The NCAA is robbing student-athletes of the fair and equal treatment that it preaches.

Sacramento State basketball player Jameel Pugh knows this first-hand. Three years ago the high school senior was months away from graduation with a scholarship to play basketball at the University of Massachusetts for then coach James “Bruiser” Flint.

Two years later, Flint was replaced by Steve Lappas and Pugh found himself with a new coach in a position he wasn’t used to — sitting. The sophomore wanted to become more of a focal point for the team, and requested a release, knowing that a transfer to another university would result in a penalty.

“I decided to look elsewhere rather than stick in with (Lappas’) plan,” Pugh said. “When a new coach comes in, he kind of has his own recruiting plan.”

The penalty: The NCAA requires that any athletes that transfer from one Div I program to another be forced to sit out a year.

So, instead of assisting the Hornets with their playoff run this year, Pugh was at the end of the bench in a tie and loafers, counting down the days to the beginning of the 2003-04 season.

“(Sitting) has been beneficial,” Pugh said of his required one-year transfer penalty. “But if I could have transferred in with an option of playing or not, I probably would have played.”

NCAA officials and universities are quick to suspend and punish teams that violate NCAA regulations, in an effort to keep things fair for college athletic competition.

But the NCAA isn’t so quick to defend the rights of athletes when it comes to the protection of a school’s athletic program.

Athletes like Pugh pledge their ability, eligibility and four most formative years to a university’s athletic program and coach.

They commit to the school, coach and fans that they will give their best performances during their four years of eligibility — it’s an apparently equal and fair exchange. The athlete gets a scholarship, the school gets a stellar athlete, but what does the athlete really get in return?

Scholarships are renewed year-to-year with the possibility of being revoked. Then there is the shocking realization that, at any moment, the coach who promised an athlete playing time and a program that they would benefit from could be replaced without a moment’s notice.

So there an athlete sits with the letter of intent signed and expectations of playing for the coach who recruited him; then, abruptly, the university announces the coach has been exterminated.

What is an athlete to do?

The only two options: Transfer to another school or wither away in athletic purgatory at the end of the bench for a coach who never wanted you to begin with, as he/she continues to parade in new recruits they want playing in their system.

If one chooses to transfer, good luck finding a school wishing to use three scholarship years on a player with two years of eligibility left.

The athlete seems to get the raw end of the deal, but to keep the sanctity of college athletics existing without corruption, a transfer athlete is punished by being forced to sit out a year, not the program or university.

In fact, only one of the four players who were recruited with Pugh in 2000 for the Minutemen will be with the squad next year for the 2003-04 season.

“Some (players) are at a disadvantage right away,” Sac State football player Seth Deyo said of coaching changes. “It’s not because they are not working hard, it is just the luck of the draw.”

With five coaching changes made last year at Sac State, it will be interesting to see what will happen with Hornet athletes. Second year women’s soccer coach Karen Hanks will be bringing in 10 new recruits for next season.

To make room, seven of last year’s players were released from the team; three of those players were on partial scholarships. Hanks has every right to make the decisions she sees fit for her team, but for players who may want to transfer to another university, they should have the right to play immediately, not suffer for a season on the bench. The coaching change was not their decision, therefore not their punishment to endure.

The NCAA should be forced to address the growing problem if fairness and equality are the goals of the organization.

The year of penalty for a transfer should be eliminated in the event of a coaching switch, and players that have signed letter of intents to the program should be let out of their agreement if the coach is changed before they even attend a practice.

“The transfer rule is to protect the school program… but at the same time it puts the player at a disadvantage,” Deyo said.

With all the NCAA laws and regulations to punish the programs that commit violations, they fail to realize they are committing the biggest infractions of all.