armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan

About the Author

AmphibiousSportsDuo

More By AmphibiousSportsDuo

NFL Week 4: The Numbers
4 votes, 0 comments
Man with Ascot causes BCS shakeup
11 votes, 12 comments
Who are these Carolina Panthers?
10 votes, 5 comments
View All

Other recent contributors

Make this page better by editing it.

Other recent voters

If you like the article, vote for it.
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

The NCAA isn't Playing Fair

by AmphibiousSportsDuo
created August 25, 2008, last edited February 10, 2009
9
Vote

This post is light on humor, and long. For me, that's not a good combo, but I hope it is enlightening.

In the past month the NCAA has denied a sixth year of eligibility to both University of Cincinnati quarterback Ben Mauk and Pitt University forward Michael Cook. The rulings, however, are not the problem. The problem is the systematic hypocrisy of the NCAA in these cases. Ben Mauk is hardly a sympathetic figure. He took advantage of a loophole to flee Wake Forest and start playing with Cincinnati without having to sit out a year. Now, he's fighting to take back the quarterback job from Dustin Garza, again. Garza is Aaron Rodgers to Mauk's Favre. Mike Cook suffered a knee injury just minutes before LeVance Fields]] hit a late three pointer in overtime to beat Duke in Madison Square Garden. Both players could be tremendous assets for their teams, but as it stands, both of their collegiate careers are over. The sixth year of eligibility has been a lifeline for many student-athletes, but with each approval or denial the contradictions mount up.

NCAA rules state that athletes have four years of eligibility and five years to use them. In the event of an injury, bylaw 14.2.4. serves as the baseline for requests of a sixth year of eligibility. A 2006 change to the rule now allows athletes to participate in up to thirty percent (up from 20) of their team's season and still be eligible for the hardship waiver. The Horizon League proposed the change and offered the following argument, "The general philosophy of seasons of competition is that a student-athlete should receive four complete seasons to compete in his or her sport." If only it were so simple.

In 2006, Eric Butler, a Kansas University defensive lineman was denied his sixth year of eligibility. In 2001, Butler was set to play football at Northwest Missouri State, but his then-girlfriend (now wife) got pregnant. Rules prevented them from keeping a baby in the dorms, so they returned home. Butler enrolled at a DeVry Institute, and in the eyes of the NCAA, started his five year clock (despite DeVry not having athletics). He then took a year off to take care of his new-born daughter. In 2003, he began attending Avila University, where he finally began playing college football. The following year he transfered to Kansas, where he was a walk-on. After only two years of playing, his five-year clock was up. His initial request for a sixth year was not granted, so he tried something radical. He claimed the pregnancy exception hardship. NCAA bylaw 14.2.1.3. states, "A member institution may approve a one-year extension of the five-year period of eligibility for a female student-athlete for reasons of pregnancy." Butler's appeal, claim of a Title IX violation, and attempt at a temporary restraining all failed. His playing days at Kansas were over.

Fast forward to two weeks ago and Pat Liebig, a West Virginia University defensive lineman was granted his request for a sixth year of eligibility. In 2004, he was a medical redshirt and in 2007, he withdrew from school. His father was ill and needed help running the family business. Liebig was praised for placing his family first and will be suiting up the Mountaineers this fall. It's hard not to interpret this as a moral judgment being passed by the NCAA. Being a good son is more noble than being a good father, particularly an unwed one.

Mike Cook was unfortunate, not only to have a knee injury, but also the timing of it. The Duke game was the team's eleventh of the season, and meant he was just past the thirty percent threshold for the hardship (34% to be exact). Thanks to a tremendous run in the Big East tournament, Pitt actually played 37 games, but the NCAA uses only scheduled games as the determining number, therefore the total was 32 (31 regular season games and 1 guaranteed post-season game). Cook has previously sat out the 2005-2006 season when he transferred from East Carolina. With three complete seasons and more than 30% of the way through the fourth, Cook's appeal was an open and shut case. The NCAA accepts Cook's redshirt because he transferred, but they are unwilling to accept Ben Mauk's redshirt, because he wasn't transferring and he wasn't hurt. When Mauk enrolled at Wake Forest it was understood he would redshirt. It's what Wake does. 42 of 44 players in their current two-deep depth chart have redshirted. The NCAA policy states, "[If] you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition." That would make Mauk, who suffered a season-ending arm injury in the 3rd quarter of the first game of the '06 season a perfect candidate for the hardship waiver. The NCAA, however, is demanding proof that he sat out his freshman year due to injury. As a result Mauk is having to invent an injury and blame Wake Forest for poor record keeping, when all parties involved know he wasn't really injured. It's not fair to Mauk and it's not fair to Wake. The NCAA is not justified in punishing voluntary redshirts. Again, the policy is not across the board.

