Piling on? NCAA's punishment of UM

The punishment handed out by the NCAA to the University of Montana football team last week was far more severe than the actual infractions, setting a remarkably low bar for what’s considered inappropriate.

The collegiate oversight organization found that former Griz coach Robin Pflugrad failed to adequately monitor the football program by allowing “boosters” to provide “benefits” to players, including bail money and legal representation for two players who got into legal trouble in 2011.

It turned out that the mother of a Grizzly player bailed Gerald Kemp and Trumaine Johnson out of jail at a cost of $130 and $190. Kemp’s grandfather later reimbursed the mother for the total amount.

The NCAA also found that the two players each received $1,500 in free legal representation.

Pflugrad’s response is that he was responsible for keeping his coaches out of the matter, which he did, and he was not responsible for monitoring how the players got bail and how they were managing their respective defenses.

Makes sense to us.

If the mother of a player who provides a few hundred bucks to another play is a “booster,” then the NCAA has its work cut out if there is any intention of being consistent. Better start checking on players who get invited to eat over at a “booster’s” house, or accept any manner of generosity from the parents of a fellow player.

 With high-profile teams and players in college sports swimming in money (think of Nike and the Oregon Ducks), it seems the NCAA would have much bigger fish to fry.

But as former UM athletic director Jim O’Day points out, the NCAA had “to come away with something” after spending 18 months on the UM investigation.

The punishment? Three years of probation for the program, the loss  of four scholarships per year on the team during that same period, and a requirement to vacate five wins from 2011 that Johnson and Kemp participated in.

Probation is fine, but taking away scholarships is more likely to hurt individual students than the football program. What’s really being accomplished there?

And “vacating” wins that involved contributions from scores of people because of two players who got in trouble for disorderly conduct seems over-the-top. Once again, the NCAA may have established a hair-trigger threshold for what justifies vacating a program’s wins. The NCAA is bound to run into much worse problems elsewhere in the college football world. What will they demand then? Blood?

To be sure, some expected a harsher punishment for UM simply because the NCAA was involved, and it could have been worse. Barring the team from post-season play, for instance, would be ruinous, crippling the team’s ability to recruit and retain players.

But what’s done is done. It’s now time for the university to take its medicine and move on with an air-tight football program, and of course return the focus of the university community to the more important task of education.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.