If Gus Malzahn takes the Auburn job, they skate with the NCAA

It is irrefutable logic. Gus Malzahn was Auburn’s offensive coordinator for three years. If Auburn has committed any major NCAA recruiting violations, he knows about them and he knows where the bodies are buried.

No intelligent head coach would walk into a situation knowing that impending NCAA sanctions might cripple his program for the next three to four years. Further, under the new NCAA penalty system those sanctions would likely include hefty fines for the program, a multiple-year post season ban and heavier scholarship reductions than anything that might have been imposed previously.

Malzahn knows all of this. He also knows that in the modern era, no Auburn head football coach since Shug Jordan has left that program on his own terms. Only one—Tommy Tuberville—went on to coach a major college football program after leaving the plains.

If the NCAA finds major violations and imposes harsh sanctions, it will be many years before Auburn is competitive again in the Southeastern Conference. Going 0-8 in the SEC will become the new normal and as we all know, there is no fan base in this league patient enough to stomach that.

So if Auburn does announce Gus Malzahn as their next head coach, you can rest assured that there won’t likely be any major NCAA violations found.

You can extend this logic to candidates who have recruited against Auburn since 2009, the year Gene Chizik and his staff took over the Auburn program. That would include Bobby Petrino, Kirby Smart, Jimbo Fisher, Chadd Morris and James Franklin. You don’t go head-to-head for top recruits for three years running and not know if a program is exceeding the speed limit by enough to get nailed by the local constabulary.

It doesn’t matter how much money you throw at these guys, either. They’re all relatively young men with relatively bright, yet brief resumes. They’re all up-and-comers, which means that they won’t take a short term cash bonanza if it means wrecking their longer term potential as head coaches. They’re too smart for that.

The only one with an ego—and sense of desperation—large enough to risk his future thinking he might win anyway is Petrino, and even he might take pause.

So mark this down: If Gus Malzahn takes the Auburn job, there won’t be any major NCAA sanctions levied against the Tigers.

The logic is irrefutable.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Danny Sheridan off the record

Whatever you think of USA Today sports analyst Danny Sheridan, he has never shied away from offering his opinion and typically, his opinion is based on knowledge he gains from a variety of sources. No one succeeds in the business that Sheridan works in without having contacts in key organizations. If you don’t have inside information, you have no edge.

Last night at the Tuscaloosa Quarterback Club dinner, Sheridan spoke at length about a number of topics regarding the state of college football today. One of those topics was the seemingly endless entanglement between the NCAA and Auburn University.

I spoke with someone who attended that meeting and who spent some time with Sheridan during and after the event. Here are some of the things Sheridan didn’t tell reporters who also attended. I am paraphrasing here so please don’t quote this verbatim. While not an exact transcript, the paragraphs below capture the gist of what Sheridan said and believes, based on his contacts.

Sheridan's NCAA contacts tell him that a Letter of Inquiry and formal investigation are imminent. The preliminary phase has ended and recruiting irregularities may have occurred that warrant a full Enforcement investigation.

Both Sheridan and the NCAA understand that two unnamed assistants have been removed from off-campus recruiting activities, but they are still allowed to contact recruits via telephone and electronically.

Sheridan would not say which specific recruits, coaches or parts of the country were at the heart of the matters in question.

He said there is a high likelihood that Auburn University “cleans house,” meaning that everyone associated with Auburn football—from the athletic director all the way to “special advisers” to the program—will be dismissed.

Sheridan also said that NCAA President Mark Emmert has been on a warpath against what he believes are programs that calculate risk-reward ratios in deciding how closely to follow NCAA rules, and that Auburn University (among others) should be fearful of the new attitude in Indianapolis.

He believes that Bobby Petrino is the heavy favorite to replace Gene Chizik should the program go through with dismissing Gene Chizik and his staff. Petrino has made his “mea culpa” tour and expects to be coaching again in 2013. Petrino likes the Auburn opportunity because he believes, should he be hired there and the NCAA launches an investigation, he will have a 2-3 year period at a minimum as a “grace period.” This will allow the program to work through any investigation and address any sanctions that may result.

FWIW, this blog does not deal in rumors (other than what you see in the SEC Rumor Central page in the top level menu). The main blog deals only in information that can be verified by trusted sources. When I say I know someone who was there and spoke with Sheridan, please rest assured that I do, and he did.

That said, a lot of what appears above has been speculated on talk radio and internet message boards for much of the last few weeks. I don’t know and won’t judge the veracity of Sheridan’s sources, but I would hope he’s more resourceful than scouring message boards and dropping in on the Paul Finebaum Radio Network.

