Crime and College Football Players: You Always Get a Second Chance to Make a First Down

Rick Maese of the Orlando Sentinel has an intriguing piece on how Division I college football players who commit serious crimes are often afforded "second chances" that members of the general student population do not enjoy. (Maese,"Justice for All?," Orlando Sentinel, 7/31/2005). In doing so, Maese details the frequency at which top college football programs feature ex-cons, including those who have been convicted of violent crimes like involuntary manslaughter, felony assault, and armed robbery. He then compares college football players who commit felonies and are not expelled with non-athlete students at the same schools who commit misdemeanors but are expelled. This pattern of inconsistent treatment is not surprising, notes Maese, since athletes are granted "special leniency" during the college admissions process, and that "special leniency" remains with them so long as they are premiere athletes.

Duke law professor Paul Haagen is interviewed for this article, and he astutely notes, "we're talking about people who are not that far removed from very, very serious crimes. It raises a number of questions. For one, has there really been any change?"

Louisville Coach Bobby Petrino, who has repeatedly extended scholarships to ex-cons, takes an entirely different view. He interprets the "special leniency" described by Maese as an opportunity to "help young men grow up . . . you see him leave with a degree and as a man, that's what is rewarding about being a coach." Perhaps bolstering Petrino's view is the prevalence of "at-risk" college programs, which are specifically designed to accelerate the maturation process of college athletes (and other students) prone to committing crimes.

So why do ex-con football players receive 1) free tuition and 2) reusable "get out of jail free" cards when their classmates do not? The answer, as we all know, is obvious: the brilliant pre-med students, the brainy pre-engineering students, and the talented political science students do not generate money and national publicity for their schools, while their sometimes-criminal peers on the football team do. It's that not-so-wonderful "market effect" that affords college football players a different set of rules, and the opportunity to ignore the law over-and-over again without repercussion.

Maese's findings are even more interesting when we consider the extent to which ex-cons on the football team might pollute their otherwise law-abiding teammates. Given this environment of "special leniency," and thus a lack of behavioral deterrence, it stands to reason that an 18-year old freshman on the football team might be more prone engage in criminal activity when he sees the "veteran" 20- and 21-year olds on the team doing so and not suffering any material consequence. This is the negative "big brother" effect in action.

Maese's article is a useful counterpart to my recent study on NBA player arrests and age/education. After studying NBA player arrests, I found that 1) college education does not appear to diminish the probability of an NBA player getting in trouble with the law; and 2) NBA players appear more likely to get in trouble with the law towards the middle and end of their careers than at the start.

The romanticized myth of college sports enhancing maturity and law-abidingness continues to crumble before our eyes.

Posted in: