James Elliott, “Mr. 5:00 AM,” awaits NCAA decision on hardship waiver

The Mobile Press-Register’s Tommy Hicks has a great feature article on South Alabama offensive lineman James Elliott in Wednesday morning’s print edition. Elliot is a one-time Kentucky Wildcat who transferred to Joey Jones’ Jaguars to be closer to his mother Pamela, who is suffering from non-alcohol liver failure.

Elliott lives with his mother in Pensacola, Florida and rises each morning at 3:00 am, makes the drive to the West Mobile South Alabama campus and is there when athletic trainer Jinni Frisbey arrives at 5:00 am to open the USA fieldhouse.

Frisbey calls Elliot “Mr. 5:00 am.”

Elliott has applied to the NCAA for a hardship waiver which will allow the 6-2, 300 lb lineman to play immediately for the Jaguars and not be forced to sit out a year. A decision by the league is expected to come sometime before the 2012 season begins.

But if there was ever a textbook case for granting a hardship waiver, Elliott is it.

Most 17 to 22 year olds have a hard time getting out of bed before 9:00 am. By the time they’re up and coherent, Elliott has already worked out at the fieldhouse, made a 6:30 am spring practice and has already made it to his first class of the day.

Sometimes as late as 9:00 pm, Elliott makes the drive back to Pensacola, where his real work begins—caring for his mother.

As Elliott puts it, “There’s nothing [the doctors] can really do now. They’re just trying to create a stress-free environment for her, which is hard for her running her business back in Pensacola. They have her on a very strict diet. It’s pretty much trying to keep everything as calm as can be at this point.”

On his prospects of playing for the Jags in 2012:

“I’ll play wherever they put me. I just want to help the team as much as I can. … If [the waiver] doesn’t happen, it wasn’t meant to be. I’m just glad to be at South Alabama. If it works out, great. If not, I’ll still be right here… I wouldn’t change a thing.”

This kind of dedication—to his mother and to his team—is what should make this a slam dunk case for the NCAA. If they really are all about the student-athlete, this is one whose waiver application should be granted—immediately.

Elliott doesn’t need the distraction of wondering whether he sits or plays in 2012, especially after all of the work he’s already put in after transferring just a few months ago. Pamela doesn’t need the stress of wondering whether her son’s hard work and dedication go for naught.

Character should count for something and Elliott’s character couldn’t be displayed any better.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Les Miles says he’ll keep recruiting Landon Collins, and tiptoes around potential secondary NCAA violation

By: @LivingCrimson

Chalk up another tradition in the Les Miles repertoire. Along with grass chomping, slow clapping, gameclock hoodoo-ing and general nuttiness, Les likes to tweak the NCAA’s nose.

He certainly likes to stick with a routine for Alabama vs. LSU matchups. In the days leading up to the first game on November 5th, Les promptly waded into the murky waters of potential secondary NCAA violations by talking about high school recruits being pursued by LSU.

Chaos must be his good luck charm. 

More potential violations today as Les talks about continuing his recruitment of Landon Collins, a Tide commit. At 1:10 mark.

But nobody takes the big, lovable goofball seriously, right? Right?

H/T to @WoollyAl for the video.

Bama updates on Twitter @LivingCrimson.

Oklahoma State likely facing NCAA major infractions investigation

In a FOX Sports exclusive, Senior College Football writer Thayer Evans details a troubling situation in the Oklahoma State Cowboys’ football program, in which a man is alleged to have provided improper benefits to current and former football players and refuses to cooperate with the schools’ internal compliance investigation.

From Evans’ report, it appears that the school has done everything in its power to get answers from Gannon Mendez  in its probe of his relationship with the football team. The school has reported minor violations in connection with the investigation including a $5 cocktail and the sales of gaming consoles the players received as gifts from the 2010 Alamo Bowl.

While these are ticky-tack secondary violations that will result in no loss of player eligibility and no sanctions for the school, the NCAA will almost certainly want to explore the depth of access Mendez has had with the football program.

Likely paths for the impending investigation include determination of Mendez’ status as a “booster” according to the NCAA’s definition of that term and whether the school adequately monitored its program to prevent someone like Mendez from providing the types of benefits detailed in Evans’ story.

---

NCAA Regulations
The University is responsible for insuring that its various constituencies (e.g., University staff and faculty, coaches, student-athletes, alumni and friends) abide by NCAA rules and regulations. Under NCAA rules, all alumni, friends and employees of the University are categorized as "representatives of the University's athletics interests."

Representatives of a University's Athletics Interests - Who is a representative of the University’s athletics interests (i.e., a "booster")?
NCAA Bylaw 13.02.11 defines the term "booster." In part, the rule states: 
"A booster (i.e., representative of the institution's athletics interests) is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g. apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have known) by a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration to:

• Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program;
• Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
• Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospects;
• Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families; or
• Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution's athletics program.

---

Evans’ report indicates that while Mendez has apparently enjoyed an alarming degree of access to players in the ‘Pokes’ program, he is not a season ticket holder, nor has he made any financial contributions. However, this doesn’t rule out Mendez being defined as a booster, since he allegedly has engaged in “assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits” to the student-athletes. If he is defined as a booster, then the school is responsible for knowing about his activities and interaction with the program and preventing him from jeopardizing player eligibility by providing improper benefits.

The booster determination leads to the other path the investigation can be expected to take—determination of whether the school has “failed to monitor” or has demonstrated a “lack of institutional control” over its athletics program.

In addition to Mendez, NCAA enforcement would also likely explore other individuals with “insider” access to the program to determine if Mendez is an isolated “rogue booster” or if there are others committing similar or perhaps even worse impermissible benefits violations.

Most recently, the NCAA Committee on Infractions concluded that Ohio State University failed to monitor its football program in allowing numerous players to receive cash and other impermissible benefits. The decision came roughly one year after reports of the violations surfaced. Coach Jim Tressel later admitted that he had known of the violations months before the story became public and concealed the information. Tressel was fired and the program was saddled with a loss of nine scholarships over three years and a one-year post-season ban.

It is far too early to determine what penalties Oklahoma State might face if there are any violations discovered beyond what’s already known. But Mendez’ refusal to cooperate will certainly pique the NCAA’s interest and this story could play out along timeline similar to that of the Ohio State case.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

South Carolina’s Jadeveon “Doo Doo” Clowney in apparent NCAA violation

Throw the Flag is showing that University of South Carolina’s freshman defensive standout Jadeveon Clowney is likely running afoul of NCAA by-laws prohibiting the use of a student-athlete’s likeness to promote a business or for-profit enterprise. Here’s a flyer for a Christmas-season birthday party hosted by the Gamecocks’ own Cee Cee Whitlock & JaDeveon “Doo Doo” Clowney.”

The NCAA by-laws apparently being violated here:

The rules in question are 12.5.2.1 and 12.5.2.2, respectively:

12.5.2.1 Advertisements and Promotions After Becoming a Student-Athlete. After becoming a student-athlete, an individual shall not be eligible for participation in intercollegiate athletics if the individual:
(a) Accepts any remuneration for or permits the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind; or
(b) Receives remuneration for endorsing a commercial product or service through the individual’s use of such product or service.

12.5.2.2 Use of a Student-Athlete’s Name or Picture Without Knowledge or Permission. If a student-athlete’s name or picture appears on commercial items (e.g., T-shirts, sweatshirts, serving trays, playing cards, posters) or is used to promote a commercial product sold by an individual or agency without the student-athlete’s knowledge or permission, the student-athlete (or the institution acting on behalf of the student-athlete) is required to take steps to stop such an activity in order to retain his or her eligibility for intercollegiate athletics. Such steps are not required in cases in which a student-athlete’s photograph is sold by an individual or agency (e.g., private photographer, news agency) for private use.

Statements obtained by IBCR from the NCAA indicate that while this may be a technical violation of rules implemented to prevent businesses from exploiting student-athletes’ athletics reputation, there is rarely an eligibility consequence if the student-athlete doesn’t know or permit the activity and he or the school take steps to end it. “There would be no eligibility consequences for the student-athlete as long as they did not have any knowledge and the school issues a cease and desist notice,” NCAA spokeswoman Stacy Osburn told IBCR last August, in connection with the T-Town Menswear non-story.

IBCR has also reviewed summaries for nearly two dozen cases similar to the Clowney (and TTMW) story. The case summaries were provided as a courtesy by Dr. Anastasios Kaburakis, Assistant Professor of Management and Sports Business in the John Cook School of Business at
Saint Louis University.

Not one of them produced permanent losses of eligibility or major infractions cases against the schools involved.

Nevertheless, Throw the Flag’s find is significant in that South Carolina recently admitted to a series of major infractions in connection with an improper benefits case involving lodging and other violations, and is considered a repeat violator under NCAA by-laws.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Ohio State Buckeyes fans to learn NCAA fate today

We thought this was coming a week or so ago.

It’s finally official—the public will Ohio State University will learn whether the NCAA Committee on Infractions thinks the sacrificial lamb offered by school officials is enough to satisfy the bloodlust of the media.

Late yesterday, Athletic director Gene Smith confirmed that the NCAA would hand down its sentence in a 3:00 pm EST press conference today.

School officials have already been apprised of the sanctions and know what’s coming.

The news comes almost one year after the school held a press conference to announce that it was suspending five football players for receiving improper benefits—including free tattoos and other goodies—from a tattoo parlor owner about to face indictment for drug dealing.

The scandal cost coach Jim Tressel his job. The school self-imposed penalties including two years probation, vacation of all wins from the 2010 season and five scholarship reductions over three years. The public reaction to the school’s offer was swift and indignant.

Officials later learned that they would be charged with failure to monitor—one of the three most dreaded infractions in the NCAA enforcement code—in a rare issuance of a second Notice of Allegations from the enforcement staff. The NCAA almost never issues multiple Notices of Inquiry or Notices of Allegations. It likes all enforcement packages completely wrapped up and placed beneath the tree with a neat and tidy bow.

It will be interesting to see how the league rules today. Regardless of the outcome, expect a fury of stories from all sides, complaining either that the penalties are too light, too harsh, or just right.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Auburn contact with prized recruit could rise to standard of major violation, experts say (UPDATED)

SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE

Yesterday, IBCR reported that Auburn University likely violated its agreement with the Southeastern Conference and NCAA regarding the school’s report and self-imposed sanctions after the 2010 Tiger Prowl affair.

As explained yesterday, Auburn released reams of documents regarding multiple secondary violations discovered over the last two years, including violations revealed during an investigation into the Tiger Prowl visits the football program used as a recruiting tool in Spring 2010.

The documents show that Auburn agreed to self-impose a 60 day restriction on staff contacts—both on- and off-campus—with prized Hueytown Quarterback Jameis Winston. The restriction was to begin the first week of November 2011 and run through January 2012. Both the SEC and the NCAA agreed to deal and the matter was dropped from further consideration.

However, as also reported here yesterday, the prospective student-athlete told recruiting analysts that Auburn coaching staff visited him in his home Sunday night, in apparent violation of the terms of that agreement:

Ms. McKeeman confirmed to us via email that Winston was her source for the report and that the report was accurate.

This would appear to violate the terms of the agreement reached between the school, the SEC, and the NCAA, and NCAA compliance experts believe that this could rise to the standard of a major violation, but that the SEC may seek to mitigate any potential penalties as a result.

“The standard of a major violation is nebulous—it is basically all other violations not secondary,” says Dr. David Ridpath, NCAA compliance expert and professor of Sports Administration at Ohio University. “A couple caveats are—was there a competitive advantage gained and was there intent to break the agreement, or was there a reckless disregard for the rules.”

“This could be considered major, but it is often in the eye of the beholder. If this visit took place—there appears to be intent to violate and a disregard for the rules. If this kid signs with Auburn—then there would be a competitive advantage. That does not mean it would automatically be a major violation because the NCAA is very inconsistent on application plus you can never underestimate the influence of the SEC in the mitigation of violations,” said Ridpath.

The SEC has so far declined comment. The NCAA has yet to return messages seeking comment and clarification. Auburn University cannot comment because the coaching staff cannot publicly discuss the prospective student-athletes it is pursuing.

“The best option for Auburn is to simply back off of Winston’s recruitment altogether and plead ignorance of the terms of the agreement in a report of a secondary violation,” said a college recruiting and compliance analyst. “If he never signs a letter of intent and never reaches the campus, it’s not that big of a deal, really. But if the school signs the prospect and it’s shown that they broke an agreement not to make contact with him, that would be a thumb in the eye of the NCAA. It sure wouldn’t go down well in Indianapolis.”

UPDATE: al.com’s Evan Woodbery has a published report in which the Antonor Winston acknowledges that Auburn coaches Gus Malzahn, Curtis Looper and Trooper Taylor visited the family Sunday night.

This confirms Laura McKeeman’s report Monday afternoon and reported here later that night.

Woodbery’s story also acknowledges the existence of self-imposed restrictions that limited the Auburn staff’s contact with Winston through January of 2012.

What remains unclear is what—if anything—has changed since November 4, when the school released the documents in response to media open records requests.

What is clear? At the time of the initial violation in 2010, Winston was a high school junior. NCAA rules state that the Auburn staff was prohibited from having off-campus contact until November of his senior year—2011. This is the reason why the self-imposed penalties for the staff’s contact with Winston are different from the dates of the other penalties described in the report.

If those restrictions haven’t been lifted, then the coaches’ visit last Sunday would represent a violation of a standing agreement. 

There’s nothing to be gained by pushing this story any further. The key information is now in the news stream and nothing sanitizes better than sunshine. Further, Auburn officials are at a disadvantage over this story because by rule they cannot publicly discuss recruits or recruiting activities.

We’ll continue to follow developments but at least for the time being, we’re calling this one CONFIRMED.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

No, you !@#$ idiot! I said paint new HASH MARKS!

In preparation for the annual Egg Bowl contest between rivals Ole Miss and Mississippi State, the host team has decided to spice up the endzone a little bit.

What's interesting is that an awful lot of old timers aren't gonna get it.

They don't have that thar tweeter thang in Starkvegas.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

NCAA abandons policy and precedent with letter to Penn State

NCAA investigations into the actions of member schools have always followed the same path. But in an unprecedented scandal, league President Mark Emmert decided that unprecedented steps need to be taken.

Long-standing NCAA policy dictates the procedure. Credible allegations are received and reviewed. Information is collected. A Notice of Inquiry is transmitted from the VP of Enforcement to the school president. The NCAA staff conducts its investigation and if it finds violations of applicable by-laws, transmits a Notice of Allegations. The school appears before the Committee on Infractions and later hears what penance it must suffer as a result of its transgressions.

In the Penn State case, policy and procedure are gone. In his three-page letter to interim President Rodney Erickson, Emmert sternly warns the school that the league’s bedrock principles of ethical conduct, honesty, dignity are at stake as a result of potential inaction surrounding the Jerry Sandusky child abuse scandal.

The Emmert letter is unprecedented on two different levels. First is the fact that the letter informing Penn State of the pending probe comes from the NCAA president himself. In the modern era of NCAA investigations, never before has the president of the league written such a missive as this.  The official communication from the NCAA notifying a member school of a pending investigation has always come from the Vice President for Enforcement, the office currently held by Julie Roe Lach.

Also unprecedented is the fact that the NCAA has publicized the letter and publicly announced that it plans to launch an investigation. Having the letter originate from the office of the President is a big deal. Publicizing the matter is even bigger. The NCAA has vigorously guarded information regarding even the existence of investigations, steadfastly refusing to even acknowledge investigations that everyone knows are in progress.

So why make this one public? Emmert has said in interviews that this matter is not a traditional “enforcement” investigation and that ordinary rules aren’t in play here. He’s said that since the league doesn’t plan to send investigators to campus to interview coaches, officials or players, the policy governing enforcement procedure don’t fit in this case. But Emmert nonetheless cited specific by-laws that may have been violated, and violations of those by-laws in previous cases have brought harsh sanctions at the end of enforcement investigations.

There’s no doubt that the Sandusky scandal at Penn State is the worst, most-sickening stain on college athletics. Nothing even comes close. In an unprecedented case, Emmert is taking unprecedented steps. Some may cynically call it a PR ploy; accusing the league of trying to show that it is out in front of the story. There might be a mote of truth to that, but it’s much more likely that Emmert is finally getting the NCAA to do the right thing in the right way. If that means abandoning policy and breaking precedent, then so be it, says he.

But beware the law of unintended consequences. Abandoning precedent invites charges of arbitrary and capricious action, and provide the only good reason for judicial intervention.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Proposed NCAA legislation won’t completely close the Cam Newton Loophole

The NCAA has released the package of legislation proposed for consideration at the January and April 2012 NCAA Division I Legislative Council and NCAA Division I Board of Directors meetings. If you’re up for it, you can read each proposal here.

The proposed legislation includes amendments to or creation of by-laws governing organization and governance, personnel definitions, amateurism rules, recruiting rules, eligibility matters, financial aid, awards, benefits and expenses, playing and practice seasons, various NCAA committees and regulations governing executives.

Also included in the proposed changes is Proposal No. 2011-23, AMATEURISM – DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS – AGENT. From the proposal text itself:

---

Intent: To specify that an agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly, represents or attempts to represent an individual for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain, or seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete's enrollment at an educational institution or from a student-athlete's potential earnings as a professional athlete.

Bylaws: Amend 12.02, as follows:
12.02 DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS
12.02.1 Agent. An agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly:
(a) Represents or attempts to represent an individual for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain; or
(b) Seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete's enrollment at an educational institution or from a student-athlete's potential earnings as a professional athlete.
12.02.1.1 Application. An agent may include, but is not limited to, a certified contract advisor, financial advisor, marketing representative, brand manager or anyone who is employed or associated with such persons.

Rationale: As the salaries of professional athletes have risen, age restrictions to participate in professional sports leagues have changed and the notoriety of elite student-athletes has increased with scouting and media exposure, the interest of outside third parties in elite athletes is now greater than ever. As a result, an industry of individuals has been created, including runners, financial advisors, marketing representatives, business managers, brand managers and street agents who seek to broker elite athletes for financial gain. Although governing bodies have attempted to impose regulations on these individuals and their activities, the competitive nature of the industry has resulted in many finding ways to circumvent the rules. One constant is the use of outside third parties. These third parties typically operate free of any governing body's jurisdiction. In order to regulate the interaction of these individuals with prospective student-athletes and student-athletes, the definition of an agent must be broadened. This proposal is not intended to include parents or legal guardians, athletics department staff members, former teammates or those individuals who have the best interest of a prospective student-athlete or student-athlete in mind in providing assistance or information, provided they do not intend to receive a financial gain for their assistance. [emphasis added]

---

This is an expansive proposal, as it is also targeted at the rampant abuse found in college basketball recruiting. But in my view, it only represents one step in the right direction. On the positive side, it identifies the people and defines the activities that need to be prohibited. From the rationale accompanying the proposed amendment, explaining that it would include family members seeking financial gain lassos parents with their hands out.

But on the negative side, it doesn’t go far enough in defining what penalties should apply or how certain circumstances might affect a student-athlete’s eligibility. While the proposed legislation would close the loophole used by Auburn to argue for—and get—Cam Newton’s eligibility restored, it doesn’t address the specifics in the case.

As we all know, Cecil Newton admitted that he participated in a scheme to solicit payment in return for his son’s services. The new legislation would have defined the elder Newton as an agent. But there was never any proof that Cam knew of his father’s scheme, allowing him to escape any impact on his eligibility. The proposed legislation doesn’t address this.

The legislation also fails to address another specific in the Newton case—while the elder Newton copped to shopping Cam to Mississippi State, there was also a lack of evidence showing that he was also shopping at Auburn.

Functionally, if the proposed legislation passes as written, all it does is provide a means for identifying the next Cecil Newton as an agent. What it doesn’t do is establish whether the student-athlete’s eligibility is affected, what penalties should apply, whether the student-athlete’s awareness of having an agent comes into play or whether school where the student-athlete finally lands should suffer any consequences.

While the proposal is a good first step and should be adopted, it should have been much more specific. As a result, the Cam Newton Loophole will be only partially closed.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

CBS Aaron Taylor personal statement gives hope for abused kids, strong stand on failure of Paterno

By: @LivingCrimson

In a moving statement, Aaron Taylor reveals he was the victim of abuse as a 5 year old. His message to other kids in that situation is the hope they can overcome such horrific trauma and go on to lead productive lives. Taylor was an All-American offensive tackle at Notre Dame, winning the Lombardi Award as the best lineman in college football. He was also an offensive guard in the NFL, playing for the Green Bay Packers and the San Diego Chargers.

Taylor goes on to say: ”All it takes for evil in the world to exist is for good men to stand by and do nothing.” In the Penn State situation, Taylor believes “people took their morality and replaced it with their loyalty; their loyalty to the brand, loyalty to the team, and that’s a systemic problem…” He hopes these issues do not harm the traditional role sports has played in helping victims focus on other things. “Sports has always served the role for us to be our soft place to fall during times of tragedy,” Taylor said.

Here’s link to video – having technical difficulties.

Aaron Taylor, Gary Danielson, Tim Brando, Adam Zucker

As my earlier post recounts, Joe Paterno knew about Sandusky’s alleged child abuse from at least 1998 and did nothing to prevent Sandusky bringing young boys into Penn State football facilities or to the hotels used by the team. Paterno also never attempted to stop Sandusky’s contact with boys through the charity The Second Mile.

Video of the pregame, sideline clearing, silence-inducing prayer before the Penn State Nebraska game today. The first game without Paterno on the sidelines since 1949.

Crowd respectful of pregame prayer

More updates on Twitter @LivingCrimson

Happy Valley’s dark, ugly secret

Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State Nittany Lions assistant coach was indicted last week on felony sex abuse charges against minors. Sandusky will faces 40 counts of involuntary deviant sexual intercourse of someone under 16, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault of someone under 16, indecent assault of someone under 13, and corruption of minors. The incidents were alleged to have taken place from 1996 through 2005 and the was handed down after a two-year long grand jury investigation.

Read the grand jury report for yourself, but be prepared to vomit. It is disgusting.

Also indicted were Penn Athletic Director Tim Curley and PSU Vice President Gary Schultz, who will be charged with felony perjury in their grand jury testimony in the case and failure to report to law enforcement what they knew about Sandusky's behavior.

As with all criminal cases, the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But if true, this scandal would represent a dark and ugly secret, kept quiet by people who had a responsibility to stop and report the abuse. There is a special place in hell for people who hurt children and Mr. Sandusky—if convicted—will spend the rest of his natural life in prison and then enter his eternity of perdition. Is there also a special place in hell for those who knew what was going on, and covered it up? What if one of those was a beloved icon of college football?

In a statement released Sunday, legendary football coach Joe Paterno said “we were all fooled” by someone who, according to the indictment, had engaged in unspeakable abuses of children for ten years. Can we seriously believe that an entire athletics administration had no idea that there may have been a pedophile on their staff? Can we accept the fact that by failing to report the alleged behavior and allowing Sandusky to remain employed by the university until he retired, Penn State not only covered up the scandal, but enabled Sandusky to continue the unimaginable crimes he is accused of?

This is not a college football scandal. This descends far deeper than improper benefits, illegal recruiting, point shaving or doping. This isn’t about a bunch of bowl and conference executives living large and gaming a system for money, power and prestige. This is a scandal in which the most defenseless of victims were alleged to have been horribly and irreparably harmed over and over again, and people with the knowledge and responsibility to stop the abuse failed them. It’s absolutely heartbreaking.

Curley and Schultz have both stepped down from their positions at the university. Coach Paterno—who testified before the grand jury—remains. Paterno says he was told of an incident by an assistant coach who witnessed Sandusky abusing one of his victims and, since Sandusky was retired at the time of the incident, reported it to the athletics department. Paterno’s son Scott—an attorney who helped his father draft his statement—says that’s all he could do. If that makes you squirm in discomfort, join the club. I shudder to think that a man of JoePa’s character and intellect would not conclude that Sandusky may have been engaging in a horrible pattern of abuse and do something about it. If he thought what he was told was credible, he had a moral obligation to do more than just pick up the phone and call Curley.

A week ago today, the college football world was toasting JoePa’s 409th career victory, making him the all-time winningest coach in history. But today, we’re wondering whether that legacy will now be forever tarnished. Instead of remembering him for all of the young people he helped through his decades as a college football coach, some will ask: “What did JoePa know, and when did he know it?”

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

AUburgeddon Avoided

To the shock of everyone whose favorite team doesn’t play in the 334 area code, the NCAA closed its investigations of the Auburn University Football program. The league’s lead investigator wrote in a letter to Athletic Director Jay Jacobs that it had conducted a thorough, 13-month long investigation into the program and failed to find sufficient evidence of major infractions.

And that was that. The raging fire has been extinguished. There will be no AUburgeddon.

UPDATE: I forgot to add that the timing of yesterday’s announcement probably wasn’t a coincidence. The story broke at about 3:30 pm CDT, or about 1-1/2 hours into the Paul Finebaum Radio Network show. A finger in the eye?

This space was going to have a point-counterpoint column on the decision and its impact on the SEC and college football, but the red-eye team of Barrett Sallee and Pete Fiutak beat me to it with this excellent piece on CollegeFootballNews.com.

Here are the most salient points (to me) in that post:

---

Barrett Sallee:

You will see comparisons to O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony in regards to Auburn football getting off the hook. The NCAA wouldn’t have concluded its investigation if it felt that there is anything that could implicate Auburn University or Cam Newton. It had no reason to. If the NCAA presumed guilt - or presumed that guilt is an option - the investigation would have stayed open until the four-year statute of limitations expires. It didn’t, and that’s BIG.

The fact that the NCAA doesn’t have subpoena power should also be a strong indicator of where it feels Auburn stands in the violation pecking order. The organization doesn’t have the power of the United States judicial system, but it also doesn’t share the same burden of proof as the United States judicial system.

Don’t believe me? Just ask USC.

Pete Fiutak:

First of all, I can’t keep stressing this enough; you can’t prove that someone got a bag of cash. You can’t prove a $100 handshake. The NCAA, by saying it couldn’t find any violations, basically couldn’t find a paper trail, and it gave up. Remember, this wasn’t a criminal investigation; just because the NCAA didn’t find anything doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing happened. The NCAA doesn’t have subpoena power, and no, you’re not committing perjury if you lie in an investigation.

The NCAA got Reggie Bush and USC because there were pieces of paper that said he was getting paid by a marketing company. Ohio State got nailed because there were e-mails that proved Jim Tressel was covering up a controversy. There wasn’t anything here for the NCAA to prove that anything happened at Auburn in regards to the recruitment of Cam Newton and all the allegations surrounding the Real Sports interview, but again, that’s not the point.

The Cam Newton side of this wasn’t about Auburn, it was about the Newtons, and that ended a year ago when the NCAA inexplicably let Cam continue to play even though his father was the textbook definition of an agent. No, this isn’t a legal issue and this wasn’t a criminal investigation, but that the NCAA couldn't prove that money changed hands is irrelevant. A family member asked for money in exchange for a player. That should've been a slam-shut ruling.

---

Sallee echoes the sentiments of every Auburn fan on the planet. They never believed that Auburn had done anything wrong in its recruitment of Cam Newton and the HBO Four were just sour grapes whiners. They feel vinidicated by the “not guilty” verdict from the NCAA and can now rest comfortably that Daniel Moore’s print of their BCS National Championship doesn’t have to be in pencil.

Fiutak echoes the sentiments of virtually every other college football fan who followed this story. There are a great many football fans who will never be convinced that the price to play at Mississippi State was 180 large, but the price to play at Auburn was no extra charge. That’s not just Bama fans, either. I had conversations last night with bloggers from or fans of Florida, LSU, Arkansas and even Notre Dame and all of them expressed the same “they got away with something” opinion.

It’s not likely that any minds will change but that doesn’t matter, now. The NCAA has closed the case, tied it up with a bow and sent it with a letter from Jackie Thurnes.

AUBurgeddon Avoided.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Arkansas might be the best one-loss team in the country

The USA Today Coaches’ Poll has Bobby Petrino’s Arkansas Razorbacks ranked No. 11, up from last week’s No. 12 and fresh off of a convincing 38-14 win over SEC West foe Auburn. In six games of the 2011 season, Arkansas has scored 30+ points in every game except one—the 38-14 loss to defensive juggernaut Alabama.

Alabama has made every offense it’s played look silly and ineffective, so the Razorbacks’ only season blemish should be palatable for the Hog Nation. The rest of the schedule sets up well for Petrino & Co. They should be favored in five of the last six, with the only truly dangerous challenge coming in the season finale vs. LSU in Death Valley. Should Arkansas win out or finish as 10-2 team, they’ll be a shoo in for a New Year’s Day bowl game or perhaps a return to a BCS berth. To these eyes, Arkansas is the best one-loss team in the country.

Georgia’s Mark Richt won his 100th game yesterday. The jury is still out on whether the temperature of his seat has cooled with the win over Tennessee.  Tennessee needs a running game.  Badly. The Volunteers have posted –9 and –20 rushing yards in consecutive SEC East losses to Florida and Georgia. Tyler Bray has been the only offensive weapon for the team, but one dimensional offenses in this league make for a miserable season. Tauren Poole’s gimpy hamstring won’t help matters at all, as Tennessee still faces the brutal defenses of LSU and Alabama in the next two weeks.

Speaking of LSU, give Les Miles and John Chavis credit for studying game film and duplicating Bama’s effort in shutting down the potent running attack of the Florida Gators. In the SEC, you have to have a credible running attack to keep the defense honest in the passing game. And, you have to have a credible threat to go deep to keep the defense from stacking the box. With their third string quarterback starting on the road, LSU knew that Florida couldn’t beat them consistently through the air and simply throttled the Gator ground game. Welcome to head coaching in the SEC, Will Muschamp.

And, speaking of Alabama, last night’s 34-0 shut out of Vanderbilt looks great on paper but come out flat against teams like Tennessee, LSU or Auburn and you’ll find yourself on the wrong end of a 14-0 halftime score. Vanderbilt’s defense gets some credit for being stingy early on, and James Franklin is a heckuva football coach and brought a good game plan to Tuscaloosa. But Alabama can ill afford to play lights out in only two quarters of football if they want to run the table and make the trip to New Orleans.

Who misses last year’s rainmaker more—Kentucky, or Auburn? The Wildcats rode the Mike Hartline to Randall Cobb connection last year to stun the South Carolina Gamecocks in 2010. With no Hartline and no Cobb, Kentucky coach Joker Phillips has no offense and it showed in yesterday’s dreadful 54-3 thrashing.

In 2010, when the quarterback had to make a play, Auburn’s Cam Newton made them. Last night, Auburn tried all three quarterbacks and none of them did anything. Barrett Trotter can’t run the football. Kiehl Frazier can run it and throw it, but completed as many balls to Arkansas’ defensive backs (two) as he did to his own receivers. Winning on the road in the SEC means having your rainmakers make it pour. Neither Kentucky nor Auburn could get out of their droughts and both suffered embarrassing road losses.

Mississippi State got back on the winning track, but did it by unimpressively pushing winless UAB around. The Blazers are a dumpster fire of a football program and is a credible threat to go 0-12. Dan Mullen’s Bulldogs received a lot of preseason hype as a program on the rise. But with three losses in the SEC and Alabama and Arkansas still on the schedule, State seems to be falling right into its historical form.

Ole Miss’ Randall Mackey made an unfortunate mistake last week in comments to the Clarion- Ledger. "Alabama is just Alabama," Mackey said. "They've got a real good defense from the D-line to the secondary. There are still, I'm not going to say weaknesses, you know, they ain't Superman. So they can be beat."

That fearsome noise you heard from Tuscaloosa was the entire Bama defense growling and licking their chops.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Unofficial Visits: Auburn And The Black Hole Of College Recruiting

LINK: Cross posted at Business Insider Sports.

Two separate, seemingly unrelated stories have appeared in the last few days. The first was from the New York Times’ Pete Thamel on the potential for abuse in how unofficial visits play a role in recruiting. The second was a report from the Birmingham News’ Jon Solomon covering remarks Ole Miss Coach Houston Nutt made in a speech before the Monday Morning Quarterback Club in Birmingham.

In the Sunday Times report, Thamel reports that illegally arranging payment for travel and lodging expenses for recruits’ unofficial visits to college campuses is one of the most frequent violations of NCAA rules. Research indicates that he’s onto something: A search of the NCAA infractions database yields no fewer than 15 major infractions cases involving impermissible benefits associated with unofficial visits since 2001.

Thamel interviewed ESPN Basketball Analyst Dave Telep and former Florida Head Football Coach Urban Meyer—now an ESPN Football Analyst—and both men indicated that the problem is pervasive in the two biggest revenue generators in college sports.

“Behind the scenes in college basketball, people will tell you that the unofficial visit is one of the bigger problems facing recruiting right now. It’s a place where things can be easily manipulated by third parties. At the same time, I have no idea how you can fix it,” Telep told Thamel.

Said Meyer: “I’d ask my assistants, ‘Why is this kid not visiting us?’ They’d say, ‘Coach, we’re not paying for his trip.’ ”

In the Birmingham News story, Nutt is reported to have complained that a prized recruit was “stolen” from him by Auburn Tigers Coach Gene Chizik. “Gene Chizik came in and stole my man, Jermaine Whitehead,” Nutt told the audience. Nutt claims to have had a handshake agreement with the prospect, in which Whitehead told the Rebels’ coach he was coming to play in Oxford. But something changed Whitehead’s mind and on National Signing Day 2011, he signed with Auburn. When Nutt finally reestablished contact with Whitehead, he described the conversation this way:

"Jermaine: 'Coach, I gotta go to Auburn.'"

"Why? Why would you go to Auburn? They already won their title. They already have the crystal ball. They don't need you. I need you."

"Coach, it's business."

"Business? You shook my hand, man! You said you were committed to me!"

"I know, Coach. I'm sorry."

Whitehead’s official visit to Auburn occurred over the weekend of the 2010 Georgia game, played on Nov 13. At the time, Auburn was in the midst of controversy surrounding its recruitment of then Quarterback Cam Newton.

But according to the Birmingham News story, Whitehead had made several unofficial visits to the campus as well, including the 2010 Big Cat Weekend. Others making the Big Cat Weekend trip were Kiehl Frazier,  Kris Frost, Reese Dismukes, Greg Robinson, Erique Florence, Brandon Fulse, Jonathan Rose and Gabe Wright. All signed with Auburn in February.

While there is currently no evidence showing that the Auburn program provided impermissible benefits in connection with these unofficial visits, various news reports indicate that the NCAA has at least some of these players’ recruitment on their investigation menu, including recruits from Louisiana and South Florida. Many of these players made several unofficial visits to the Auburn campus.