Extra Point:  This is not the first time Auburn assistants have been pulled off of the recruiting trail in an effort to placate the NCAA. In 2010, numerous secondary violations occurred in connection with the Tiger Prowl and Big Cat Weekend affairs. As a result of those violations, Auburn agreed to restrict its staff from having any off-campus contact with at least one of the recruits in question from November 2011 through January 2012.

Auburn promptly broke that agreement when one of the recruits in question told reporters that he had an in-home visit from Auburn coaches during the so-called “restricted period.” To my knowledge, that matter was never resolved and could be part of the current probe.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Emmert v. Penn State creates troubling precedent

NCAA President Mark Emmert set sail on dangerously uncharted waters when he handed down history’s most punitive sanctions on Penn State.

While no one disputes that harsh sanctions against the school were justified in the wake of the worst scandal in the history of college sports, there is plenty to disagree with in how those sanctions were formulated and the manner in which they were imposed.

In two strokes of a pen, the NCAA created a dangerous new precedent that allows its President to “negotiate” plea bargains with member schools while holding a gun to their head during the proceedings.

First, the NCAA Executive Committee—a group consisting of 20 members, 16 with voting privileges—authorized President Emmert to “to enter into a consent decree with Penn State University that contains sanctions and corrective measures related to the institution’s breach of the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws and core values of intercollegiate athletics based on the findings of the Freeh Report and Sandusky criminal trial.”

The by-law cited as authorization for such action states that the Executive Committee may “act on behalf of the Association by adopting and implementing policies to resolve core issues and other Association-wide matters.”

---

Penn State was allowed to cut a deal that lets them walk and lets the NCAA say that they “did something.”

---

I’m not certain that authorizing the President to completely bypass the enforcement process falls within the powers granted by the clause above. In what way does granting the President sweeping new powers—even in a unique case such as this—serve to adopt and implement policy?

Second, Emmert himself apparently “negotiated” a consent decree with Penn State officials. This, only six months after the death of Joe Paterno, eight months since Jerry Sandusky was arrested. Weeks after Sandusky’s conviction and days after the release of the Freeh Report, the NCAA was negotiating from a position of such strength that Penn State had no choice but to plead out.

Emmert named the tune. Penn State danced, or else.

Here’s the real treachery in the waters that lie ahead, sports fans: With this new process in place, member schools finding themselves in impossible public relations situations regarding potential rules violations now have a way of completely bypassing the Committee on Infractions and negotiating terms of plea agreements directly with the President.

North Carolina? Oregon? Miami? Are you paying attention? You can now avoid the lengthy, embarrassing and costly NCAA enforcement process by petitioning the NCAA Executive Committee to authorize the President to cut you a deal. No Notice of Allegations to publicize. No perp walk into the Committee on Infractions hearing. No months long wait to learn your fate. No public shame in having the Committee Chairman blast you in a public news conference for such a “shocking” disregard for the rules.

Simply get a deal cut in a matter of days, have the President hold a 3:00 minute news conference and you’re done.

This blog has long complained about the arbitrary and chaotic process that the NCAA uses to mete out punishment. There seems to be no logic, rhyme or reason in comparing cases of similar nature and handing out similar penalties. Granted, the Penn State case is totally unprecedented in its scale and horror, but do we really need an even more arbitrary process in place?

This case should have gone through the process. Let the Enforcement Division rebrand the Freeh Report as its own findings, let Julie Roe-Lache issue the Notice of Allegations, and let Penn State appear before the Committee on Infractions. Such a process may not have yielded the results everyone believes were needed, but the democratically approved process of enforcement would have been followed.

Instead, it’s been shortcut.

Had Penn State appeared before that committee, it’s entirely likely that the SMU Penalty would have been applied. Penn State saw that coming and got a sweetheart plea agreement instead. “Our backs were against the wall,” said interim President Rodney Erickson.

Maybe the NCAA membership is Ok with this, and perhaps legislation will be passed that formalizes this new plea agreement process. That’s the way it should be.

A 20-member group authorizing the President to hold a gun to the head of a member institution and demanding a signature on a consent decree, or else? If you don’t find that troubling, then the terrorists have won.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

South Carolina NCAA Case shows cooperation helps

Despite being in the repeat violator window (stemming from a case dating to the Lou Holtz tenure), the University of South Carolina escaped severe sanctions by the NCAA for providing tens of thousands of dollars worth of improper benefits to student athletes.

