By Nathan Fenner
Staff Writer

The recent Wilcox football scandal was caused by the actions of one athlete. This athlete, after attempting unsuccessfully to bargain with his teachers, forged a teacher’s signature to alter a grade, thereby raising his grade point average considerably. He was trying to regain his athletic eligibility that he had lost due to a couple of failing marks. Eventually, a counselor caught him, and the team was forced to forfeit the six games in which he had played illegally.

The Central Coast Section (CCS), the authority in this area, decided that the Wilcox team would be punished, destroying the team’s first place season and potential playoff success.

To many, CCS’s decision to severely discipline a team for an individual’s mistake may seem unfair. During a sport’s season, that sport consumes athletes’ lives. The sport demands nearly all of their free time, often upwards of twenty hours a week. But it’s more than that: a sport drains athletes physically and emotionally.

Why do athletes put themselves through this? Partly, they do it for a love of the game, but a significant motive is to “win it all,” to be the best, to be number one. So, if they are forced to forfeit games—100% of them punished for what 95% of them didn’t do—it is demoralizing; it invalidates much of their toil. It seems completely unjust.

“I would definitely be disappointed [if my team were punished for one athlete’s cheating]. You put all your hard work into it, and one kid’s selfish and dishonest, and all your hard work goes for naught. If it is just the kid who cheated, and the team didn’t know, then the whole team should not be punished,” senior and football team captain Patrick Conte said.

But effective punishment must deter future infractions, and there are probably very few people who aren’t in prison who would want to trade places with the Wilcox player who brought the forfeits upon his team. Other than disciplining the team, there is very little with which the overseeing body can threaten ineligible athletes that seems worse than ineligibility. Suspending them from sports might be an option, but since they are already ineligible, this would be a meaningless punishment.

One alternative might be to determine the severity of the penalty based on the player’s value to the team.

Was the cheating player the star quarterback who throws for five touchdowns a game, or the third-string defensive end who acts part-time as the water boy? CCS could evaluate the impact the player had on the games and punish accordingly—if he were truly significant, then the team would forfeit; if he were insignificant, then the team would receive only minor penalties. But a solution like that only causes more controversy—determining a player’s value is much too subjective and there are far too many intangibles that simply cannot be quantified.

Simply, CCS must continue to punish a team for an individual’s infractions if there is any chance of preventing and deterring these incidents in the future. It is harsh, but it must be so.

It is up to the coach to stress to the players the consequences to everyone of cheating the system, and to help them with their academic or other problems.

That, combined with the pressure from teammates, hopefully will keep players in line, thereby removing CCS’s need to administer this season-destroying penalty.