Perhaps this explains why the seemingly interminable NCAA investigation into Auburn’s recruiting practices is now dragging into its 12th month without so much as an official Notice of Inquiry. If you’re familiar with the Anatomy of an NCAA Investigation, you understand that this can be a long, drawn out process despite changes to investigative procedure in the last decade. Auburn is still in the review phase and that has no official timetable.

As it stands now, we have a report that unofficial visits are a major focus of NCAA enforcement. We have a bare allegation by an embattled rival head coach that Auburn “stole” a prized recruit. who explained to the coach that his decision to sign with Auburn was “business.” And we have pretty good information that the NCAA is looking into a lot more than a pay-for-play scheme unearthed by the New York Times and ESPN nearly one year ago.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

SEC Quarterbacks are getting it done

In one of last week’s installments on the al.com Blogger Roundtable, one of the questions put to the contributors was:

It's not exactly the year of the quarterback in the SEC, but if you could choose one starting quarterback from the league to play for your team, who do you take and why?

My response was that if I had a three-sided coin, I'd flip it and take any one of LSU's Jarrett Lee, Arkansas' Tyler Wilson or Alabama's AJ McCarron.

Yesterday, those three signal callers combined to go 50 of 97 for 819 yards and three touchdowns. The lion’s share of the production came from Wilson, who had an eye-popping 510 yards and two of the scores. But most importantly, none of these three quarterbacks made mistakes that put their teams at a disadvantage. Wilson was sacked four times but none of them threw costly interceptions that flipped the field and allowed their opponent to score off of turnovers. That, gentle reader, is the definition of “game management” in college football and it represents what quarterbacks mean to successful college football teams.

The college and pro games are vastly different in this area. An NFL team needs a franchise quarterback who distributes the ball and has few weaknesses that hurt his team. Think Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers and Ben Roethlisberger. The nucleus of an NFL contender is the quarterback and his ability to make plays. College football teams that place such emphasis on the quarterback had better have an exceptional talent under center, or it’s going to be in for disappointing season after disappointing season.

There are 120 FBS football programs. There are 32 NFL teams. The math and the quality of the information available to talent scouts will always fall in favor of the NFL program making the right decision and the college program taking someone who just doesn’t pan out.

In college ball, you are much better off developing your program around athletic defenses and balanced offenses that can either run or throw the ball whenever it wants to. Third and two is a running play in college. Third down is almost always a passing down in the NFL. QB play is important in the college game, but it’s critical to the pro game.

That’s why I will always take a game manager as my QB at the college level. Give me a smart guy who doesn’t make many mistakes. Give me a guy who knows my offense well. Give me a guy who distributes the ball without taking big risks and doesn’t try to do too much. Give me an AJ McCarron, a Jarrett Lee or a Tyler Wilson, and I’ll be in contention every year, as long as I can rely on my defense and a solid running game.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Bama makes another statement with 38-10 Swamp Stomp

Last night, the Florida Gators learned that bringing track stars to a football game with the Alabama Crimson Tide is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. You might do a little damage early on but the more heavily armed opponent is going to slaughter you.

Consider the 38-10 smashing of the Gators on their own field yet another statement—you can have a very good football team and you will still be crushed. You can have a talented quarterback comfortable in a system designed for his abilities and he’ll have to run for his life. You can have blazing speed in the backfield and a good offensive line and still be held to 15 yards on the ground. You can have an athletic defense that knows exactly who’s getting the ball and where he’s going and still get run over by the freight train we call Trent. In all three phases of the game of football, Alabama is going to outwork you and make you look silly. That’s how championship caliber football teams win games and make statements that they are the team to beat.

Alabama intends to hoist some crystal in January, amid a hail of confetti and a party on Bourbon Street.

When the USA Today Coaches and Associated Press polls are released later today, Alabama will receive a few first place votes. But LSU and Oklahoma will likely be 1-2 or 2-1, with the Tide still at No. 3. Bama fans need to take this in stride and understand that these things will work themselves out. Who is ranked first through tenth on the first weekend of October means absolutely nothing, especially when one of the teams ranked ahead of you is on your schedule and the other has yet to play any of the better teams in its own conference.

Patience, Padawan.

If Alabama takes care of business, survives the slobberknocker against LSU in Tuscaloosa, runs the table and wins its 23rd SEC Championship, it will have a berth in the title game in New Orleans. That’s all that needs to be said. What doesn’t need to be said is that the poll voters are disrespecting Alabama by keeping them down; that the voters are biased or Anti-Bama. That is the kind of stuff that makes for absolutely awful water cooler and break room discussion and when I hear my fellow Tide faithful whining like that, I’m embarrassed for them. Please, don’t.

Head Coach Nick Saban doesn’t care where Alabama is ranked right now. Courtney Upshaw, Trent Richardson, Marquis Maze and Dre Kirkpatrick probably don’t even know where Alabama is ranked. So why should you care?

As long as Alabama’s opponents keep bringing knives to gunfights, the Tide will be the last one standing.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Players get up to $17,000 in cash, all legal

Perhaps this post will add a bit of context to yesterday’s viral news item on rival fans stalking Alabama football players—visiting their homes, taking pictures of their residences and automobiles, doing searches of court documents (not a free resource, by the way) and spoon-feeding gossip blogs. 

They’re obsessed with the idea that these poor kids cannot possibly afford all of the stuff the stalkers “caught” them driving, wearing or buying, and that Alabama simply must be breaking NCAA rules for all of this to be happening.

Originally posted on May 22, 2011, the following is from Holy Turf, a blog focusing on the passion of college football. I hope you find Flint’s work as informative as I did. It’s an exceptionally good description of an environment that lets college football players enjoy most of the same things that any other college kid can, even if they’re black and come from poor families. It covers Pell Grants, clothing allowances, the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund, the Special Assistance Fund, cash-in-lieu of payments for off-campus room and board, even the occasional meals that are legally paid for by…  gasp…  BOOSTERS!

---

That’s it. I have had it with the inane and redundant talk about NCAA football student-athletes, specifically football players, not being able pay for a tank of gas or afford a combo meal at Subway. Stop it! Enough is enough. These kids are given ample resources to “survive” during their years on a college campus, and I will prove it to you. I will show you not only the value of a scholarship, but the cash and benefits student-athletes can get all within NCAA rules.

If this is your first time to Holy Turf, welcome. Let me give you some quick background information. I spent nine years working inside athletic departments at Arkansas and Baylor as an academic advisor for student-athletes. I have seen the inner workings of two athletic departments in two major conferences. Let’s get back to the task at hand. I live in Fayetteville, Arkansas, the home of the Razorbacks. In this article, I am going to use Arkansas as my example.

Before we get to the value of a scholarship, let’s start off with the amount of money available to football student-athletes within NCAA rules. Read the whole post here.

---

GO READ THE WHOLE THING. We’ll be here when you get back…

If that didn’t satiate your desire for learning how college football players can cope with the daily grind of keeping up with the regular student body on transportation, fine men’s suits clothing and entertainment expenses, here’s another excellent description of Pell Grants and how they’ve been a boon to college student-athletes. It’s straight cash, homies.

This post explains how the Des Moines Register looked at 23 different schools in the Big Ten, Big 12 and Southeastern conferences, and learned that more than 1,000 student-athletes received approximately $5 million in the 2010 academic year. All cash. All tax free. None of it has to be repaid and all of it is within NCAA rules. This is on top of the full ride scholarships the students got. The average player got about $4,500 to spend as he saw fit. Since tuition, books, fees and boarding costs covered by the scholarship, the grant money goes to pretty much anything the kid wants to spend it on.

Including cars with tricked out rims and stereo systems.

That leads to today’s Exit Question: Who has one of the strictest compliance policies covering documentation of student-athlete vehicle registration in the country, again?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

AUburgeddon: NCAA looking for lack of institutional control

The four most dreaded words in the NCAA enforcement lexicon are “lack of institutional control,” and the NCAA is now looking for evidence of that, according to statements made by Auburn University Athletic Director Jay Jacobs.

You can sugarcoat and spin this all you want, but the full fisted anal exam of the Tigers’ athletics program is still in high gear. It’s not dormant, it’s not inactive and it’s not stalled. And, if the NCAA is already on the institutional control page of the playbook—without delivering the formal notice of inquiry—it doesn’t bode well for teh fambly.

Yesterday after delivering comments at the Hoover Area Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Jacobs spoke with reporters about the ongoing NCAA probe into the school’s compliance with NCAA regulations and had this to say:

---

"The Cam one is the one that started this entire thing," Jacobs said. "But the way the process works is once they begin to look at one thing, they look at everything around your program, whether it's a coach in another sport having too many text messages and you filed a secondary report. They look at all of that.

"They're making sure we have institutional control, and there's been nothing to indicate to me or to them otherwise. So when you say how many facets, it's basically everything that may come up in a normal operation of a year -- this year, last year or two years from now. They take a look just to make sure they're not missing anything."