The NCAA released the penalties today. Sanctions include:

• Public reprimand and censure.
• Three years of probation from April 27, 2012, through April 26, 2015.
• Reduction of total football scholarships by three (from 85 maximum) during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years.
• Reduction of initial football scholarships by three (from the 25 maximum) during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years (self-imposed by the university).
• $18,500 fine (self-imposed by the university).
• Indefinite disassociation of both involved boosters and the local hotel (self-imposed by the university).
• Limit of 30 official visits in football (from the 56 maximum) for the 2012-13 academic year (self-imposed by the university).
• Limit of 50 official visits in men’s and women’s track and field (from unlimited maximum) for the 2012-13 academic year (self-imposed by the university).
• Suspension of the head track coach during the 2012 Penn Relays (self-imposed by the university).
• An assistant men’s basketball coach was withheld from recruiting in December 2011 (self-imposed by the university).
• An assistant football coach was withheld from off campus recruiting during January 2012 (self-imposed by the university).

Note that almost all of the final penalties imposed by the league were self-imposed by the school.

In its report, the NCAA praised the school for its degree of cooperation in the case, stating that school “went beyond standard expectations” in cooperating with the Enforcement Staff.

This goes to show that when a school is caught with its hands in the cookie jar, the best course of action is to fess up and show how remorseful you are by singing like a canary. The result is usually a much lighter sentence than what is handed down when a school lawyers up and clamps down. That’s a risky strategy that paid off for Auburn, but left USC West with crippling sanctions and a post-season ban.

A contentious and adversarial investigative process doesn’t end well if when the Enforcement bulldogs find the red meat they’re looking for. Sooner or later, they’re gonna get you. Just like the IRS.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Tee Martin reopens old wounds and joins Lane Kiffin’s staff

When former Vol QB Tee Martin left Kentucky to join Lane Kiffin’s staff at USC, he irked a Vol fan base that shunned him just a few short years ago. Martin, who was investigated by the NCAA in 2002 and 2003 for receiving impermissible benefits from a UT fan in Mobile, found himself ostracized by the program he led to the 1998 National Championship. When asked about Tennessee fans’ feelings by ESPN, Martin responded:

“Who cares?”

"I'm excited about working with Coach Kiffin. I called a lot of people before I made this decision, a lot of people who worked with him at Tennessee and other places, and not one time did I hear anything bad. Not one time."

"And so for me, that was great. Of course, I was one of the people that was upset when Coach Kiffin left UT, and that's out there, but I understand his decision, and it's similar to the decision I ended up having to make. He didn't know his dream job was going to open up. When it did, he had to take it."

The move reopens old wounds and gives Martin a chance to settle an old score.

In 2002, former Mobile Press-Register reporter and columnist Neal McCready reported that Martin allegedly received $4,500 from Mobile insurance executive and UT fan Diane Sanford. Sanford was alleged to have given the money to another former Press-Register reporter, Wayne Rowe, who then wired the funds to Martin during the 1999 season.

The NCAA enforcement staff investigated the matter in 2002 and in January 2003, closed the case. The NCAA determined that Sanford was not a booster and found no evidence that the school had knowledge of the improper payments. However, Martin’s amateur status should have been voided and any games he played in after the payments should have been vacated.

According to sources close to the investigation at the time, Tennessee did learn that Martin had accepted improper benefits and investigated the claims. Martin himself hinted that he’d received money while at UT and said he told NCAA investigators about it. Between the Georgia and Alabama games during the 1999 season, then head coach Phillip Fulmer held Martin out of practice, citing an injury. But during that same time frame, then athletic director Doug Dickey traveled to Mobile and met with Sanford at a local Cracker Barrel restaurant.

Dickey “took care of business” during that meeting and returned to Knoxville. Martin was later cleared to play and led the Vols to a 21-7 victory over Alabama in Tuscaloosa.

In its 2003 letter to the university, the NCAA wrote that there is no need "to conduct any further inquiry into these matters at this time," meaning that if additional information surfaced they would reopen the matter.

Later that same year, McCready told WNSP Sports Drive listeners that if he’d gotten one more source to go on the record, he would have blown the case wide open and forced the NCAA to take action. That source never went on the record and McCready had to spike the story.

The case is now ancient history, but Martin still suffered the cold shoulder treatment by the school and its fans.

