A tennis player at Princeton who allegedly accepted $33,000 from a booster has earned the university the dubious honor of being the first Ivy League college in 36 years to run afoul of NCAA rules in a major infractions case.
The NCAA said the booster, who is an alumnus of Princeton’s men’s tennis program, provided the sum to a player on the women’s tennis team during the 2007-8 academic year and the fall of 2008 to help pay for her educational expenses. (Princeton, like all Ivy League institutions, does not offer athletic scholarships.) The booster and the athlete met during the summer before her freshman year of high school at a tennis club near their homes.
As punishment, the NCAA instructed the university to vacate the athlete’s individual records during the 2007-8 year and the fall of 2008.
The NCAA’s report stated that Princeton, in its written response to the allegations, “attempted to minimize the significance” of the $33,000 donation.
The university’s argument went like this: The dollar amount of the booster’s assistance “was entirely a function of the cost of the Princeton education,” minus the athlete’s financial-aid award from the university. In other words, if it cost less to attend Princeton, the booster would have paid less. (For a lengthier explanation of this interesting theory, go to Page 3 of the NCAA’s public report.)
Today the university issued a lengthy statement saying it had “mixed reactions” to the NCAA’s findings and giving a detailed account of the background of the case. The university does not plan to appeal the decision.
It’s extremely rare for an Ivy League institution to get caught up in a flap over NCAA rules violations. Only three other Ivy programs have been sanctioned by the NCAA since 1953, when the association started keeping such records. The most recent was in 1974, when the NCAA placed Cornell on probation for recruiting violations in its men’s ice-hockey program. A few months later, “unethical conduct” by coaching staff members on the men’s basketball team, among other missteps, triggered an additional year of probation.
Yale has the distinct honor of being the first Ivy to run afoul of NCAA rules. Those sanctions came in 1970, when the Bulldogs allowed a basketball player to participate in “unauthorized, outside, organized basketball competition during the summer of 1969,” according to the public report. The NCAA placed Yale on probation for two years and banned the Bulldogs from postseason competition and television appearances.
15 Responses to For First Time in 36 Years, NCAA Punishes an Ivy
rmelton5 - September 8, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Can one be “an alumnus of Princeton’s men’s tennis program”? Do tennis programs, or other athletic programs, award degrees, especially if they offer no scholarships? Just curious.
dxulibs - September 8, 2010 at 4:24 pm
1
caimoran - September 8, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Princeton advertises that it “meets full financial need.” If this kid’s package was short $33,000, that means the parents had the money but were unwilling to spend it on their kid. Makes me sick.
11272784 - September 8, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Clearly, the alert NCAA needs to respond to this ominous threat by creating at least 396 new and increasingly obscure rules that no one can really understand or follow. It won’t make any difference to the already unmanageable morass of rules the NCAA has put in place.
bpruden - September 8, 2010 at 5:00 pm
The sanctions on Yale in 1970 stemmed from the NCAA’s refusal to allow Yale player Jack Langer to play in the Maccabiah Games, a competition the NCAA had refused to authorize in no small part because of its then ongoing battle with the AAU. It was a far cry, but a more legitimate endeavor than the current summer showcases which the NCAA blithely OKs. When will the hypocrisy end?
bhassmill - September 8, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Well, everyone KNOWS the win at any price world of women’s tennis at Princeton AND in the Ivy’s. Is it true that an academic administrator at Princeton called the $33,000 “chump change”? Living in Princeton Junction (the poor neighbor), with many friends at the university, this may be more fun than I can imagine. ;-)
iammoney - September 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm
I am personally and professionally really getting tired of the NCAA. They sit in their Ivory towers, similar to the old AAU, and cast misjudgements on people. I say let’s investigate the NCAA. Where is Coach Tark when you need him. He was the only one with the balls to fight those elitist ivory tower administrators. Now if the kid didn’t need the money, that is another issues between Prinction and the family to address.
cwinton - September 8, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Considering all of the crass misbehavior associated with the BCS and the 64 and climbing teams making money for the NCAA in the basketball championship, one has to wonder why are they bothering with this case. Perhaps they are hoping that taking an Ivy League school to task will provide some kind of cover for all of the mischief at the football and basketball factories they’ve been ignoring.
11159995 - September 8, 2010 at 7:38 pm
This case illustrates how easy it is to get in trouble with the NCAA while having no intention of doing anything wrong. I know I have to re-read the NCAA rules from time to time in my capacity as an alumni schools committee member interviewing candidates for admission to Princeton and as someone who feeds the swimming coaches information about Texas athletes. And it can get complicated: e.g., I belonged to a local summer swim team that included high school athletes and their parents, and I have to remember just whom I can speak to and whom not, and about what. My private swim coach is also the coach of a state champion high school girls team in this area, and I have to be careful about what I discuss with her, too. — Sandy Thatcher
ainman - September 8, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Be sure to read the NCAA’s report, and pay particular attention to the parents’ statement. Their entire argument is based on a bet they made with themselves that their daughter would be good enough to obtain full financial aid from a university in the form of an athletic scholarship. Bad move.The parents conspicuously make no mention of the academic opportunity afforded their daughter by her attending Princeton.So at a base level, this is simply another story of parents with out-of-whack priorities. Tennis parents have long been considered a special breed within our sporting culture, and this does nothing to change that perception.
brian83 - September 8, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Regarding NCAA and hypocrisy, see the following recent article regarding the ongoing Reggie Bush (USC) controversy: http://bit.ly/bkt9H5http://www.comcast.net/articles/sports-general/20100907/Russakoff-NCAA-Hypocritical/
cmsmw - September 9, 2010 at 6:34 am
Re comment 1: The term ‘alumnus’ means only that one has been affiliated with a particular organization in the past. It has no implication of a degree having been granted.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alumnus
cmsmw - September 9, 2010 at 6:43 am
… Or, rather, that a degree has *necessarily* been granted. That’s more accurate.
22228715 - September 9, 2010 at 7:13 am
Ah, but the article would lead one to believe that the Ivy League has a very tame record overall, and that history only reaches back to the 1950s just because that’s how long a certain set of records go back. The very existence of the NCAA and the need for an organization that polices athletics abuses can be traced largely to the Ivy League over 100 years ago. How ironic to now be chuckled at for genteel financial transgressions, when the old flying wedge started it all. For more info, google “NCAA history” or for fun watch the classic Marx Brothers “Horse Feathers” (1933) – which, admittedly, takes place at a fictional college, not an Ivy League university.
tral3580 - September 9, 2010 at 9:56 am
Often lost in all of the bashing of the NCAA and its massive rule book and hypocrisy is the fact that the NCAA is, in reality, the member instiutions. It is by vote of the members that rules are established and all sanctions are handed down by committees made up of administrators, athletic and non-athletic, and faculty of NCAA universities. There is no “ivory tower” unless it is on a university campus. The NCAA staff is charrged with assisting committees and has no pwer to enforce and/or make rules.