Potuto — Volume 63, Issue 2

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reinstatement process for student-athletes involves complex procedural rules that create inconsistent outcomes and apparent arbitrariness in disciplinary decisions. High-profile cases exemplify the system's unpredictability: Johnny Manziel, Cam Newton, and other prominent athletes received diverse reinstatement outcomes for similar violations of NCAA bylaws regarding autograph sales and improper benefits. The reinstatement guidelines specify that prospective student-athletes can engage in certain promotional activities, but enforcement varies based on institutional risk-aversion and evidentiary standards. Inconsistencies arise partly because reinstatement decisions depend on proof standards rather than what media reports claim occurred. Different approaches to quantifying evidence needed for decisions complicate enforcement, particularly when decisions rely on reasonable inferences from incomplete information. NCAA bylaws prohibit advertisements and promotions after becoming a student-athlete, yet the rules also create preferential treatment possibilities. The article examines reinstatement cases and enforcement/infractions cases, finding that university disciplinary practices differ significantly. Potuto demonstrates how NCAA bylaws create confusion about what constitutes violations and shows that the same conduct can be treated differently depending on specific factual circumstances and institutional interpretation. The article concludes that hopeless irreconciability between reinstatement and enforcement cases reflects deeper systemic failures in NCAA rule clarity.

Topics: Administrative Law · Constitutional Law

Keywords: NCAA · student-athlete · reinstatement · bylaws · discipline · eligibility · enforcement