During the 2002 and 2003 seasons, the one-time hero of the program’s only modern era National Championship team had his sideline passes revoked and was told not to visit the campus conspicuously. The fanbase turned on him, with internet message boards and talk radio callers labeling him as a snitch, a turncoat, a liar or all of the above. Two of the message boards had multipage threads on an effort to rename Tee Martin Drive (which intersects Phillip Fulmer Way) back to its original name, South Stadium Drive.

In a 2005 followup story by the Tennessean, Martin told the paper that he was hurt by the treatment and felt he was being made a scapegoat. He claimed to have done nothing wrong during his career at UT.

In the 2011 season, Martin coached wide receivers on the Kentucky team that beat Tennessee for the first time in a generation. In 2012, he’ll coach along with the most despised man in Vol football history. He’s settling old scores and when asked about it he says: “Who cares?”

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Lane Kiffin: Sith Lord of Roster Management

When it comes to the black art of roster management, there is no equal to USC’s Lane Kiffin. Recruiting under the cloud of the harshest NCAA sanctions handed down since the SMU “death penalty” case, Darth Kiffin is crafting a roster so stocked with talent and youth that it may be hard to see the effects of the penalties handed down in June 2010 and upheld on appeal in May 2011. Reggie who?

The sanctions were intended to severely punish the Trojan football program. It was supposed to wander in the darkness for the better part of a decade. They were supposed to be the ideal homecoming opponent for Colorado. They were not supposed to emerge from probation stocked with talent and ready for runs at PAC-12 and national titles, but they may well do just that.

How could this happen?

The answer lies in looking back in time and reviewing recruiting and roster figures from the years preceding Kiffin’s arrival before the 2010 season. Dr. Saturday has a keen analysis of how USC recruited lightly in Pete Carroll’s final years, leaving Kiffin with fewer scholarship players than the sanctions called for going forward. Once the severity of the sanctions were known (and the chances of successful appeal rated), Kiffin loaded up the magazine. He signed 30 players in the 2011 class, back counted several to the 2010 class and promptly redshirted half of them.

Add those 15 redshirts to the 2012 class of 17 new scholarship players and the freshman class that shows up for fall camp will be more than doubled. These aren’t two- and three-star projects, either. Half of recruits in the 2011 class were either four- or five-star players, so the talent pool on the field next September will be very young, but very rich.

In fact, the 2012 Trojans are one of the most popular picks to win the PAC-12 and play for the national championship.

The NCAA intended the sanctions to hurt and they may still make their impacts felt in the next few years. When recruiting under such harsh limits, you have to have a lot of luck avoiding injuries. Off the field issues have to be kept to a minimum. There is no such animal as a project recruit—every player you sign has to be a bona fide “can’t miss” and has to be ready to contribute immediately. And once you’ve gotten those can’t miss prospects in the corral, you have to convince them to hold the rope and resist the temptation to transfer or jump early to the NFL draft.

If Kiffin can do that, he will not only rule as the Sith Lord of Roster Management, he will also have shown programs like North Carolina how to practice the dark art of beating harsh NCAA sanctions.

Padawan Fedora, are you paying attention?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Proposed new NCAA enforcement model would HAMMER violators

The worst violators of recruiting and amateurism rules will suffer greatly if a proposed overhaul of the NCAA enforcement model is adopted by the league’s membership. Bryan Fischer of CBSSports.com breaks it down and explains that USC would have been given an even harsher sentence for the Bush/Mayo case under the new program.

Gone would be the highly subjective, case-by-case evaluation by the Committee on Infractions. Gone too apparently will be the wide latitude of discretion employed by that body as the new model seeks to streamline cases and moves them through the process more rapidly.

Currently, enforcement classifies violations as either major or secondary infractions. In order to provide greater flexibility, the new model would include four, including most egregious, serious, secondary and minor.
"The working group recognizes the wide-spread perception that the current penalty model leads to inconsistent and insufficient penalties and does not adequately deter other institutions and individuals from engaging in conduct contrary to the rules," the working group's report stated. "The working group believes that the severity of the penalty imposed must correspond with the significance of the rule violation(s)."

Remember the clamor for a system that imposes mandatory minimum penalties for serious rules violations, consistency between the time vs. crime ratio and elimination of Committee discretion? That’s all on the table here, as once the infractions are categorized the new model proposes an array of consistent penalties.

In some of the worst cases—like the Bush and Mayo case at USC—the penalties could potentially cripple a sports program for years.

