I read an article in today???s New York Times that caught me slightly off guard. Selena Roberts criticized the NCAA for being too soft in the enforcement of its rules and says that the Association not only is too trusting of its members, but turns a blind-eye toward major infractions.

Roberts??? piece surprised me because I have rarely heard the NCAA described in this fashion. Usually, members of the media and public are quick to criticize the NCAA as too harsh and too restrictive in its governance and enforcement procedures. Roberts is sitting firmly on the other side of the fence.

She asserts that ???there are no repercussions??? for offenders and implies that coaches and student-athletes break rules more often than they follow them. While I would never argue that all of the rules are followed all of the time, I disagree with her perception that the NCAA is too soft. I don???t know any program in the country that wants to sit in front of the Committee on Infractions and receive postseason bans, recruiting restrictions or show-cause orders.

Roberts seems to believe that the NCAA should use the death penalty more often, shutting down an offending program for an entire season or more. She cites that Southern Methodist never recovered from its death penalty sentence in 1987 and believes that if this were used more often, programs would be more likely to follow the rules on a regular basis.

She might be right ??? if the NCAA took a tougher stance on athletics programs, and even cancelled seasons for offenders, coaches and student-athletes would take notice. But if the NCAA were to require USC to forfeit games that could cost it the BCS national championship because of alleged violations by former running back Reggie Bush, then all of the other student-athletes on that team would be penalized as well.

For those student-athletes who pour their hearts and souls into a program, is it fair to ask them to give up precious victories because of the possible indiscretions of one of their teammates? I understand the need to punish, but more importantly, penalties are used to take away a program???s competitive advantage and help it reform its behavior.

Roberts discusses penalties that were doled out to the football programs at Miami and Alabama and talks about the quick return to prominence for both schools. Does she want schools to be forever ruined because of infractions? Should Miami and Alabama never be allowed to field football teams again?

I don???t want to give the impression that I don???t think offending programs should be penalized. Quite the contrary, I think there should be stiff penalties levied against coaches, student-athletes and athletics programs that knowingly look to beat the system. I don???t believe, however, we should be rooting for programs to never recover and hopefully change their ways.

Additionally, Roberts writes that ???the kinder, gentler NCAA is more comfortable micromanaging family values. Last week, it gave Clemson permission to establish a trust fund to assistant in normal living expenses for the freshman football player Ray Ray McElrathbey, who has temporary custody of his 11-year-old brother. The NCAA???s authority as an enforcer is increasingly futile. Its position as moral authority is all that remains for the keeper of college spirit.???

I don???t see how the situation of Ramon McElrathbey and his 11-year old brother have anything to do with infractions, but I am ecstatic he will receive the help he needs and deserves. I???m not sure why Roberts believes that the NCAA needs to walk around with its finger on the trigger. She???s missing the point that there are almost 400,000 student-athletes and the ones breaking the rules are few and far between.