Browse all 17 chapters
Quick chapter answers
Proposed rulesAre all violations punished the same way?
No. Competitive cheating, roster-market violations and administrative errors use separate, proportionate sanctions. Evidence identifies the responsible people and institutions; investigation and adjudication have distinct roles.
What counts as competitive cheating?
Game manipulation, prohibited competition-related gambling, illicit scouting, knowing ineligible participation and systemic on-field misconduct belong in the strongest competitive-integrity category.
Who can be held responsible?
Players, coaches, staff, agents, collectives, boosters, leaders and institutions can face sanctions when evidence and defined supervisory duties establish responsibility. Individual accountability does not excuse systemic institutional misconduct.
How it works & full rules
Classify violations by the harm they cause, investigate through a dedicated integrity function, and direct sanctions toward the people and institutions the evidence actually implicates.
Why change is needed
A paperwork error, hidden recruiting contact, player-safety violation, and deliberate attempt to alter a contest should not share one vague enforcement category or one improvised penalty process.
Why this approach
Economic activity receives room to operate while conduct that threatens the contest receives faster, stronger treatment. Individual accountability cannot become an escape hatch for systemic institutional misconduct.
How it works
- Category I covers game manipulation, prohibited competition-related gambling, illicit scouting, knowing ineligible participation, and systemic on-field misconduct.
- Administrative, market, recruiting, and disclosure violations use separate proportionate penalty ranges published before a scandal.
- Responsibility can reach players, coaches, staff, agents, collectives, boosters, leaders, or institutions—but only through evidence and defined supervisory duties.
The tradeoff
Fast integrity cases can cause major harm if the evidence is weak. Investigation, adjudication, interim restrictions, and appeals therefore need separate roles and strict deadlines.
In practice
An undisclosed administrative error may produce correction and a proportionate fine. An organized operation that knowingly changes competitive conditions can justify staff bans, postseason sanctions, or a result remedy.
The complete rule set
What this part would establish
- A dedicated NCAA College Football Integrity Division investigates violations that threaten eligibility, fair competition, or the reliability of results.
- Category I covers deliberate game manipulation, prohibited gambling tied to one's competition, organized illicit scouting or signal acquisition, knowing use of ineligible players, falsification for on-field advantage, and systemic institutional integrity violations.
- Administrative, disclosure, recruiting, and market violations occupy separate categories with proportionate penalty ranges.
- Responsibility follows evidence to players, coaches, staff, agents, collectives, boosters, athletic directors, institutions, or combinations of them.
- Institutional sanctions apply when leadership participates, knowingly benefits, ignores warnings, acts with reckless disregard, or fails defined supervisory duties amid systemic misconduct.
- Repeat and concealment violations escalate; cooperation may mitigate but cannot erase the competitive harm.
Detailed mechanics
Protect the game
A paperwork error is not equivalent to a deliberate operation intended to obtain an illegal on-field advantage. Classification begins with the threatened interest: market transparency, individual eligibility, athlete safety, or the integrity of the actual contest.
Punish the responsible people
Current players are not automatically guilty and not automatically irrelevant. A player who knowingly participates can be disciplined; a player with no established involvement should not become a convenient substitute for punishing the responsible coach, administrator, intermediary, or institution.
Institutional responsibility still exists
Individualization cannot become an escape hatch for an athletic department that built, tolerated, concealed, or systematically benefited from misconduct. Revenue-linked fines, recruiting restrictions, staff bans, postseason sanctions, and vacation of directly compromised results remain available for serious institutional cases.
Penalty bands before the scandal
The manual publishes presumptive ranges for fines, suspensions, show-cause restrictions, recruiting limits, eligibility consequences, postseason sanctions, result remedies, and repeat violations. Departures require a written explanation rather than improvisation under public pressure.
Current proposal answers
Decisions already made.
These are policy calls—not claims that outside approval or validation already exists.Which integrity findings justify vacating a result rather than prospective sanctions?
Vacatur is reserved for proven use of an ineligible participant or deliberate misconduct materially connected to the contest or access to it. Administrative violations without demonstrated competitive effect receive prospective or financial sanctions instead.
What level of knowledge or supervisory failure creates athletic-director liability?
Direct knowledge, reckless disregard of credible warnings, knowing benefit, concealment, or failure of a specifically assigned supervisory control can create liability. Title alone cannot.
How should enforcement obtain evidence from third-party agents, collectives, and gambling platforms?
Registered agents and collectives accept defined record-retention, audit, preservation, and lawful-cooperation duties as a condition of participating in the system, with requests reviewable by the independent tribunal. Gambling-platform evidence comes through pre-negotiated integrity agreements or lawful compulsory process; the proposal does not invent subpoena power the regulator does not possess. Destruction after a valid preservation notice may support sanctions or an adverse inference against the duty holder.
Safeguards
What keeps the rule honest
- Investigation and adjudication remain separate functions.
- No sanction relies solely on public outrage, anonymous accusation, or institutional reputation.
- Revenue-linked fines prevent the same nominal penalty from meaning radically different things to different programs.
- Institutional competitive sanctions require a heightened finding of systemic or contest-related harm.
Evidence still required
No policy answer deferred here
The proposal makes the policy calls in this chapter. Legal, financial, operational, and stakeholder validation still runs through the seven launch gates on the Evidence page.
Discuss this chapter
Community
Discuss this chapter.
Ask a question or suggest a change. Threads also appear in Community; sign in to post.