Jacobs said Auburn has not complied with open-records requests from The Birmingham News out of respect for the NCAA's process. Over several months, The News has requested documents related to Newton's recruitment and all of Auburn's recent NCAA secondary violations.

"Generally, when the NCAA says it isn't over with, we don't release them," Jacobs said. "They'll even look at things we may or may not have gotten a reply from the NCAA yet just to see if there's any history there, anything that jumps out to them because they've looked into things. I would think in the near future we'll be able to share everything you need. But we're not going to do that until they tell us it's OK to do that."

---

Jacobs is whistling past the graveyard and so is anyone else who interprets his comments to mean that this all a standard part of the process and that everything is going to be just fine.

The NCAA does not investigate potential lack of institutional control unless it has found evidence of rules violations. If the enforcement staff truly is reviewing Auburn’s institutional control procedures, it means that they have already discovered and documented violations of league bylaws and are now in the process of determining whether these rules violations are consistent with the charge of lack of institutional control.

A review of the NCAA’s database of major infractions cases shows no cases where a school was charged for lack of institutional control without also being cited for numerous other violations that rose to the standard of “major infractions.”

People will try to spin this as a “normal operation” in which the NCAA hasn’t really found anything and is just having a quick look-see at institutional control procedures. Don’t believe them. The league’s enforcement process doesn’t work that way. There’s no reason to engage in a review of institutional control procedures unless there’s something to suggest that it’s lacking. The enforcement staff has all but set up a satellite office at the local Hilton Garden Inn, racking up Hilton Honor points and documenting that “something.” Bet on it.

The most ominous takeaway is that determining that there has been a lack of institutional control is a totally subjective judgment. You have to document violations of recruiting and impermissible benefits legislation. The call on whether those violations rise to the standard of lack of institutional control depends on the mood of the Enforcement Staff and the Committee on Infractions.

Exit question: Is this why Jacobs suddenly has “lot more respect for them today?” It probably makes sense to suck up a little bit now, doesn’t it?

UPDATE: Capstone Report has an excellent angle on Auburn President Jay Gogue’s comments in the same story linked above.

---

Also from the Birmingham News: “I’ve never heard anything about it other than what I read in the newspapers,” Gogue said. “I have not a clue what’s going on. I haven’t heard anything. I just see it’s a constant story.”

That begs the question. What else is Gogue in the dark about involving Auburn’s Athletic Department?

Does Gogue supervise the athletic department? Or does it supervise itself? Does it tell the president what he should know, or does it tell the president want it wants him to know?

---

In the context of a news story on a review of lack of institutional control, to have the President of the university express cluelessness as to the nature and progress of the investigation is at best embarrassing and at worst damning.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Duron Carter status shows Bama compliance is finally doing it right

Just hours before Alabama was set to meet Penn State in a Happy Valley clash of the titans, Crimson Tide media relations released a statement explaining that WR Duron Carter would not be playing and indeed, had not made the trip from Tuscaloosa.

"Wide receiver Duron Carter did not travel with the football team to State College for today's game. The University of Alabama is awaiting documents necessary for Duron to be certified. Until those documents are received, Duron may continue practicing with the team, but he cannot compete in a game."

While the school has released few details on the issues preventing Carter from joining the team on the field, indications are that there remains an outstanding dispute between the Junior College transfer and his former school, Coffeyville Community College in Kansas. Carter had transferred there from Ohio State and is the son of former NFL player and ESPN analyst Cris Carter. The younger Carter is a gifted athlete with many of his father’s talents and, if he gets the chance to play, is expected to make an immediate impact for Nick Saban’s Crimson Tide.

Alabama covets a “go to” receiver to replace Julio Jones, the Atlanta Falcon’s first round draft pick who led the team last year with 78 catches for 1133 yards. The temptation to dress Carter and get him on the field is strong and had this situation come up 5-10 years ago, it might have been too much to resist. The temptation might have led to shortcuts being taken to get an impact player on the field despite potentially serious eligibility issues.

Not with this staff.

Students transferring from other institutions and junior colleges must wade through a complicated, bureaucratically SNAFU-ed process of documentation of verifying transcripts and establishing enrollment eligibility. Add the navigation of the NCAA’s rulebook and it gets even more interesting. The Alabama compliance department is working with admissions and making sure every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed in Carter’s transfer status and until everything is clear, Carter may not play in a game. That’s the way it’s supposed to be done but in today’s “hot story” news environment, nobody notices when things are done right.

There are other players on the current roster who have been the subject of NCAA compliance matters affecting their eligibility as well. Russellville standout Brent Calloway ran into a snag verifying a summer school class that he needed to establish initial eligibility, and WR Darius Hanks was made to sit two games for playing in a game during a season he was eventually redshirted in. Those are two more examples of Alabama compliance getting it right and keeping the kids and the athletic department out of the NCAA doghouse.

Can you name an NCAA major infractions case in the last 5-10 years where the violations weren’t known by the school or the public until someone in the media published the results of an investigation into the institution’s activities? There’s only one that I can think of—the Alabama textbook case, discovered by UA officials in 2007, investigated by the compliance staff and self-reported to the NCAA. Granted, that case resulted in probation and vacation of wins, but consider this: As bitter as the medicine was, the University of Alabama handled the case properly and took the medicine anyway.

This was all going down at about the same time that Alabama compliance staff successfully derailed Operation Red Dog, a coordinated and organized attempt by Auburn fans to entrap Alabama football players and lure them into committing NCAA violations.

Contrast this situation with the one at Ohio State, where the school was blindsided by a report in the school’s own student newspaper, which was then picked up and expanded upon by local, then national media. The case included a drug dealing, tattoo shop owner trading cash, tattoos and other favors for sports memorabilia and equipment from football players. It also included a violation of NCAA ethics bylaws by the head football coach, who concealed knowledge of the impermissible benefits and ended up losing his job.

Compare it also with the absolutely toxic revelations detailed in Yahoo! Sports’ Charles Robinson’s expose of the University of Miami program. Robinson chronicled how a convicted Ponzi scheme architect doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and hired prostitutes for Hurricanes football players for nearly a decade. Ironically, almost all of Nevin Shapiro’s “Lil Luke” activities went on right under the nose—and perhaps even with the knowledge of—its former Athletic Director Paul Dee. The same Paul Dee who sat on the Committee on Infractions that heard the Means case in 2001-02 and chaired the Committee that heard and decided the textbook case. You won’t find any louder proponent for doing away with that Committee’s discretion than this blog, but that’s a discussion for another day.

Immediately after the NCAA’s decision on the textbook case, ESPN Senior College Football Writer Ivan Maisel had the following:

---

Coach Dennis Franchione, who had been at Alabama for little more than a year, said he felt blindsided [by the Means case decision]. The tangible loss of scholarships took its toll on the football team. Franchione stayed one more season. Then came the five-month stint of Mike Price and the four-year slog of Mike Shula.

Football mediocrity, together with the intangible stain of being a two-time NCAA loser, took its toll on Alabama officials. They got it.

In the brief statement that he read to the media Thursday afternoon, athletic director Mal Moore said that Alabama "conducted an exhaustive review."

He added, "We have clearly demonstrated our intent to do things the right way."

…

The penalties apply backward, not forward. Alabama must vacate 21 football victories. But that's about it. Where these textbooks are concerned, the NCAA made a molehill out of a molehill. Alabama accepted responsibility, performed its due diligence and fixed the flaw.

In other words, in its dealings with the NCAA, the university finally found a textbook solution.

---

And that “textbook” solution carries forward to this day—doing compliance right means Duron Carter sits until he is eligible. It means Darius Hanks trades two games for one, consistent with NCAA eligibility rules. It means Brent Calloway is eligible to practice and play with the team.

And it means that a ZOMG bunch of facebook pictures and gossip blog posts hang on rival fans like so many cheap suits.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Instances similar to T-Town Menswear led to no eligibility loss, no program sanctions

CASE DISMISSED

In August, IBCR filed a lengthy story on why the T-Town Menswear issue isn’t one and why it represents nothing more than a rival fanbase’s wet dream.

I interviewed four experts on NCAA compliance, amateurism and trademark law. I posted the NCAA’s public statement regarding by-law 12.5.2, explored the context of the legislation and what it really meant. I surveyed member institutions and received feedback on how schools are applying the by-law and I also described the legal landscape that could shake up the NCAA’s amateurism model and change the allocation of billions of dollars in the years to come.

I also explained that in nearly two dozen recent incidents where member schools sought guidance or requested reinstatement of student-athletes involved in possible violations of 12.5.2, not one of the student-athletes suffered lost eligibility beyond their reinstatement, and not one of the schools involved were given sanctions, placed on probation or forced to vacate contests.

