Nocera On NCAA's Boatright Decision

Longtime watchers of the N.C.A.A. tell me that they have never seen an athlete and his mother thrown under the bus the way Ryan and Tanesha Boatright were on Saturday. One rarely gets so clear a glimpse of moral bankruptcy. (I’ve annotated the press release on my blog at

His annotated press release is completely unfair to both parties, but mainly to the NCAA. But fairness isn’t his objective. His objective is to bash the NCAA no matter what they do or say. The fact that most players in this situation get far tougher treatment didn’t occur to him, because frankly, he doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about.

Of course, these "long time NCAA watchers are unquoted, unnamed, unknown, and probably un-existent except among his friends.

In fact, [Reggie Rose] did it because he and Tanesha have a longstanding friendship. He became a mentor to Ryan, something teenagers of single moms desperately need. Indeed, he took Ryan to California because Ryan’s household was under an unusual amount of stress at the time. How is this wrong? Indeed, what exactly is the N.C.A.A. violation here? The N.C.A.A. never says.

Rose has direct connections to the NBA via his brother and others, and has run afoul of the NCAA before. There was probably more to the situation at Memphis than the free plane ride he got that the NCAA wasn’t able to prove, but Rose has been on the NCAA’s radar since then. This is well known by everybody who pays attention to college basketball. This fact is made worse, if anything, but the relationship he and Boatright’s mother have in the eyes of the NCAA.

Empathy is one thing, but if Nocera thinks it’s only the NCAA bureaucracy who cares and not the membership, which he flatly stated in his column, he knows far to little about the organization to offer commentary. His story seems to be, “Oh, they really didn’t mean for the rules to apply like that!” Really, Joe? Why don’t they change them, then? All it takes is a vote and the stroke of a pen key.

Jimmy Dykes last night questioned the NCAA’s light treatment of Boatright during the Vanderbilt game when he talked about Festus Ezeli being forced to sit six games after taking $450 in impermissible benefits over the summer from a Vanderbilt alumnus. Boatright was suspended six games and took $8,000 in benefits. Why the difference?

This is the kind of think that drives genuine NCAA watchers crazy. The penalty for that range of benefit ($301-500) is 20% of games played, or six games. Boatright’s mother was alleged to have received over $8,000, which should have resulted in a suspension of nine games (>$1001)

The answer is, we don’t know. The initial determination was made for $4,500 in benefits, for which the NCAA determined he should sit six games (despite the fact their penalty schedule says nine). It’s interesting, but not really probative, that he wound up sitting nine games anyway – six early, and three while they investigated additional information.

There are probably mitigating factors in their decision, and we don’t and never will know what they are. Boatright’s mother clearly tried to cover up the benefits by not being forthcoming with the NCAA inquiry, but its pretty clear that Ryan did not participate in that effort. But that doesn’t explain how and why the decision went down the way it did.

What is clear is that Nocera isn’t interested in anything but attacking the NCAA. The truth is irrelevant to him, which has been my problem with his commentary on this matter all along. What this amounts to is bloviation — almost all sound and fury, and no substance. Boatright’s mother violated NCAA bylaws, and probably knew it was a problem when she did it. Rose, the guy giving her the benefits, certainly should have as an AAU coach and having been caught up in the Memphis matter.

But Nocera asks us to ignore that, and focus only on the unfairness of it all. Some will. I won’t.

I feel like I remember that name…

Was he one of the kids who committed somewhere in 8th grade long, long ago? I want to say Illinois?