Fischer:

---

So how does it really work? Well, take the infamous USC case involving Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo among others: violations of NCAA bylaws governing amateurism; failure to report knowledge of violations; unethical conduct; violations of coaching staff limitations; impermissible recruiting contacts by a representative of the institution's athletics interests; impermissible inducements and extra benefits; and lack of institutional control. 

According to the new model, this would be classified as multiple Level I violations with four significant aggravating factors. Here's a comparison of penalties with what the Trojans got and what they would have received under the new model:

So yes, USC would have been punished even worse under the new proposed enforcement model coming from the NCAA. That's interesting because athletic director Pat Haden is on the enforcement working group and has made it a point to say that the Trojans were unfairly punished.

---

Under the new model, USC would be given 2-3 (or more) years in post-season bans, a fine ranging from 1.5% to 2.0% of the program budget, a 37% to 50% reduction in scholarships, similar reductions in recruiting activity and a five year show cause order on the assistant coach who facilitated the wrongdoing.

There are fates worth that the death penalty for the most egregious of NCAA rules violators. It’s hard to imagine anything harsher than watching your program get scheduled by Southern Miss as a homecoming opponent for the next decade.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

HE MAD: Ohio State has-been calls for investigation of Alabama

Former Ohio State coach John Cooper—who posted a 2-13 record against SEC schools during his coaching career—called for an NCAA investigation into Alabama during a radio talk show interview yesterday.

Cooper has not coached a down of football since Bill Clinton was President, the Oklahoma Sooners won what was supposed to be the first of many BCS Championships and the Baja Men Let the Dogs Out. But he thinks Ohio State was robbed by the Committee on Infractions over the TattooGate scandal and thinks the real cheaters are in the SEC.

---

Speaking with Cleveland sports radio station 92.3 The Fan, Cooper, who was head coach for the Buckeyes from 1988 until 2000, was asked about recently fired coach Jim Tressel and his NCAA violations. Cooper explained that Ohio State's violations seemed minor in comparison to those committed recently by Southeastern Conference schools.

"I see some of these teams, the Auburns. I'm told, I don't know and I haven't coached in that league, but I'm told that down south the Alabamas and LSUs and some of these teams that have these great players, that maybe the NCAA needs to look into their situation," Cooper said. "Those teams have been on probation. As you know, Alabama's certainly one of the most penalized teams in college football, as is the Southeastern Conference. We say the SEC's the best and they are the best, but they've also had more NCAA violations than probably all the other leagues put together the last 10 years."

---

For the record:

Since the NCAA began enforcement actions in the 1950’s, Ohio State University football has been sanctioned three times for major infractions resulting in scholarship reductions. The University of Alabama football program has also been sanctioned three times resulting in scholarship reductions. For all sports and including those major infractions cases where no scholarship penalties were imposed, Ohio State has been hit by the Committee on Infractions five times. Alabama has been hit five times.

In fact, Alabama is not even on the Top 10 list of the “most corrupt” list of college athletics programs.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

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.

Sources: Ohio State to hear NCAA penalty decision “any day now.”

Two independent corroborating sources tell IBCR that Ohio State University will soon hear from the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions. The committee is expected to announce sanctions stemming from the so-called TattooGate scandal, in which players were found to have received cash and other improper benefits from a local tattoo parlor owner.

“At this point, the Committee on Infractions is just very carefully checking its report. The decisions regarding the sanctions in the case have been made. Consensus was reached some time ago,” said one source. “We should see the ‘day before’ press release from the NCAA any day now. A week. Maybe a bit more. It’s imminent.”

“The unusual step of issuing a second notice [of allegations] and adding the failure to monitor charge complicated the Committee’s work somewhat,”explained the other source, “but they appear to have gotten through it. We’re eager to read the report.”

After a 10-year career, former Ohio State coach Jim Tressel was forced out when it became clear that he had knowledge of the improper benefits players received and that he withheld the information from the school’s administration and the NCAA. The school has already imposed a five scholarship reduction and vacated all of the 2010 season’s wins, including the 2011 Sugar Bowl against Arkansas.

The Ohio State case stands out in part because the enforcement process rarely generates more than one notice of allegations and case summary. But it also stands out in that the sequence of events that ended the career of one of college football’s most respected coaches was played before the national media like a Showtime miniseries.

Ohio State hired former Florida head coach Urban Meyer earlier this week to replace Tressel.

It is not known whether the case will result in additional penalties, and it should be noted that the Committee could impose harsher punishment. The additional sanctions could include further scholarship reductions, a post-season ban, fines and show cause orders for Tressel and anyone else found to have been involved in unethical conduct and failure to monitor. However, one of the sources noted that in a cursory review of somewhat similar cases, the schools involved escaped without a post-season ban but that the circumstances in this situation may cause the Committee to… wait for it… abandon that precedent.

