Columnist Dean Juipe: Judge errs in deleting NCAA rules

Dean Juipe

Friday, March 12, 1999 | 10:45 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or 259-4084.

There's an old protest song by Graham Nash, of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young fame, entitled "Chicago," in which the phrase "Rules and regulations, who needs them?" is part of the refrain.

Indicative of the early 1970s peace-and-love era, the line suggests the world would be a better place if fewer and fewer restrictions were placed upon its people.

Nash, a wonderful singer and songwriter, wasn't advocating pandemonium yet a literal interpretation of his plea would seem as much. He was, at least, calling for subtle revolt.

Like the rest of us, however, Nash has aged -- perhaps more graciously than most -- since his rebellious days. In all probability, he sees the world a little differently than he once did.

Rules and regulations have their place. And this week the NCAA is laboring to get its foundation of rules and regulations back into place after a federal judge in Philadelphia decimated the organization's eligibility standards for student-athletes.

Calling them culturally biased, Judge Ronald Buckwalter set aside the NCAA's Proposition 16 bylaws that utilize ACT and SAT exam scores to determine eligibility. Acting on the NCAA's request, he will hear arguments Monday concerning a stay on his earlier order.

Should he reject the motion for a stay, Buckwalter will have opened the door for a chaos few within college sports will welcome. In essence, his determination that Prop 16 is racially biased will result in each college or university being told it can set its own eligibility standards for its athletes.

With the rule book cast aside, college sports will take on a decidedly different look. At its extreme, the athletes representing a university may not even be required to attend the school.

It won't lead to the demise of collegiate sports, but it will eliminate the warm-and-fuzzy notion that student-athletes are involved in twin, honorable pursuits. The academia portion of the equation will have been sacrificed.

The NCAA's moguls reacted in horror when Buckwalter made his initial ruling. And, for once, the pompous bigwigs in Kansas had a right to bow their backs and promise to fight the judge's narrow-minded decision.

While he could have struck down a specific criteria of Prop 16 and sent it back to the NCAA for a rewrite, the judge bulldozed the entire standard. Quite simply, he overreacted.

If his inappropriate decision stands, the face of collegiate sports could be in for wholesale change. There's no doubt "outlaw" schools will emerge, where athletes will be welcome even if they can't read.

Varying standards for eligibility exist today, as proven locally by UNLV rejecting a prominent basketball recruit -- 6-10 forward Lamar Odom -- two years ago, only to see him enroll (and go on to star) at Rhode Island. Yet those discrepancies are slight and within NCAA guidelines.

Those guidelines have been modified once or twice since debuting in 1986, but now they run the risk of being deleted.

The judge, however, made a correctable mistake. While perhaps he didn't err in stating that ACT and SAT exams are culturally biased, his legal response was far too drastic.

But he has the weekend to think things over, and, strange as it is for someone who still reverently listens to his old Graham Nash albums, there's plenty to be said for the once-hated establishment being right on this one.