The Big Ten sent a letter to the NCAA this week asking the organization to stop “investigations and infraction proceedings” related to the tampering, according to a copy of the letter obtained by ESPN.
The letter states that the “current framework” for tampering rules “cannot be credibly or equitably applied,” noting that the rules for tampering were designed before a modern era that includes payments to athletes and essentially unlimited transfers.
“These rules were not designed for a world in which student-athletes are compensated market participants making annual decisions with significant economic consequences,” the letter reads. “The collision between the old rules and the new reality is producing results that harm the population the rules were designed to protect.”
The letter comes in the wake of a spate of recent headlines about manipulation. That included the NCAA seeking to impose significant sanctions against tampering violators. The case of linebacker Luke Ferrelli, who transferred to Ole Miss after enrolling at Clemson, also brought the issue to the forefront.
The prevalence of manipulation in today's landscape is so great that numerous officials told ESPN's Max Olson that it is essentially a competitive disadvantage not to manipulate.
“If you don't do that, you're way behind in the game,” one SEC general manager told Olson.
The Big Ten letter explains why the current rules are outdated for modern space, suggests a pause that “does not create a window of impunity,” and presents a vision for building “a framework appropriate to the world as it actually exists.”
The Big Ten letter says: “We are committed to engaging in an expeditious process to develop a modern framework for contact rules that addresses the diverse challenges and opportunities of today's university landscape.”
The letter shows portal numbers from this year (the first football season with a single portal period) that have not appeared publicly. That includes 1,000 football players who entered the portal on Jan. 2 and visited campus the same weekend. More than 300 had signed with a new school by the end of the weekend. Some signed as soon as 90 minutes after the portal opened, and others had a “no contact” designation that essentially could not exist without some type of investigation to determine a new destination.
“These timelines reflect the reality of player movement and raise serious questions about whether the current regulatory structure can realistically adapt to the pace at which the modern transfer market operates,” the letter says.
The letter says the current framework “combines” genuine predatory recruiting — in which a school targets a player under contract — with a much more common scenario in which a student-athlete already exploring options engages in conversations as part of a rational, market-driven evaluation.
“The world is materially different than in 2018, when Division I members adopted the existing contact rules and sanctions structure,” the letter reads. “The agreement between the House and the NCAA transformed college athletics into an environment in which student-athletes are compensated directly by institutions.”
The letter also notes that only 15 Level II or higher tampering cases have been fully adjudicated by the NCAA in five years, including just three involving FBS football, one involving men's basketball and none involving women's basketball.
The NCAA says its enforcement team processed about 90 cases of impermissible contact last year, including major violations by the Oklahoma State women's tennis program and the UCLA track and field and cross country programs.
The Big Ten argues that the dearth of tampering cases at a time when thousands of athletes transfer each year demonstrates that “consistent and equitable enforcement can no longer be achieved” under current NCAA rules.
The letter also mentions the legal scrutiny that has arisen.
“Continued application of the current rules risks being struck down entirely by the courts,” the letter says.
The letter argues that the NCAA must change: “The college sports system is under tremendous stress, both internally and externally. Systems adapt or break.”
It states that the Big Ten would want an enforcement approach that was “timely and meaningful, but could be fairly imposed with sanctions commensurate with the circumstances.”
The letter concludes by saying: “The Big Ten is committed to rapidly engaging in a deliberative process involving athletics administrators, compliance professionals, coaches, legal counsel and other stakeholders from across the membership and will work to produce a comprehensive proposal. We believe this collaborative, membership-driven approach is the best path to a lasting solution and we need the NCAA's support in this effort.”