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.

Auburn may have violated agreement with SEC and NCAA in reported visit with prized recruit

On November 4, 2011, Auburn University released a ream of documents related to the NCAA and school investigation into the football program.

While most of the documentation was related to the highly publicized investigation into the recruitment of former Auburn Quarterback Cam Newton, a number of other documents were also released, including details on numerous secondary violations committed by the program over a two year period.

Part of the documentation of the secondary violations included the school’s report on the Tiger Prowl affair, in which the school admitted to a handful of violations regarding improper contact with prospective student-athletes. As a result of those violations, Auburn restricted its football staff from having any on- or off-campus contact with Jameis Winston, the highly regarded football and baseball prospect from Hueytown, Alabama.

 

Auburn also self-imposed a 60-day period of no off-campus contact from November 2011 through January 2012. However, recent reports indicate that the Auburn coaching staff may not be keeping up its end of the bargain.

On November 28, 2011, Fox Sports Recruiting Analyst Laura McKeeman sent the following tweet:

Ms. McKeeman has since confirmed to IBCR via email that her source was Jameis Winston himself, and that the prospect “told me point blank that AU was in his house last night.” The contact was also reported on at least one other Auburn related recruiting site.

It was not immediately clear which Auburn coaches were involved with the reported visit.

While the initial contact in 2010 resulted in a secondary violation and resulted in relatively light penalties, it is also unclear whether a violation of the self-imposed sanctions would be secondary in nature. IBCR has reached out to NCAA compliance experts and more reports are likely to follow.

Exit Question: This isn’t a nuclear detonation by any stretch. Even if this violation rises to the level of a major infraction, the likelihood of harsh penalties is slight. But given the fact that the school has just recently escaped the scrutiny of a major investigation into its recruiting practices, isn’t this somewhat embarrassing for “the best compliance department in the country?’ And, could this result in the program ceasing its recruitment of the prospect altogether?

Helmet tap to Brian Warwick on Twitter.

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.

Unanswered Questions Still Remain About Auburngate

By @NailPhyl

The NCAA has given up on concluded the investigation into not only the recruitment of Cam Newton but also several other issues, according to a recent letter sent to Auburn University last week. Some time has passed and the dust has settled and the fog of disbelief has thinned somewhat. But it still doesn't make any sense why the NCAA closed this investigation after just thirteen months. There are too many unanswered questions that need to be addressed.

In no particular order, here are a few to rattle around in your head:

1. Who was the source for Joe Schad that provided him the direct quote "the money was too much"?

In the article released by Joe Schad on ESPN.com he writes that he was told by a source that Cam Newton called a recruiter for Mississippi State and that source told Schad that an emotional Newton called them on the phone and said he regretted he wouldn't be going to Mississippi State and was going to Auburn because "the money was too much."

Auburn people have tried their hardest to discredit Joe Schad. The truth of the matter is Schad had two direct quotes in the article. The first quote—which turned out to be absolutely true—was Cecil saying it would take "more than a scholarship" to bring his son to Mississippi State. Why was the second quote ignored and not explained? Who is this recruiter and were they even questioned by the NCAA?

Normally I won't link to SportsByBrooks but I really like his theory on who this source is.

A good follow up to this question just so happens to be...

2. Why did ESPN stop working on the story?

Six days before Schad came out with his story Pat Forde, Chris Low and Mark Schlabach released "Cash Sought for Cam Newton" which was the first domino to fall regarding the Cam Newton scandal. Both articles came from ESPN.

Take a minute to look back and analyze something you may have missed. Four people are credited for the information relating to this story. There were FOUR people that included Joe Schad, Pat Forde, Chris Low and Mark Schlabach. A reasonable assumption would be that if four of the most respected journalists that work for ESPN are working on a story, then they were assigned to this story. The editorial staff at ESPN believed the story had legs and wanted to get the information out there.

What happened?

I have a theory. It's a purely speculative theory that ESPN had a change of heart to protect one of their commodities. Instead of dabbling in speculation however, some insight may be gained by looking at the recent news about Forde leaving ESPN to go to Yahoo! sports.

