If you’ve ever wondered about the fine line between voluntary and mandatory training in college sports, the story of the University of Memphis, women’s volleyball team offers a case study in NCAA enforcement. College athletics, especially in the NCAA-regulated environment, is governed by strict rules meant to level the playing field and ensure fair competition. However, as the situation with Memphis volleyball shows, even well-intentioned training programs can cross into dangerous territory when they blur the line between voluntary and mandatory participation.
I was having breakfast with some colleagues from our university’s athletics department when the topic of voluntary training came up. We are a Division II program (and a fairly successful one, although a recent loss put a dent in our playoff hopes), and one thing that amazes all of us is the size and conditioning of our players. A fellow staff member pointed out that this was largely due to the year-round conditioning programs that athletes engage in, all of which are technically voluntary. Quarterbacks organize spring sessions to work with skill players, running routes and practicing drills, while weightlifting and running sessions are scheduled throughout the year. None of these sessions are held under the direct supervision of a coach, as that would violate NCAA rules.
[ez-toc]
NCAA Rules on Voluntary vs. Mandatory Training
The NCAA has long imposed restrictions on how much formal training athletes can engage in outside of the official season. This is largely to protect athletes from being overworked and to prevent wealthier programs from gaining an unfair advantage by having their players train year-round under strict coaching supervision. The NCAA mandates that training outside of the regular season must be voluntary, and no coach is allowed to supervise, organize, or require attendance.
The rationale behind this rule is to ensure that athletes have time to rest and maintain their academic and social lives. In theory, it helps balance athletics with the student experience. However, in practice, voluntary workouts often feel anything but voluntary. Athletes know that if they don’t attend these so-called optional sessions, they risk falling behind their teammates, potentially losing their starting spot, or missing out on critical skill development. In many ways, the pressure to perform and stay in peak condition makes these voluntary workouts practically mandatory in all but name.
The Case of the University of Memphis Volleyball Team
One school that learned the hard way about NCAA regulations was the University of Memphis. In 2003, the NCAA sanctioned the school’s women’s volleyball program for exceeding the allowable amount of formal training during the off-season. The problem was that while the coaches were not supposed to organize mandatory training sessions, the investigation revealed that players had been required to attend individual skill instruction in the spring. The NCAA deemed these training sessions as formal, organized practices, which violated the rules governing off-season activity.
From 2000 to 2003, Memphis’s volleyball program experienced a remarkable uptick in success, which likely caught the attention of rival programs. By 2003, the team posted an impressive 30-6 record, a stark contrast to their performance just a few years prior. This sudden success, which could be partially attributed to the extra spring training, triggered the scrutiny of the NCAA. A pattern emerged that had been seen before: teams that experience rapid improvement are often subject to increased NCAA attention and potential violations.
In response to the investigation, the Memphis volleyball team was placed on probation for two years, and the number of practices and conditioning hours was reduced. The coaching staff, including head coach Carrie Yerty, agreed that they had violated NCAA guidelines, even if the violations were unintentional. The coach was required to attend a compliance seminar, and the entire team had to cut back on its training regimen, potentially affecting its performance going forward.
The Impact of the Sanctions
For Memphis, the NCAA’s sanctions had a direct impact on the team’s future training and performance. The team’s preseason practices were reduced from 29 to 26, and the spring conditioning period was shortened by a week. While these changes may seem minor, for a team that relies on year-round conditioning and skill development, such reductions can have a significant impact. Not only does it reduce the amount of time players have to train, but it also limits the opportunities for the coaching staff to work with athletes and refine their techniques.
Additionally, the probation and public reprimand affected the team’s reputation. Being under the watchful eye of the NCAA, both internally and in the public eye, adds pressure to both players and coaches. The reputation of the program takes a hit, and it becomes harder to recruit top talent. The sanctions served as a reminder to other programs of the importance of compliance with NCAA rules, even in less high-profile sports like women’s volleyball.
Why Was Memphis Targeted?
The NCAA’s actions raised questions about why Memphis was targeted. Historically, the NCAA had focused its scrutiny on high-profile sports like football and basketball, where large amounts of money are at stake. However, the Memphis case demonstrated that even smaller sports programs are not immune from enforcement.
One of the reasons Memphis may have been investigated could be attributed to their sudden success. Between 1999 and 2003, the Memphis volleyball team saw a rapid improvement in their performance. They went from an 11-22 record in 1999 to a 30-6 record in 2003. As predicted by economists Rodney Fort, James Quirk, and Andrew Zimbalist, teams that experience rapid success often face more scrutiny from the NCAA, especially if there’s suspicion that their rise was due to bending or breaking the rules.
The fact that rival teams may have had a hand in reporting the violations is also worth noting. In college athletics, it is not uncommon for teams to report each other for potential infractions, particularly when there is suspicion that a rival’s success is tied to rule-breaking. Given Memphis’s improved performance during this period, it’s possible that competing teams or their supporters raised concerns that led to the investigation.
The Broader Implications
The sanctions against Memphis raise broader questions about the fairness and effectiveness of NCAA rules. On one hand, the NCAA’s regulations are meant to protect athletes from being overworked and to maintain a level playing field among college programs. However, the reality is that voluntary training often becomes de facto mandatory, and programs with the resources to offer better facilities, coaching, and training are likely to have an edge over less well-funded teams.
Moreover, the Memphis case highlights the challenge of enforcing NCAA rules consistently across all sports. While football and basketball may attract the most attention, the Memphis volleyball sanctions show that the NCAA is willing to extend its reach into smaller sports. For teams looking to improve their performance, staying within the lines of what the NCAA considers voluntary versus formal training is a delicate balancing act.
Conclusion
The story of the Memphis volleyball team serves as a cautionary tale for all college programs striving for success. While year-round conditioning and voluntary training are crucial for developing athletes and building competitive teams, crossing the line into mandatory training during the off-season can lead to serious consequences.
The NCAA’s rules, though designed to protect student-athletes, create a paradox where voluntary workouts become necessary for staying competitive. As Memphis learned, rapid success often brings increased scrutiny, and even well-meaning coaches and players must ensure that they are in full compliance with NCAA regulations to avoid sanctions that could derail their program.
In the end, the Memphis volleyball case reminds us that in college sports, the rules are often as complex and competitive as the games themselves.
