College Football: NCAA Fighting Pointless War Against Boosters

Following reports of yet another NCAA investigation, you'd think that people would have gotten used to this by now. Miami, the U, is the most recent casualty of extreme allegations that players received "illegal benefits" in what seems like a witch-hunt to me. Former Hurricane booster and “convicted Ponzi scheme artist,” Nevin Shapiro, outs all of his 72 “cash and sex party” recipients, and suddenly another dark shadow has been cast over college athletics.

After snatching away USC's 2004 BCS title and Reggie Bush's Heisman trophy (he gave that one up on his own), I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA just starts permanently erasing player's names from the books. As if being provided a bankroll to go out and party will somehow tarnish college football's reputation.

Can someone please explain to me the harm in college athletes receiving benefits from boosters? I'm not talking about the bribery to play for certain schools, or the price tags parents may or may not put on their kid's head, although the landing spots of top players balance themselves out eventually.

The only difference between universities signing players to scholarships and boosters handing out stacks of money to players, is a signature: one is legal, one isn't. But why does it matter where the money is coming from? What code of ethics or morality is this business transaction violating that deems such harsh punishments?

I mean, seriously, “sex parties” and “night club outings?” That's what this is about? Some player got his girlfriend's abortion paid for by a Ponzi scheme mastermind, and that's going to magically show up in the box score? Please.

Every university is capable of producing such funds for the not-so-lucky players to be given a full ride, so where's the foul play? And even if some smaller schools didn't have the budget or boosters willing to serve thousands of dollars or keys to a Benz on golden platters, would a talented recruit even consider going there in the first place? As a last resort, maybe.

And has anyone considered that the NCAA is punishing players for something NFL free agents do every offseason? There are two things that decide where a free agent lands: winning a championship and getting a fat paycheck. What's the big deal if it's the same thing in college?

This ideal dream of a level playing field—in recruiting and on the gridiron—is never going to come to fruition. USC will always attract more talent than UCLA, and Miami will always be more appealing to top recruits than Ole Miss. It's just the way it is. And besides, lack of top talent recruits didn't stop Appalachian State from upsetting Michigan in 2007, did it? Nor did it stop any other upset in the history of college football from taking place. 

If some rich alum wants to bank-wire some of his paper to teenage athletes, who often come from oppressed childhoods, then good for them! If anything—and I'm not saying all these kids need or deserve thousands of dollars in handouts (but who doesn't deserve a sex party?)—shouldn't this be considered some type of charity?

The NCAA needs to give up this pointless battle. Players will end up at the same schools, winning the same trophies and championships, regardless of this stupid rule. And if all we're talking about is a couple of sex parties, free abortions, and new whips, where's the corruption (or harm) in that? Even if hundreds of thousands of dollars were changing hands, where in the box score does it say “new Rolex?”

If I'm Miami, or any school for that matter, and some booster wants to help the school out with recruits by giving out singles like they're free condoms for players to use at a strip joint, then by all means, do your thing.

Don't lean on calling college athletes amateurs and expect them to act like professionals.  If those are their expectations, then they should be compensated, otherwise, stop complaining.