The NCAA's Handling of Louisville's Sex Scandal Proves its Sanctions Hypocrisy

The National Collegiate Athletic Association announced its official charges against current and former members of the University of Louisville's men's basketball program on Thursday, in the aftermath of the Cardinals basically running a strip club-brothel hybrid in an attempt to attract high school recruits.

Let's be clear: doing so is pretty bad! It's against NCAA rules; it looks tawdry; it's dubious within the context of higher education; it's doubly dubious coming from any program coached by Rick Pitino; and given the nationwide problems of campus sexual assault and the rape culture that incubates and enables it, using female sex workers to woo male athletes is probably not the greatest idea. So yes, someone at Louisville deserves to be penalized.

However, the Cardinals appear to have gotten off easy.

For one, Louisville itself wasn't charged with anything, thereby avoiding the two most serious—and potentially program-crippling—NCAA infractions: lack of institutional control, and failure to monitor. That you can say your program is both under control and being well-monitored while it's paying women to have sex with players is kind of amazing. Moreover, while the association alleges that Pitino "failed to monitor" a former staff member who organized the sex program, its investigation also concluded that the coach didn't know about the practice, something other coaches are rightfully saying is bullshit.

The upshot? Pitino likely will serve some sort of short suspension. Meanwhile, Louisville already self-imposed a postseason ban last year—a cowardly move that hurt two seniors who transferred to the program just to make an NCAA Tournament—which means further sanctions are unlikely.

Now consider one of Louisville's former Big East rivals, Syracuse University. Last year, Syracuse's men's basketball program was hit with a lack of institutional control (LOIC) penalty that included a postseason ban, major scholarship reductions, a non-conference season suspension for coach Jim Boeheim, vacated wins, and a fine. For all that, the Orange must have been running the biggest brothel ever, right?

Nope. It turns out they didn't follow their own self-created drug test policy, and also allowed some players to receive a whopping $8,000 for "volunteering." So of course Syracuse was punished far more severely than Louisville.

The obvious question isn't why "let athletes get $8,000" is somehow worse in the NCAA's eyes than "paid for strip shows and sex to recruit athletes"—it's why those violations are even considered to be in the same universe. Then again, a history of recent NCAA crime and punishment shows that absolutely nothing makes contextual sense:

● University of Miami: Harboring a football booster who paid for sex and abortions and brought players to nightclubs and yachts. Punishment: Two-year self-imposed bowl ban, nine scholarship losses over three years.

● University of Southern California: Star running back Reggie Bush got money from agents for being good at football. Punishment: Two-year bowl ban, 30 scholarship losses over three years.

● Ohio State University: Football players traded their gear and memorabilia for tattoos; coach lied that he didn't know about it. Punishment: One-year bowl ban, nine scholarship losses over three years

● University of Mississippi: Academic fraud, football players receiving money from boosters, just seems fishy. Punishment (non-final): Self-imposed scholarship losses, apologies, maybe more but probably not much more.

● Penn State University : A number of people, including Joe Paterno, probably knowing former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was sexually abusing children. Punishment: Four-year bowl ban, $60 million fine, 40 scholarship losses over five years, vacated wins.

● Penn State: Actually, never mind, that was too much. Punishment: Bowl ban reduced to two years, scholarships and wins restored.

● Baylor Univeristy: Harbored a rape culture that allowed many sexual assaults by football players. Punishment (pending): Maybe something but probably nothing, TBD

If you're trying to find a pattern there, good luck. There is none. And it's no better for punishments of individual players. In fact, there's only one way to make sense of the NCAA's seemingly random internal jurisprudence—the association has a soft spot for schools that submit to its authority.

Consider Miami and USC. Within the framework of NCAA amateurism, Miami's case was undoubtedly worse. The Hurricanes were essentially running a professional football program. While there's nothing inherently wrong with that, it also violates everything the association says it stands for, both in press releases and in federal antitrust court. Meanwhile, USC's case revolved around a single player. Yet while both schools received two-year bowl bans, it was the Trojans who ended up with a whopping 30 scholarship losses.

How does this happen? It all comes down to cooperation. Miami owned up to its allegations early, and vowed to make changes. By contrast, USC all but told the NCAA to pound sand. Athletic director Mike Garrett even accused the association of jealousy, saying, "I read between the lines and there was nothing but a lot of envy, and they wish they all were Trojans."

Or take Ohio State and Ole Miss. Even if you believe that it's morally bankrupt for college football players to make money off their athletic talent, it's hard to understand why trading memorabilia for tattoos is worse than getting actual cash from boosters. Moreover, the Rebels have been accused of academic fraud—which, again, runs counter to the NCAA's self-proclaimed educational mission.

Ole Miss has yet to be punished fully, but it's highly unlikely the school will receive a bowl ban the way the Buckeyes did. Why? Like Miami, Ole Miss has cooperated with the association, whereas then-Ohio State coach Jim Tressel pretended that he didn't know about Tattoogate and athletic director Gene Smith insisted that the Buckeyes didn't know.

Look, the NCAA's rules are dumb. And dumb rules are harder to consistently enforce and punish. It's tough to come up with a standardized penalty structure for all of the creative ways competitive, talent-hungry sports programs get around the ban on athlete compensation. Only admitting that would be tantamount to admitting that prohibition is both cynical and pointless. In the end, it seems the association is less concerned with specific school violations than anything that threatens its own institutional control over the college sports economy. Hiring strippers may be bad—but under the NCAA's watch, pointing out that the emperor has no clothes is far worse.

Want to read more stories like this from VICE Sports? Subscribe to our daily newsletter.