We all know what happened to Bruce Feldman who left ESPN for CBS. I won't get into specifics but you can read the details here. I bring Feldman up because Forde mentions his situation as one of the reasons for his departure and provides a good insight of how ESPN can be sloppy. Feldman flatly states about his situation that ESPN "made such a mess, and then they never cleaned it up." Is this kind of like opening a damming story on a team with National Championship aspirations, which also has a player with a great chance at winning the Heisman, and not finishing it?

According to bigleadsports, it is also being said that Forde "has long been unhappy with what he couldn't report on or look into because of ESPN's many conflicts of interest." That is very interesting if you consider the abrupt halt on a story that would have surely put a stop to the National Championship run of a team that just so happens to be a member of the Southeastern Conference. Considering the messy way ESPN handles situations it wouldn't be hard to imagine that in the beginning they didn't think through the implications this story would have had to one of the teams that is part of the fifteen year, $2 billion deal ESPN made with the SEC on August 25th, 2008. I would definitely consider that a "conflict of interest."

As a side note, Forde and Charles Robinson are now coworkers.

3. Why did just one person from the HBO Four talk to the NCAA?

Specifically, why did Chaz Ramsey not talk to the NCAA? I remember he refused to talk if Auburn's attorneys were present. It seemed the story changed when a report came out that said Ramsey had specified a time between April 18th and April 20th of this year. Whatever came of that?

Apparently Only Gray agreed to be interviewed and the others "refused to cooperate," the NCAA said. So, what does that mean? Because Ramsey refused to talk to the NCAA without the presence of any and all attorneys representing Auburn he refuses to cooperate? Did all of the "80 interviews" conducted by the NCAA have to follow this rule? What about other institutions hit with major sanctions in the past 30 years, did they also afford the same luxury or is this preferential treatment of some kind? If this is true, how much of an influence did Auburn's attorneys have on the investigation and who was actually in charge, the NCAA or Auburn University's legal representative?

4. Has anyone made a request for all communication between Auburn and the NCAA enforcement staff?

Remember the reason open document requests were refused? Because there was an ongoing investigation. So lets see the information now. Was there ever a Notice of Inquiry? If no NOI existed, how in the bloody hell did the NCAA conduct an investigation without ever telling Auburn they were investigating? If one doesn't exist does that mean they made no effort to interview students, coaches or other administration on campus?

5. What about Auburn's institutional control?

What else is going on if the NCAA had nothing to pin on Auburn involving Newton and didn't believe the HBO Four but still felt the need to investigate Auburn's institutional control? It's already been discussed on this blog so I won't hit the whole thing again. However, as said on this site, "there’s no reason to engage in a review of institutional control procedures unless there’s something to suggest that it’s lacking." So why was the NCAA reviewing lack of institutional control if it had zero instances of violations and how did they do this without issuing the NOI?

6. What will the end of the bingo trial bring?

A lot of people have already jumped the gun and said 'I told you so' when talking about this trial. However, the buzz I heard when the end of the trial was nearing was that the end of the trial would result in the release information. That trial isn't finished and has been rescheduled for January 30th of 2012.

I realize this question can't be answered right now. Naysayers love to say it's nothing. I have zero reason to trust them any more than the people claiming that there are links with McGregor and illegal recruiting. I'm legitimately intrigued at what happens, if anything, when this case is over.

This isn't just message board fodder. Around the time the first trial was coming to an end, The Opening Drive on WJOX 94.5 FM in Birmingham, Alabama, which is hosted by Jay Barker, Tony Kurre and Al Del Greco, aired several discussions pertaining to this subject specifically and it is where I initially heard mention of multiple southern schools being involved. They didn't go into details. If you know the show, you know that it isn't based on rumor mongering and this information didn't come in from a caller. If you don't believe me, call them and ask them. They are the only ones I know of that have specifically mentioned the ties between the bingo trial, gambling and sports where a link from the source and someone specifically involved in the trial can be traced.

Insert Paul Finebaum to complete that link.

Follow me on Twitter at @NailPhyl

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.

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.

This is what passes for “professional journalism” at the Birmingham News

This is laughable. 

One expects blatant homerism from columnists writing for Rivals, Scout and 247 sites. One also expects those writers to rely on questionable, unnamed sources to drive the narrative in a light most favorable to the program they’re covering. It’s what they do.

But if you expect a major daily newspaper in the state of Alabama to be an objective observer and provide an unbiased look at a news story affecting one of the two SEC programs in the state, you will be sorely disappointed—maybe even embarrassed—by Kevin Scarbinsky’s column in the Wednesday editions of the Birmingham News. If there is a bigger Auburn crybaby anywhere in the state, you’ll need to look up Phillip Marshall or Jeffery Lee.

Scarbinsky is whining about ESPN’s decision to send Urban Meyer to cover Saturday’s Auburn vs. Clemson matchup in Death Valley. Meyer, former Florida Head Coach and two-time National Championship Winner, knows a little about football and is expected to provide insightful color and technical commentary as the game unfolds.

But the Auburn fambly isn’t happy about the decision, as Meyer has been pointed and specific in his criticism of major college athletics recruiting practices and includes Auburn among the programs he thinks stretch the rules too far.  Auburn fans also deeply believe that Meyer was one of the “wizards behind the curtain” who orchestrated a media conspiracy to wreck their 2010 championship run by exposing the Cam Newton pay for play scheme, a scheme that Cecil Newton admitted to participating in. Newton was briefly declared ineligible as a result of the scheme, only to have his eligibility reinstated by the NCAA, which then took the unusual step of explaining the loophole Auburn used to spring the one-and-done wonder from the NCAA doghouse.

Scarbinsky writes:

---

In the spring of 2009, after Auburn hit the road in its Tiger Prowl recruiting limos, Meyer told the Gainesville (Fla.) Sun that the NCAA should investigate. He also took a few shots at Auburn's tires.

"We're trying to sell graduation rates and academics and trying the sing and dance routine," he said. "The Florida coaching staff will not be riding around in limos or ripping off our shirts."

That shirt reference was a shot at Lane Kiffin and his Tennessee staff, but still. Even two years later, Meyer trying to drag his program onto the high ground, despite its arrest record, remains a shining example of hypocrisy.

He didn't stop there. In December of 2010, Meyer was the only SEC coach with a vote that didn't put Auburn No. 1 on his final regular-season ballot in the USA Today poll. He put Oregon first and Auburn second.

But those slights pale next to the role Meyer may have played as a wizard behind the curtain of the Cecil Newton-Kenny Rogers story last fall.

According to multiple news reports, before that story broke, Meyer had vowed on a three-way call with his protege, Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen, and former Mississippi State quarterback John Bond to tell it to The New York Times and ESPN.

Who broke the story of Newton and Rogers asking for money from Mississippi State boosters, Bond included, to send Cam Newton to State? The Times and ESPN.

---

For those of you keeping score, the NCAA is still investigating the whole “Prowl” affair, and is investigating it as an institutional affair rather than a series of individual secondary violations. But the real laugher is the reference to “multiple news reports” regarding a three-way conference call between Meyer, Mullen and Bond.

His source: A single blog post by the most obtuse Auburn homer on the planet. The blog post is behind 247Sports.com’s paywall, but trust me—as a news source it’s about as credible as my Aunt Tootsie’s pool boy.

The alleged three-way call—which at least one of the participants said never happened—had Meyer telling the other two that he was going public with the pay-for-play scheme and tipping off the New York Times and ESPN.

This is what passes as a credible source for the Birmingham News? When was the last time this blog ever ran a story citing a single, unnamed source and passing it off as credible journalism? When the credibility standards of a part-time blogger exceed those of Alabama’s largest newspaper, it’s no wonder that the News’ circulation is circling the drain.

The Scarbinsky column also comes in light of the righteous indignation from the Auburn fambly over the appearance of nationally syndicated talk show host Paul Finebaum at last Saturday’s game between Auburn and Mississippi State. Finebaum’s show—the Paul Finebaum Radio Network—has come under intense fambly indignation over the appearances on the show of Danny Sheridan, the USA Today Sports Analyst. Sheridan has said he has knowledge of the identities of key players in the Newton pay for play scheme. The fambly has begun mounting an email, letter and fax campaign insisting that Auburn University revoke Finebaum’s media credentials.

It also comes in light of last Spring’s events when another radio talk show host—Scott Moore—told his listeners that he had heard recordings that implicated both Cecil and Cam Newton in the pay-for-play scheme. When Moore indicated that he was willing to share that evidence on the air, the fambly rose up and hounded the radio station until Moore was forced off the air. Never mind that, regarding the existence of the recordings, Scott Moore was telling the truth.

The implications here are as chilling as they are crystal clear—bother to tell the truth about a football program under intense NCAA scrutiny, and the fambly will do everything in its power to shut you down. There will be no airing of the fambly’s dirty laundry, whether that airing is on a local radio talk show, a nationally syndicated radio talk show, or even ESPN.

Exit question: Mr. Sheridan, could you give me the odds on Auburn issuing me press credentials for the Florida game at Auburn?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.