In some of them, the student-athletes actually received remuneration for their appearances or likenesses. The fact that these instances resulted in no probation and no permanent loss of eligibility also show one thing in stark, undeniable clarity: When student-athletes have told compliance officials or the NCAA that they were unaware of potential rules violations or had no knowledge that the businesses or individuals were using their reputation to promote their product or service, they were given the benefit of the doubt.

Here are the summaries of those cases, provided to IBCR as a courtesy by Dr. Anastasios Kaburakis, Assistant Professor of Management and Sports Business in the John Cook School of Business at
Saint Louis University.

1. Second-year (SA No. 1) and third-year (SA No. 2) baseball student-athletes (SAs) provided implied endorsement of a commercial product (wrist bands) on a social networking site. Specifically, representative of the commercial product met SAs at a local restaurant October 15, 2010. SAs purchased wrist bands at full retail value ($35). Representative of the commercial product took a photograph of SAs and posted the photograph on his social networking site. In addition, the representative sent an e-mail blast stating SAs endorsed the commercial product. Institution provided that although SAs agreed to pose for the photograph wearing the wrist bands, SAs were unaware of the representative's intention to post the photo on a social networking site or to send out an e-mail stating SAs endorsed the commercial product.

2. Subsequent to initial collegiate enrollment at an NCAA institution, fourth-year, football student-athlete (SA) was impermissibly involved in a promotional activity for a magazine. Specifically, SA is a subscriber to muscle and performance magazine and he entered a sweepstakes contest advertised in the magazine that required SA to submit his picture and state why he enjoyed the product. SA stated that he thought entering contest was not a violation because contest was open to all, did not involve athletics and did not involve gambling. SA's statement was selected and SA received a free sample of the product valued at $80. SA's photo and statement appeared in September 2010 issue of muscle and performance magazine. SA was not identified as a SA in the photo or in his statement, nor did he wear clothing that identified him as a football player at institution.

3. September 2010, four football student-athletes (SAs) created a club card/flyer to promote an after-game party at a country club scheduled for September 25, 2010. SAs were working with an entertainment company and distributed the flyers on campus during the week prior to September 25 contest. SA Nos. 3 and 4, both third-year SAs provided photos of themselves for use on flyer to assist with promotion. SA No. 1's photo was also used on the flyer without his knowledge. Because SA No. 2 paid for the creation of flyer, SAs did not believe that their actions were a violation of any NCAA bylaws. SAs did not receive any compensation for event.

4. In September 2010, four football student-athletes (SAs) allowed their names and pictures to be used by a fellow student to promote an after-game party at a local nightclub scheduled for September 18, 2010. The student posted a flyer on his social networking site. The SAs indicated they were asked by the student for permission to use their photo on a flyer for an after-game party. The SAs did not know, however, that the student planned to promote the nightclub. Further, none of the SAs gave permission for their name or picture to be used to promote or advertise a commercial entity. Violation was discovered after it was brought to the attention of institution's compliance office that a student was using football SAs' names and pictures to promote a party.

5. During summer 2010, photograph of recruited, first-year men's basketball student-athlete (SA) appeared in an advertisement for his local YMCA and was published on a website. Specifically, SA was asked to appear on website by YMCA owner, who is a friend and former training partner of SA. Photo shoot for advertisement included former athletes who had trained at YMCA. Website editor used group picture as main picture for website. After picture was posted, SA sent e-mail to compliance director to verify permissibility. After SA discovered posting his picture constituted a violation, SA asked website editor to remove picture and was taken offline immediately. Advertisement did not indicate SA was a SA nor did SA receive any compensation.

6. During 2010 spring semester, a recruited, third-year football student-athlete (SA) impermissibly allowed use of his name to promote a social event via fliers and a social networking site. Specifically, SA and his cousin hosted a party at a nightclub in their hometown. SA's parents and cousin each paid $500 to rent facility. SA's cousin designed a digital poster to promote party using SA's name and photo that included name of commercial establishment where party would be held. SA's cousin sent poster to SA's friends via a social networking site. SA did not sign a contract with either commercial establishment, nor did he receive any compensation or remuneration for use of his name and picture. SA stated he did not realize using his nickname on a flyer would be a violation and believed he had followed all applicable rules given he had paid for use of the nightclub and did not receive any remuneration. SA was only hoping to promote his party. SA attended party and paid cover charge but did not receive any benefits.

7. During 2010 spring semester, a third-year football student-athlete (SA) used his name and picture in the promotion of a commercial entity. Specifically, SA joined a local real estate company as an independent contractor. Each contractor provides a biography and a photograph for their personal page on the company's Web site at the beginning of their employment. SA provided the company with a brief biography which referenced his status as a student-athlete at his institution, and included a photo of himself which was copied from the institution's athletics Web site. The biography and photo were then added to the company's Web site and remained on the Web site until compliance staff discovered the page. During the time SA's picture was posted on the Web site, both SA and the company indicated SA did not obtain any new clients.

8. During 2010 spring semester, a recruited, third-year men's basketball student-athlete (SA) impermissibly allowed use of his name and photograph to promote a social event via a social networking site. Specifically, a friend who works for a local promotional firm contacted SA asking if he would be interested in having a birthday party at a local nightclub. SA agreed. Without SA's knowledge, his friend designed a digital poster to promote party using SA's name and photo that included name of promotional firm and commercial establishment where party would be held. SA's friend sent poster to SA via a social networking site. SA did not sign a contract with either commercial establishment, nor did he receive any compensation or remuneration for use of his name and picture. SA stated he did not realize that sending poster to others via his social networking site would be considered an advertisement for promotional firm and commercial establishment. SA was only hoping to promote his own birthday party. SA attended party and paid cover charge, but did not receive any benefits.
During 2010 spring semester, a first-year women's soccer student-athlete (SA) participated in an impermissible promotional activity subsequent to enrollment. Specifically, January 2010, SA permitted her picture to be featured on a promotional card to advertise a club promotion. SA did not receive any remuneration or compensation for her participation in the advertisement. SA did not believe she violated any NCAA rules since she was not identified as a SA, her name was not used and she did not wear apparel associated with institution. SA was not selected to be in the photo because of her athletics ability and was not pictured performing any athletically related activity.

9. Men's junior volleyball student-athlete (SA) participated in a photo shoot for a sportswear company June 2009 and received three pairs of board shorts valued at $40 each for a total of $120. In addition, institution permitted SA to compete prior to being reinstated. Specifically, SA was contacted by the owner of a volleyball uniform and apparel company to appear in an ad for the company. SA and owner became acquaintances during SA's sophomore year in high school when SA's former girlfriend worked for owner's company. Owner called SA to ask if he would be willing to appear as a model for a new line of products. Owner initially called SA as a favor due to the model who was scheduled for the photo shoot having to cancel. When the photo shoot was complete, owner allowed SA to take three pairs of board shorts as compensation, which totaled $120. Violation was discovered when head men's volleyball coach noticed SA modeling in an ad in VB Magazine. Coach subsequently contacted director of compliance October 24, 2009, knowing it was a violation. Director of compliance interviewed SA October 26 asking why he thought it was permissible to model. Although institution had conducted a rules compliance session with men's volleyball team October 20, specifically about promotional activities, SA did not come forward about modeling in June as he did not believe his participation in the photo shoot was a violation since he was simply doing a favor for a friend. Subsequent to discovery of violation, institution allowed SA to compete November 6 and 7 prior to seeking reinstatement from NCAA. Director of compliance believed SA could compete in dates of competition as they were during nonchampionship segment of season and any withholding condition would be placed during championship segment of season. Institution contacted NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff for application and discovered reinstatement must be requested prior to any competition, regardless of nonchampionship or championship segment of season.

10. Men's sophomore football student-athlete (SA) participated in an impermissible promotional activity for an outdoor clothing and equipment retailer. Specifically, SA is good friends with two individuals who work for local outdoor clothing and equipment retailer and they approached SA to see if he would do a photo shoot for company. One individual told SA he had already called institution's compliance office to ask if it would be permissible for SA to participate and compliance said it was alright. It was later determined conversation between individual and applicant institution was misunderstood. SA did not think about asking coaching staff if he could participate in photo shoot because these individuals are his good friends and he trusted they were both telling him truth about permissiblit of photo shoot. SA's participation occurred fall 2009 during which he was photographed with other models wearing sweaters. In addition, SA and his parents learned a Web site other than one he was modeling for had posted his pictures on its site. Applicant institution sent cease and desist letters to both companies. Photographs of SA on Web sites of both companies have been removed. SA did not receive any payment for his participation in photo shoot nor did he sign any type of contract for his participation.