Washington State defensive end Matt Mullennix was recently granted his sixth year of eligibility. Like Mauk, he missed the 2006 season. His waiver was in part based on also getting injured in the 04 season. After four games, he was hurt in practice and out for the rest of the year. That season, Washington State went 5-6, meaning that Mullennix had played in 36% of the games, and therefore this season should not be a reason for an extra year of eligibility. Both Mauk and Mullennix missed one season, both started out as redshirts and Mauk is the odd man out, while Mullennix is a team leader for the Cougars. Mauk's use of a now rescinded rule to avoid sitting out while transferring seems to be the lone difference.

The NCAA has in recent years shown a shift from requiring two seasons lost to injury for a hardship waiver, to one redshirt season and one for medical reasons. Still, the rules remain ambiguous and arbitrarily enforced. The perfect example of their hypocrisy came in the courtroom proceedings of the dedicated father, Eric Butler. A lawyer for the NCAA claimed Butler's participation would harm the goal of ensuring a level playing against the other NCAA schools which do not field such athletes. The following year, Eric Butler was playing football again. This time for Washburn University, a NCAA Division II school.


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
IbeargRed-Shirting
461 days ago
Score 0+-
when has fairness ever been something the ncaa really paid attention to?
Permalink | Reply
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
460 days ago
Score 0+-
Honestly, I hate the damn title, but felt obligated to somehow ID this piece.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
461 days ago
Score 1+-
Let's see if I get this right;

Ben Mauck screwed the NCAA out of a year, now he wants another one?

""A member institution may approve a one-year extension of the five-year period of eligibility for a female student-athlete for reasons of pregnancy."

Eric Butler's a dude, right?

"Being a good son is more noble than being a good father, particularly an unwed one."

Well, when you consider the potential loss of a business which supports an entire family, then, yes, it is more noble. Mr. Butler's problem wasn't as much an inability to keep his boxers on as the decision to enroll at DeVry. If he had not enrolled, the clock wouldn't have started. He could work for five years til the kid went to school and walked on somewhere as a 30 year old.

I left school after my sophmore year for a job, and its a decision I regret still. I ended up going back nine years later and finishing up, but I always wonder what if. The end result was the decision I made was mine, and whether it right or wrong, it's one I have to live with, just like these guys. They made them based on what they thought was right at the time, and understanding of the consequences.
Permalink | Reply
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
460 days ago
Score 0+-
I said Mauk isn't sympathetic, but he played within the rules. He used the ability for a grad student to transfer, and play immediately, for a program Wake Forest doesn't offer. Their ruling seems rooted in the fact that someone got one over on them.

I was trying to keep the article from running too long, but the pregnancy issue is a whole can of worms. "Reasons of pregnancy" can be interpreted in many ways. If women use it as maternity leave, it would not be a stretch to say he should be able to use it for paternity leave.

A father's success as an entrepreneur has any bearing on someone's nobility when deciding to put family first. If you want to go the curmudgeon's favorite, "Keep your darn pants on" then I counter by asking why there's a pregnancy exception for women? Yes, the guy could have jumped through hoops to keep himself eligible, but he did the right thing, and the NCAA didn't.

