Do UCLA football fans respect and trust the NCAA?

It's a fair question to ask UCLA football fans if they trust the NCAA in enforcing the rules that they have put in place over the years of existence.

On August 15, 2025, the NCAA announced its punishment for the Michigan football program. It is getting a lot of attention on social media, sports radio, and football TV shows because it includes fines and show-cause orders for individuals like former head coach Jim Harbaugh and current head coach Sherrone Moore. The penalties are the result of a highly publicized cheating scandal involving stealing signs and breaking other rules, such as recruiting rules, among other violations of the NCAA. The penalties are a fine of millions of dollars and limits on recruiting, but they don't include a ban on the postseason or the loss of the 2023 national championship or any vacated wins from 2021 to 2023.

The sanctions came after a year-long investigation that found "overwhelming evidence" of an "impermissible scouting scheme" run by Connor Stalions, a former staff member. The main punishments are as follows and are listed below.

Michigan has been fined millions of dollars, and the total is expected to be more than $20 million. This includes a $50,000 fine, a 10% fine on the football program's budget, and a fine equal to what the program thinks it will lose in postseason revenue in 2025 and 2026.

Recruiting restrictions for the football program. The football program will have 25% fewer official visits during the 2025–26 season and will not be able to talk to recruits for 14 weeks during the four-year probation period.

Former coach Jim Harbaugh got a ten-year show-cause order. The order means he can't do anything related to coaching college football during that time frame. Sherrone Moore, the current coach, got a two-year show-cause order and was suspended for three games: two games during the 2025 season and one more game during the 2026 season. The main person involved in the NCAA report, Connor Stalions, got an eight-year show-cause order.

Many people have been talking about the NCAA's choice not to impose a postseason ban or take away the 2023 national championship on social media platforms and call-in radio shows. The NCAA Committee on Infractions said that a postseason ban would "unfairly punish" current student-athletes for what people who are no longer with the program did. The NCAA also said that it usually only takes away wins when players who shouldn't have been playing were involved. In this case, there wasn't enough proof to show that the illegal scouting changed the outcome of the games. Some people think that the NCAA's focus on hefty fines is their new way to deter rule-breaking, which favors big programs with a ton of money and punishes schools like Akron, which the NCAA severely punished.

Certain people think the punishment is too light, given how serious the violations were, especially the supposed "impermissible scouting scheme." The NCAA's choice not to impose a postseason ban, saying it would "unfairly penalize" current student-athletes for the actions of people who are no longer with the program, could be considered a change in the NCAA's approach to penalties. Fans might think that if a team can win a national championship and then receive hefty fines but not a postseason ban, the rules aren't being followed or enforced well enough to stop people from breaking them again. The NCAA found "overwhelming evidence" of an illegal scouting scheme, but they didn't strip the team of the national title. Such behavior could make fans think that the NCAA cares more about money than fair play, which could make them less trusting of the organization's ability to keep college sports fair.

Here are some media posts reacting to the NCAA report by current and former members of the media.

Now here are some important excerpts from the NCAA report.

Fans of football programs, like UCLA, might think that the NCAA cares more about its money (by not ruining a big championship) than about keeping the competition fair. The NCAA's new policy, which says that punishing current student-athletes for the actions of former staff would be "unfair," appears to be selectively applied. For a UCLA fan, the new rule could seem unfair, especially if they remember past NCAA punishments that were harsher and applied to all programs, like USC or Ohio State.

Several instances in the NCAA's history suggest a disregard for the rules. Different schools have had completely unique punishments for the same kinds of rule-breaking. Fans now widely believe that the NCAA's decisions are based on a school's size, financial strength, and power in the world of college sports. UCLA is now in the Big Ten along with Michigan, so their view on this news is more significant to them than it was three years ago, for example.

From UCLA's point of view, this inconsistency could be even more worrying now that they are in the Big Ten with Michigan. Fans might be worried that the NCAA won't be as hard on their new conference rival for big mistakes, while a smaller or less important school might get a much harsher punishment for a smaller mistake. This can make people less sure that the NCAA can really make the playing field fair.

The NCAA is now working in a new and complicated world with Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deals and the transfer portal. State laws and court decisions have challenged the organization's traditional power. The NCAA has asked Congress for help in keeping the new situation under control. Michigan has more money for its NIL program and can absorb hefty fines from the NCAA more than UCLA.

This situation can be seen as important for UCLA fans. The NCAA's choice to focus on money penalties for Michigan may be a sign that it can't enforce rules as well as it used to. Fans might think that this means the NCAA is more reactive than proactive, meaning they can't really police the sport and instead use fines to look like they are in charge.

UCLA football fans may understandably be suspicious due to the perceived leniency of the Michigan punishment, the NCAA's history of inconsistent enforcement, and the organization's other problems. A good percentage of college football fans often think that the NCAA's decisions are based on politics and aren't always applied fairly, and the Michigan case has only made this idea stronger. People may disagree on whether that distrust is justified, but the evidence shows a pattern that would make any fan wonder if the organization is really committed to fair play.