College Football 2011: Welcome to the Big Time, Boise State

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to formally announce that the Boise State football program has finally "made it."

Sure, two BCS wins for a team out of the Western Athletic Conference was at least somewhat indicative of the Broncos belonging with the big boys, but today's big news confirms that Boise State is no longer small potatoes in the world of college athletics.

The Facts

The NCAA today charged the Boise State athletic department with a lack of institutional control after investigations by the university and the NCAA revealed a major violation in the women's tennis program and secondary infractions incurred by four other sports, including (of course) the football program.

The investigations began in 2009 and covered infractions stemming back as early as 2005. The extent totaled $4,934 worth of benefits—in the form of impermissible housing, food and transportation—distributed among 63 incoming student-athletes over a five-year period.

The university has since reshuffled its compliance department by hiring a new compliance officer, and all issues relating to rules infractions are to be reported directly to University President Bob Kustra, rather than Gene Bleymeier, athletic director.

The football program was accused of only minor violations, from allowing incoming athletes to spend the night on a couch to extending free rides or food for athletes already in the program.

Something Lacking

So why exactly is the school being charged with a lack of institutional control if all the football program did was let some guys sleep on couches or give others a bit of free food?

Why is it Boise State is currently facing the same allegation thrown at USC last year?

Shortly after agreeing to penalties for the minor offenses caused by the university's football, tennis and track and field programs, Boise State self-reported a much more serious violation involving the women's tennis team, in which an incoming student-athlete was allowed to compete before she was officially enrolled.

Following that report, the NCAA—in its infinite wisdom—decided to group together all of Boise State's previously-reported violations with the new major infraction and spin out of that the dreaded "lack of institutional control" label.

Reggie Bush all over Again?

Not exactly the same degree of violation that earned the Trojans' football program a two-year postseason ban, the vacation of a National Championship, the loss of 30 scholarships and four years of probation, but ultimately the same stinging designation nonetheless.

Even though the violations totaled a whopping $4,934 to help incoming players participate in summer workouts—a sum and an offense that pales in comparison to the value of services granted to USC's Reggie Bush by marketing agents—Boise State itself granted those services.

One could certainly argue that accusing Boise State of the same general transgression that plagued USC is unfair to a small school that lacks the same resources other schools with big-time programs draw on so readily, and perhaps the NCAA is targeting the type of institution its rules are intended to protect.

BCS Busted

It's difficult to predict actual penalties (if any) for the football program from this situation, as the NCAA Infractions Committee won't even hear the case until June 10 and will likely require some time thereafter to deliberate on punishments.

In the end, this whole fiasco could amount to nothing more than a momentary blip on the ever-expanding radar screen of Boise State football.

What's most troubling about this whole situation is not that rules were broken, but rather the nature of the rules themselves, as has so often been the case with NCAA investigations in recent years.

Don't get me wrong, there are likely plenty of legitimate rule-breakers out there. Jim Tressel of Ohio State is the most recent example who skirted rules and regulations, though perhaps not quite as flippantly or egregiously as, say, the Southern Methodist football program back in the days of the "Pony Express."

NCAA Up To Its Old Tricks

Should a football program face any sort of penalties—much less, major ones—for a snooze on some living room furniture or a quick bite to eat, most of which are given to student-athletes who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and don't have the time to work to support themselves?

That was a loaded question, but that's been the problem with the NCAA all along.

Essentially, the rules of the institution work against the student-athletes by forcing those from poor families to scrape on a small stipend while devoting the lion's share of their time to football activities, thereby jeopardizing the quality and extent of the education they are supposed to be in school for in the first place.

All of this while the universities and their presidents profit handsomely off the hard work of these student-athletes who, again, can't even go out for a bite to eat or find a place to crash without being scrutinized left and right.

Thus, the story of Boise State and the NCAA is the same old story we've seen played out over and over again at big-time athletics programs across the country. Except here, there's no hubris, outright denial of wrong-doing or thinking the rules don't apply, as was arguably the case at USC and may also be the case at Ohio State.

Unlike at other schools, where investigations were slow to materialize and violations were only occasionally self-reported, the folks at Boise State, "acted swiftly and without hesitation...as soon as we became aware that these inadvertent infractions were not in accordance with NCAA rules," according to football coach Chris Petersen.

Bright Lights, Big Citations

Of course these points may all be proven moot once the NCAA finishes its deliberations and concludes that the football team repaying their infractions to local charities was enough to get the Broncos back on solid footing.

Either way, this case will at the very least serve as a sign of the times and that for Boise State,—as with any other major program—with great exposure comes even greater scrutiny.

Even if that scrutiny is patently bogus.