THOUGHTS ON NCAA RULES ENFORCEMENT The NCAA is a big club. Its member colleges and universities get to set the rules of the club. Competitive sports need a central administrative body to manage competition. Enter the NCAA – or NFL or FIBA. Once you have competition rules, then you need referees and umpires to enforce them evenhandedly. Conduct off the field can also tilt the playing field. Consider performance-enhancing drugs. What makes the NCAA different from other sports organizations is that the athletes compete only because they are enrolled students at member schools – and that pulls in rules regarding academic eligibility and academic fraud as well as scholarship limits to equalize competition among the better and less well funded schools. With no rules limiting money paid to athletes, schools with major programs might find well-heeled boosters to pay big money to get a recruit to sign with their school. Even with rules prohibiting payments, some boosters are willing to cheat to get there. (See the Alabama Infractions case involving the recruitment of Albert Means.) With no rules setting a floor on academic eligibility to compete, some schools might be willing to “adjust” their academic standards to assure that athletes not ready for college work nonetheless are admitted and get to compete. Indeed, it is claimed that the “true” story of Notre Dame’s George Gipp is that he did not attend class, did not make the grades, liked bars and pool halls more than classes, and needed booster help to be re-admitted after dismissal from school. NCAA club members want to be fair to each other, and to treat each other in a principled way. They also want to assure serous punishment for major violations that bring competitive advantage. A question long percolating was brought to a head in what recently happened in the University of Miami infractions investigation involving Nevin Shapiro and the employment of his lawyer to ask questions for the NCAA in a bankruptcy proceeding. Just what is it that NCAA club members want from the enforcement/infractions process? Police investigations are clearly adversarial. Police use subpoenas to get documents. They place wires on individuals and send them to extract confessions from suspects. They pay informers to infiltrate groups to get information. They lie during interviews. Aggressive law enforcement results in more arrests and more convictions. In the current scheme of things, NCAA enforcement staff are expected to act cooperatively with a member school under investigation. They do not use informers or wires. They have no subpoena power. They are not permitted to lie. Should these tactics be over the line in NCAA enforcement? Should it be over the line to use the lawyer of the chief accuser of a member school to get evidence against the school? Or to get witness cooperation on a promise to describe that cooperation to a sentencing judge? Is it wrong to base allegations, even in part, on information provided by a felon? By someone with motive to lie? By someone with a grudge against a school or coach? Are we willing to let schools and individuals skate because we don’t like the investigative techniques, even if the information is corroborated to demonstrate reliability? A conversation among club members is long overdue. Just what are we willing to tolerate to get at the facts and catch rules violators? Just what are we willing to forego with less aggressive investigative methods?