An apparently homeless Baylor football player was recently ruled ineligible due to NCAA violations, prompting a spasm of outrage followed by bewilderment. A week later, there remain more questions than answers about the case and, more importantly, the process by which students are barred from playing sports, an increasingly important topic as the power of the NCAA to regulate its member institutions, from academics to amateurism, is eroding.
According to a article published in December on the Sports Illustrated website, Baylor running back Silas Nacita had given up a scholarship to Cornell, drifted and eventually scraped together college scholarships and a federal loan to attend Baylor and pursue his dreams of playing for the Bears.
He immediately became a cause celebre for critics of the NCAA when he published a statement on Twitter claiming he was “no longer eligible to play football and pursue my dream” because a “close family friend” had put him “in an apartment” and contributed to “living expenses.”
“I didn’t know I was breaking any rules, but I respect the NCAA’s decision,” he said in the statement.
The story circulated widely – and was covered by a plethora of national media outlets – even though its subject only attempted 31 carries in five games last season.
Its popularity showed not only the public’s receptiveness to a story that the college sports establishment would crush a young man’s aspirations, but also the public’s incomprehension of how the NCAA and its more than 1,000 institutions members self-regulate.
“The NCAA has not declared Silas Nacita ineligible and Baylor has not requested a waiver for him,” the NCAA said. wrote on Twitter a few hours after Nacita’s post.
In a statement released shortly after, Baylor athletic director Ian McCaw said, “Silas Nacita will not be a part of the football program moving forward due to rule violations that impact his eligibility. »
He added that Nacita was still enrolled at Baylor. The university declined to make any member of its athletic department available for further comment.
The balance between NCAA control and sports program autonomy has never been better accused: The five largest conferences were granted increased power to legislate; the NCAA is facing accusations that he overstepped his sanctions against Penn State; Reportedly, 20 programs are under investigation for academic misconduct. Friday, sanctions were imposed against Syracuse in part because of findings of academic misconduct by the men’s basketball program.
“I think we all know, even our members, that there’s a lot of misunderstanding about how eligibility works, and we’ve tried to do what we can to help people understand it,” said NCAA spokesperson Stacey Osburn.
The NCAA’s enforcement of the law is so complicated that even Nacita appeared to make a common error, implying that the NCAA had declared him ineligible. The NCAA doesn’t actually declare players ineligible – their colleges do. Each university’s athletic department has a dedicated compliance staff.
“If there is a violation where the NCAA rules state that a student is ineligible, it is the responsibility of the institution to declare that student ineligible,” said Elizabeth Heinrich, who worked in the compliance field for 10 years at the NCAA, in Texas and Michigan, where she was Chief Compliance Officer.
The ineligibility process is also remarkably ad hoc. While violations are judged by the letter of the law, the NCAA routinely reinstates violators without sanctions, based on what is common sense.
“They make a lot of exceptions where there is good reason to make an exception,” Heinrich said, referring to the NCAA.
For example, the regulation prohibiting “preferential treatment” – which Nacita may have violated – “excludes the receipt of any advantages based on reputation or athletic skills,” said Geoff Silver, former director of academic and membership affairs. of the NCAA, which is now at the Jackson Lewis law firm.
He added that this “is not a difficult standard to meet when considering the likelihood that a prospect or student-athlete will come into contact with the potential benefactor as a result of their participation in athletics.”
Silver added: “It’s really up to the interpretive process to ensure that the rule is applied in a reasonable and fair manner. » Translation: The rule is strict, but it can deviate.
This is what the NCAA was referring to in its statement when it said Baylor did not request a waiver. Technically, waivers apply to ongoing or future situations that, under normal circumstances, would constitute a violation. For example, last year Boise State received a waiver allowing it to provide assistance to a homeless recruit until the start of summer school, when his room and board would begin. The reinstatements are for past violations (Osburn clarified that Baylor did not ask for either).
Consider the case of Georgia running back Todd Gurley, a former Heisman contender. Last season, Georgia ruled him out of two games during its investigation into whether he received several thousand dollars in exchange for signed merchandise. He was ultimately declared ineligible for the rest of the season, but then Georgia applied for his reintegration.
The NCAA ruled the appropriate suspension was four games; Georgia lost a subsequent appeal — heard by campus representatives, not NCAA staff members — and Gurley became eligible again after missing four games. Although Gurley missed four games instead of two, it was still considerably less than the rest of the season.
After Nacita issued her first statement, observers privately expressed surprise that Baylor had not requested reinstatement.
The NCAA has gone out of its way lately to appear sensitive to a perceived negative public image. When the NCAA suspended Gurley Chairman Mark Emmert expressed more sadness than anger, saying he hoped members would revisit the rule against signing goods for money.
Nonetheless, according to Heinrich, the decision whether or not to seek reinstatement is at the discretion of the university.
“There are multiple reasons why an institution may not seek reinstatement,” Heinrich said, adding, “Maybe you don’t think they’re going to be reinstated — you certainly see that in cases of officers .”
Often, she said, members informally contact the NCAA office to assess the likelihood of reinstatement. The NCAA has not confirmed whether that happened in this case.
Nacita then released two more statements on Twitter, and A casting doubt on whether his violation was as insignificant as it initially appeared. His benefactor, he said, was not a “close family friend,” but rather “just acquaintances.” He blamed himself for “not heeding Baylor’s advice about what benefits I can accept.” Nacita did not respond to a request for comment.
Nacita’s admitted contradiction raises the possibility that he did not tell Baylor the truth, which Heinrich said could have influenced Baylor’s decision not to seek reinstatement. “If they find out you lied during the execution process, you’ll usually start with a year of ineligibility,” she said.
Likewise, although finding that the university failed to properly inform the student about the violations could be considered a mitigating factor, Nacita suggested that Baylor’s compliance department had offered appropriate guidance.
Regardless, there is now a footballer sidelined by a member association and institution who say they want to encourage students to play sport as a complement to education.
“In my opinion, basic living expenses should be exempt from the rule,” said Silver, the former NCAA official. “It should be irrelevant to a student-athlete’s eligibility if a good Samaritan wants to put a roof over their head.”
He added: “Unfortunately, the current rule is not that simple, and when these issues arise, schools and NCAA staff must spend time and money looking into them.”
Coach Art Briles said journalists last week, he would love to find Nacita, if he received his eligibility.
But a week later, the NCAA said it still had not received a request for reinstatement from Nacita.