Again, the rulings themselves are not a problem, but the contradictions are. The NCAA runs around largely unchecked and time and again the people caught up in the Billion dollar meatgrinder are the young athletes.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
460 days ago
Score 0+-
The issue with Butler isn't whether or not he's doing the right thing by his family, he was denied because he enrolled at another school. The "four years in five" rule governs any school, with or without an athletic program. If he wants to use his kid as the excuse for leaving school as a sympathy point, that's on him. The NCAA decision is the right one.
Permalink | Reply
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
460 days ago
Score 1+-
Yet Pat Liebig's appeal was granted on the same grounds. Two different decisions, two similar situations. That's the problem. If Butler was a woman, he's have the extra year. If Butler's parents needed assistance, he'd have the extra year, but because he was an unwed father, he's not nearly as sympathetic. The NCAA passed moral judgment on a young man, and that's bogus.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
460 days ago
Score 0+-
Did Liebig enroll at another school? Your article doesn't mention whether he did or not, and if he did and got the waiver, then the NCAA dropped the ball on both cases.
Permalink | Reply
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
460 days ago
Score 0+-
He returned to WVU.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
460 days ago
Score 0+-
Between the time he withdrew in 2007 and his re-entering school, did he attend any classes at any school? If the answer is no, then the NCAA's decision was the correct one.
Permalink | Reply
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
460 days ago
Score 0+-
He did not attend class, neither of them did. I'm still not seeing the logic.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
460 days ago
Score 0+-
So, Butler enrolled at DeVry and never attended a class? If he didn't, then yes, the NCAA screwed up. No doubt.
Permalink | Reply
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
460 days ago
Score 0+-
Are you just stringing me along? He did attend DeVry, but when both took a year off for family issues, neither attended classes. For Butler it was 02-03, 07-08 for Liebig.
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
460 days ago
Score 0+-
Seems pretty clear to me.
Permalink | Reply
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
460 days ago
Score 0+-
Neither of Butler's transfers carried with them a penalty of having to sit out a year. His clock started two years early because he attended DeVry. He only participated in three years of football, the same as Liebig, and both of their original hardship claims revolved around missing a year to take care of the family. I see no other differences.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
460 days ago
Score 0+-
So, let's see if I have the chronology correct.

1) In 2001, Butler attends NWMS as a freshman football player, I assume from your article he didn't attend a class as his enrollment at DeVry started his clock.

2) At some point during that season, Butler's girlfriend/wife gets pregnant, he withdraws from NWMS to take care of his child, and he subsequently enrolls at DeVry University, a non-athletic school.

3) After taking a year/year and a half off, and during this time attending school, he enrolls at Avila University, and resumes his football career.

4) In 2004, he transfers to Kansas, and makes the team as a walk-on.

5) In 2005, plays for Kansas, presumably on at least a partial scholarship.

6) In 2006, he is deemed ineligible to play at Kansas because his five year window has closed in which he must complete his athletic eligibility.

So far, so good?

So, we have here 2001 (NWMS/DeVry), 2002 (DeVry), 2003 (Avila U), 2004 (Kansas), 2005 (Kansas).

Five years, with one remaining year of eligibility. If he hadn't attended DeVry, then he would have four years and two years of eligibility, which he could have completed in his final two years.

Butler is being declined by the NCAA because of his enrollment at DeVry, not because of his childcare issues. By "wasting" a year at a non-athletic competing school, he is solely responsible for the loss of his extra year.
Permalink | Reply
AmphibiousSportsDuoVarsity
460 days ago
Score 0+-
And still both players lost an entire year of school and football to take care of the family. Liebig's clock expired as well, but he was granted the additional year. It's ludicrous for a young man to lose his scholarship, when other people are being granted them for similar circumstances.
Permalink
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free
Categories: Opinions | Opinions by User AmphibiousSportsDuo | August 25, 2008 | August 2008 | NCAA Opinions | College football Opinions | College basketball Opinions

Don't Miss

Phillies World Series 2009: A Year Later, and They Still Don't Want Us
Sorry, But I'm Not Sorry
2009 NHL Preview
In Which Ricketts Wins World Series
2009 Week 3: Let’s Talk About Your Favorite NFL Team

In the News

Hey ArmchairGM users! Want to help the admins update this news section? Click here to help us out.

Comments of the Day

0 Only because the voters are facking stupid. "Numbers" are...

Play the Quiz Game

Which of colelge football teams did George Steinbrenner not serve as an assitant coach for?

New Articles

How Can Fred McGriff Not Be Elected to the Hall of Fame?
Best African-American Quarterback Ever?
Ken Caminiti: National League's 1996 MVP
Winter Olympics 2010
Highlights from Dubai 7's

Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:The_NCAA_isn%27t_Playing_Fair"

This page was last modified 15:44, 25 August 2008. Content is available under the GFDL.

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise