The NCAA and the $$$

The NCAA's actions are becoming more and more ridiculous and inconsistent, and they only make sense if you assume the NCAA only cares about the $$$. Three recent and high-profile NCAA disciplinary actions have brought this fact into sharp clarity. The three players in question are Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, and Terrelle Pryor et al.

The NCAA threw the book at USC, and in so doing punished everyone but those who broke the rules. They cut scholarships, stripped the team of wins, and allowed players to transfer without penalties because years ago Reggie Bush (and moreso his parents) were hooked up financially in defiance of NCAA rules. Cam Newton's father shopped his son around for hundreds of thousands of dollars, which should be THE cardinal sin of amateurism if there is one, and Cam Newton was let more or less off the hook. Why? The NCAA thought there wasn't enough evidence (at the time) that Cam Newton knew or was involved. This not only stretches credibility, but it seems to be in flagrant contradiction of the NCAA's own written rules, which say in so many words that the parent and the student-athlete are one and the same.

Why are these two cases treated differently? The only reason I can think of is that Cam Newton is in the process of generating lots of buzz and making other people lots of money, while USC is a dynasty seemingly in decline. Notably, the NCAA did not declare the Cam Newton case closed and the investigation is ostensibly ongoing. Why punish Newton now when he's making the NCAA money? Why punish Newton now when you can whip your indentured servants into line later, punishing whatever innocent third parties are hanging around after Newton bolts for the NFL? The Newton decision only makes sense as a decision to protect post-season revenue, not as a decision to protect fairness, sportsmanship, or the principle of amateurism.

The recent Terrelle Pryor decision (surprise surprise) has the same stink all over it. Pryor and some of his teammates are in trouble for selling some of their Ohio State paraphernalia. The NCAA is suspending them for 5 games at the beginning of next season, but not for the upcoming Sugar Bowl. The NCAA's stated rationale is that the players were not adequately informed about the rules, but what does this have to do with the Sugar Bowl? Isn't this a reason for non- or minimal punishment? The decision makes sense only as a decision to protect post-season revenue.

I could be wrong about the $$$ and the role it plays, but its undeniable that the NCAA's decisions are increasingly inconsistent and difficult to justify.