11. During summer 2009, a recruited, rising second-year women's swimming student-athlete (SA) appeared in an advertisement for a national clothing catalog which featured her picture and a few paragraphs about her swimming career. Specifically, SA was asked to appear in catalog's photo shoot because the clothing company wanted to feature SA's father's National Sailing Hall of Fame project. The clothing company contacted SA's father and asked him to find people associated with him or the Hall of Fame to be in 2009 fall catalog. SA and her brothers were asked if they would be willing to participate. SA was not paid, although she was given a $250 gift card as a thank you gesture. SA returned the unused gift card to institution at its request. Inasmuch as SA did not receive any remuneration and the photo shoot was initiated because of SA's father's project, SA did not believe there would be any issues related to her eligibility. Violation discovered August 19, 2009, when the men's and women's water polo head coach's wife received catalog in the mail and head coach recognized SA in the photo and corresponding commentary. Institution stated it provides rules education twice a year to all teams with regard to promotional activities.

12. Beginning fall semester 2009, numerous football student-athletes (SAs) permitted their names and photos to be used on the Web site of a local business. Specifically, owner of the local business indicated that at his request, the SAs' photos were taken and their names were placed on the Web site. Institution and SAs provided that no SA received any discount on any product or service provided by Sound Performance. Further, no SA received any type of compensation from local business in exchange for the use of their name and picture appearing on the company's Web site. SAs stated they did not ask compliance if allowing their photo to be used on Web site would be permissible as they did not realize the photo would constitute advertising for the local company.  Institution informed owner of the NCAA rules which prohibit the use of SAs' names and photos for the purpose of endorsing a commercial product and service. Institution requested owner to remove SAs' names and photos immediately from the Web site. Institution also sent a cease and desist letter to owner that same day. Institution noted SAs' names and photos had been removed from the Web site September 11.

13. In January 2009 while attending Institution No. 1, student-athlete (SA) along with a women's soccer SA, served as models of new team jerseys for a professional soccer team, in a picture that was distributed by e-mail with professional team's schedule included. Institution No. 1 reported that when models for photo shoot suddenly cancelled, an intern with the professional team suggested SAs from Institution No. 1 be contacted to participate. Professional team staff indicated they thought given SAs were not compensated, it would be permissible and did not consult with institution's compliance personnel. Institution No. 1 confirmed SA was not compensated and she did not keep any clothing from photo shoot.

14. During spring 2009 semester, a sophomore women's soccer student-athlete (SA) permitted her picture to be featured on a billboard for a business in institution's locale. SA had been an employee of business for a year when her boss mandated that SA, along with other employees, must participate in a photo shoot for an advertisement for the business, which would be on a billboard. SA did not receive any remuneration or compensation for her participation in the photo shoot. SA did not believe that she violated any bylaws because she felt that she had to participate in the photo shoot as an employee. SA was not identified as a student-athlete on the billboard and her name was not used in the advertisement. SA was not selected to be in the photo because of her athletic ability and was not pictured performing any athletics related activity. Violation was discovered by compliance coordinator when compliance officer saw billboard with SA's picture. Compliance coordinator informed SA of violation and SA immediately contacted her boss to let him know that the billboard must be removed.

15. During fall 2008, student-athlete (SA) participated in a full-page photo and congratulatory advertisement placed in athletics magazine/journal. Advertisement highlighted SA's world championship title and included a statement from SA thanking several people who assisted her in preparing for competition. Among people SA thanked were two individuals who operate commercial businesses that cater the sports industry. SA's trainer and coach as well as her custom gear designer were both thanked for their part in SA's preparation for world championship and were listed as business owners.

16. During 2008 fall semester, 12 women's soccer student-athletes (SAs) were involved in a promotional activity subsequent to enrollment. Specifically, a local chain restaurant sponsored a promotion September 29, 2008, indicating the first 50 individuals in line at the restaurant's opening 11 a.m. Tuesday, September 30, would receive free burritos for a year. Promotion was open to the general public and was advertised in local newspapers and radio stations. SAs were among the first 50 individuals in line at a restaurant location eight miles from campus and were required to provide their names, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses and spend the night at the location until the restaurant opened September 30 in order to win burritos for a year. Employees of the restaurant took photographs of all 50 winners. Among the photographs was a group photo of SAs, two wearing T-shirts identifying the institution's name and three wearing T-shirts identifying the restaurant's name. Restaurant manager called two of the SAs September 11 and asked SAs for the names of the SAs in the group photograph because the manager wanted to get the photograph published in a local newspaper. A free local newspaper published the photograph September 27 and a caption beneath the photograph identified all SAs by name and institutional affiliation. Institution found out when one of SAs in the photograph brought a copy of the newspaper to practice September 30, 2008, to show to the team.

17. Men's track and field student-athlete (SA) participated in a photo shoot for the men's clothing line of a commercial company's summer 2008 catalog and received expenses totaling $1,247.10. A photographer friend of SA's asked if SA wanted to participate in the event that was conducted as a "tryout" for potential models with no compensation other than expenses and no guarantee that any of the photographs would be used by the company. SA checked with the assistant track and field coach to make sure the activity was permissible. Assistant track and field coach stated he had discussed with SA the modeling opportunity and at no time did he ever think there would be a problem with SA being involved as coach considered the modeling as employment rather than a promotional appearance issue. SA received air fare, lodging and meals for the days of the photo shoot which occurred December 2-10, 2007. SA was not chosen due to his athletics ability nor are the ads related to sports or athletics. As of the date of the reinstatement request, the photographs of SA have not been published.

18. Men's basketball student-athlete (SA) permitted his photo to be used in a television commercial for a local sporting goods store during his junior year of high school which was aired during recent football contest. SA did not receive any compensation for being in the commercial and was told his eligibility would not be affected because SA did not receive any form of payment. Violation was discovered by the compliance officer when the commercial aired during a recent telecast of the institution's football game. SA omitted his participation in the commercial on his conference paperwork regarding participation in promotional activities because the promotion occurred while in high school. SA was drafted out of high school and played minor league baseball before full-time collegiate enrollment and at the time he appeared in the commercial SA did not plan to participate in collegiate sports. SA has since retracted permission for the local sporting goods store to use his photo in the commercial.

19. Women's track and cross country student-athlete (SA) allowed a photograph of her to be used in a newspaper advertisement promoting the running shoe store where she was employed. In addition, SA's picture and biography were displayed on the workplace's Web site, and SA took part in the workplace photo for a holiday card. These activities were part of her job performance as an employee of the store, and SA received no remuneration. SA was unaware that these activities were impermissible promotions. The violation was discovered when SA attended an eligibility meeting several months after the impermissible promotional activity and came forward to notify institution's compliance office of the violation.

20. Football student-athlete (SA) participated in a promotional advertisement for men's apparel store at which he was employed part time. Specifically, SA's employer asked all employees to participate in advertisements that were published in the local newspaper. SA was photographed and a photo of him modeling a men's suit appeared in the advertisement promoting men's apparel store. SA was not compensated for his appearance nor did he receive any clothing and the advertisement did not identify the sport in which SA participates. Since SA was an employee of men's apparel shop, he perceived the advertisement to be part of his job. Institution's sports information director discovered the advertisement while reviewing the local newspaper.

21. During the 2009 fall semester, the sports marketing department placed an image of the student-athlete in an advertisement for a store. Specifically, the student-athlete's photo appeared in an advertisement for a store that ran on the video board. The student-athlete, however, was unaware that his image would be included in the advertisement.

22. During the 2009 fall semester, the institution permitted the use of a men's ice hockey student-athlete's (SA) picture to promote a commercial product. Specifically, the institution's sports communication department provided filmmakers with photos and footage of men's ice hockey SAs with eligibility remaining for use in a film highlighting the institution's rivalry with a local member institution in the sport of men's ice hockey. The filmmaker requested additional photos for the film's cover and for promotional posters. The institution provided the additional photos, which included a picture of the SA. The filmmaker included the photo of the SA on the cover of the film and several promotional posters. The filmmaker sent the senior assistant director of athletics communications proofs of the artwork prior to it being printed and distributed seeking his approval; however, due to the size of the email, the senior assistant director of athletics communications never opened the email to view the proofs.

23. During the summer of 2008, two wrestling student-athletes (SAs) received remuneration and travel expenses associated with photographs and videos of the SAs appearing on a Web site. The two SAs were invited to fly to California to take part in a photo shoot and video production for a Web site. Subscribers to the Web site were able to view the photos and video recordings of the SAs for a fee of $24.95. The institution believes that both SAs were provided round-trip, first class airline transportation, over-night lodging and entertainment expenses, and were paid for appearing on the Web site. The institution interviewed both SAs and the owner of the Web site; however, all refused to provide any information concerning the benefits the SAs received. Both SAs were dismissed from the wrestling team and neither currently attends the institution.

24. On January 18, 2007, the institution permitted a picture of a men's basketball student-athlete (SA) to appear in an advertisement. Specifically, an account representative for the institution's student newspaper cooperated with representatives from a local restaurant to publish an advertisement for an after-game party at the restaurant. The advertisement featured a photo of the SA. The SA was not aware that his photo was being used for the advertisement.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.