, D., & Cannon, L. (1985). Pareto, Powerhouse Football, and AP Polls 1968 1984. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 334 344. Staurowsky, E., & Sack, A. (2005). Reconsidering the Use of the Te rm Student Athlete in Academic Research. Journal of Spor t Management, 19, 103 116. The Knight Commission Foundation Report. (1991) Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. Retrieved from http://knightcommission.org/images/pdfs /1991 93_kcia_ report.pdf
99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christine attended the Pennsylvania State University and received a Bachelor of Science in Kinesiology and a Bachelor of Science in Recreation, Parks and Tourism Management in August 2010. During her time at Penn State University, Christine gained professional experiences working in the Morgan Academic Support Center for Student Athletes and in the Penn State University Compliance Office. In August 2010, Christine continued her studies at the University o f Florida in pursuit of a Master of Science in Sport Management. From September 2010 to June 2012, Christine worked as a Compliance Intern in the University of Florida Athletic Association Compliance Office. In July 2012, Christine began her professional career as a Post Graduate Assistant in the University of Florida Athletic Association Compliance Office.