[socalstanfan1]

I think the use of "corruption" with regards to the NCAA is entirely inappropriate.  I can't recall any whiffs of corruption of the NCAA itself.  Indeed, it seems to do a pretty good job of finding and removing instances of what might be termed corruption at the schools.

My use of the term NCAA refers to all the organizations in college sports under the umbrella organization, not simply the administrators who root out the corruption. (Surely the NFL is more than simply the Commissioner's office, but also includes all the teams in the league) So by corruption I meant those things that are in fact investigated and punished by the administrators: "gifts" from alumni to star players, institutionalized cheating within athletic departments, etc.  My impression is that these forms of corruption far more frequently permeate the football and basketball programs (though perhaps they occur in other sports that simply don't receive the same publicity).  At an even deeper level, I think that the association of such brobdingnagian amounts of money with university athletics corrupts the fundamental purpose of the university: to provide a space for the development, of both the intellect and more generally the character, of the students. Sports has a role to play in this: emphasizing teamwork, discipline, honor, integrity in competition, etc. for the athletes, and school loyalty and pride for the fans.  But when the primary purpose of the sport becomes profit, then I would argue there is a general corruption of the university and its educational mission as a whole. I do think, btw, that some coaches (and Shaw is one of them), really does seem to focus on character and integrity (I recall Shaw walking to the USC locker room after a difficult loss by Stanford to shake hands and congratulate the victors; symbolic I know, but nonetheless such symbols can be powerful examples of honorable behavior).  But such coaches must struggle against enormous pressure when such brobdingnagian amounts of money are at stake. And Stanford really is an outlier in the world of college sports.

So if we think of all the university athletic departments as being part of the NCAA, I don't think the term corruption is inappropriate.

[socalstanfan1]

I think the use of "corruption" with regards to the NCAA is entirely inappropriate.  I can't recall any whiffs of corruption of the NCAA itself.  Indeed, it seems to do a pretty good job of finding and removing instances of what might be termed corruption at the schools.

My use of the term NCAA refers to all the organizations in college sports under the umbrella organization, not simply the administrators who root out the corruption. (Surely the NFL is more than simply the Commissioner's office, but also includes all the teams in the league) So by corruption I meant those things that are in fact investigated and punished by the administrators: "gifts" from alumni to star players, institutionalized cheating within athletic departments, etc.  My impression is that these forms of corruption far more frequently permeate the football and basketball programs (though perhaps they occur in other sports that simply don't receive the same publicity).  At an even deeper level, I think that the association of such brobdingnagian amounts of money with university athletics corrupts the fundamental purpose of the university: to provide a space for the development, of both the intellect and more generally the character, of the students. Sports has a role to play in this: emphasizing teamwork, discipline, honor, integrity in competition, etc. for the athletes, and school loyalty and pride for the fans.  But when the primary purpose of the sport becomes profit, then I would argue there is a general corruption of the university and its educational mission as a whole. I do think, btw, that some coaches (and Shaw is one of them), really does seem to focus on character and integrity (I recall Shaw walking to the USC locker room after a difficult loss by Stanford to shake hands and congratulate the victors; symbolic I know, but nonetheless such symbols can be powerful examples of honorable behavior).  But such coaches must struggle against enormous pressure when such brobdingnagian amounts of money are at stake. And Stanford really is an outlier in the world of college sports.

So if we think of all the university athletic departments as being part of the NCAA, I don't think the term corruption is inappropriate.