🏈 Question For Terry P, Pork or Both............

[Bama-Tee]

OK guys with "TextBookGate" now exposed, what is the
realistic outcome of this deal ??? Or should I say
probability. Penalties ?? Probation ??? Loss of some
schollys ??? Your take ??? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

RTR !!!!!!!!!
Tee

 

[imported_porkchop]

OK guys with "TextBookGate" now exposed, what is the
realistic outcome of this deal ??? Or should I say
probability. Penalties ?? Probation ??? Loss of some
schollys ??? Your take ??? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

RTR !!!!!!!!!
Tee

My take is, given the erratic nature of NCAA enforcement (or lack thereof much of the time) I don't have the slightest idea on how things will pan out.

Logic would dictate that penalties, if any, wouldn't be that severe, but the NCAA is a wild card. You never know what you will get from them. Nebraska incurred some penalties a few years ago because they bought Eric Crouch a sandwich while on a campus visit. USC can have their players' families live in expensive houses payed for by agents and not get so much as a slap on the wrist. You just never know with the NCAA. You might be able to use the FSU penalties as some sort of barometer as to what the NCAA will do, but I don't think that FSU is in the 5-year repeat violation window like we are. FSU got a handful of schollies taken over a 2 year span for an academic scandal.

On the surface, ours would seem like a minor issue. We were not caught paying players or forging grades. Having said that, we are in the 5-year window and the penalties could be more severe. Or they could not. No one knows. We're talking about the NCAA, so there is no rhyme or reason to their enforcement. It's like playing Wheel of Fortune, but instead of nice parting gifts you get probation and schollie reductions.

One would have to think that BAMA self-reporting, investigating, and suspending the players in a prompt manner would warrant some leniency. But, on the other hand, the NCAA would love nothing more than to get us on something.

I'll say one thing though. If BAMA somehow gets hammered after self-reporting and doing everything they did, there will be repercussions. The NCAA will only be making it harder on themselves with the member institutions.

 

[TerryP]

That's about how I see it as well.

The only thing I'll add to what 'chop has said is those extra items back when the probation window was still open had more to do with very little items; test booklets, etc., that weren't on the "book list" but were hardly of any value.

The idea this is something new is laughable, to me at least. Funny thing to me is I don't see how this can be considered an extra benefit considering the number of students who aren't athletes that do the same thing. Heck, I couldn't tell you the number of books I bought that kids got on vouchers...heck, saved me money when I was in school paying them cash for them.

 

[Guest]

Considering the actions that the football program took when this emerged, logic would dictate that little beyond the self imposed penalties would be imposed on the football program. Since the report indicates that other sports were involved, and as far as I know, no self imposed penalties were done, we could see something more stern in those sports. Of course logic and the NCAA seldom go hand in hand, and usually aren't even on speaking terms.

 

[Guest]

I've been thinking about this as well. If we were to get hammered with a major violation, would it cost Saban his job? Not the school firing him, but an NCAA thing. I thought that if a coach of a program had a "major" on his watch he had to resign and got put on probation or some kind of ban.

 

[TerryP]

I've been thinking about this as well. If we were to get hammered with a major violation, would it cost Saban his job? Not the school firing him, but an NCAA thing. I thought that if a coach of a program had a "major" on his watch he had to resign and got put on probation or some kind of ban.

No. And no.

The only situation where the NCAA will make a move on a coach is where they see him as one likely to skirt the rules again. It's a "show cause" ruling.

As example, Kelvin Sampson has one on him right now after being caught making illegal contact at OU and then turning around and doing the very same thing again at IU.

 

[rnash]

I read an article that said that CNS and his wife had the players over for thanksgiving. If they fed them would this not violate the NCAA rules? I have always read that the coaching staff can't even buy them lunch. What are the rules? Are there a lot of loopholes or is it just complicated?

 

[TerryP]

I read an article that said that CNS and his wife had the players over for thanksgiving. If they fed them would this not violate the NCAA rules? I have always read that the coaching staff can't even buy them lunch. What are the rules? Are there a lot of loopholes or is it just complicated?

Complicated.

The QB 'chop was talking about was bought a sandwich by a booster if I recall the story correctly. Since he was the only player to receive that, it's was considered an extra benefit.

A lot of the coaches had kids over to their homes. Making a somewhat educated guess I'd think it's considered a team event, much like when they take them to a movie or some other event, so it's not like just a few are getting something but it's done for the entire team.

Did I mention complicated? :roll:

 

[imported_porkchop]

I read an article that said that CNS and his wife had the players over for thanksgiving. If they fed them would this not violate the NCAA rules? I have always read that the coaching staff can't even buy them lunch. What are the rules? Are there a lot of loopholes or is it just complicated?

Complicated.

The QB 'chop was talking about was bought a sandwich by a booster if I recall the story correctly. Since he was the only player to receive that, it's was considered an extra benefit.

A lot of the coaches had kids over to their homes. Making a somewhat educated guess I'd think it's considered a team event, much like when they take them to a movie or some other event, so it's not like just a few are getting something but it's done for the entire team.

Did I mention complicated? :roll:

I'm not versed on the NCAA rules when it comes to what is a violation or not, but I think in large part the difference was that when Shula had those players over they were already U of A players, correct? I might be wrong about that. I do remember vaguely the incident you're referring to, and I thought that these kids were already UA signed. Crouch's violation had something to do with a recruiting visit. If that's the case, then anything extra, above and beyond could conceivably be construed as an extra benefit provided provided in an attempt to influence the player's decision.

Again, it's complicated, and I've not spent a lot of time reading the NCAA compliance manual. :lol:

 

[TerryP]

I'm not versed on the NCAA rules when it comes to what is a violation or not, but I think in large part the difference was that when Shula had those players over they were already U of A players, correct? I might be wrong about that. I do remember vaguely the incident you're referring to, and I thought that these kids were already UA signed. Crouch's violation had something to do with a recruiting visit. If that's the case, then anything extra, above and beyond could conceivably be construed as an extra benefit provided provided in an attempt to influence the player's decision.

Again, it's complicated, and I've not spent a lot of time reading the NCAA compliance manual. :lol:

You confusing Shula and Saban? Dude! :shock:

It had to do with a single player vs something for the team. One of the areas UA was cited for under DuBose was Cottrell allowing a player to sleep at his house for a bit when he was sick. Single player.

This with the thanksgiving dinners...again, a group thing.

Eric Crouch was a member of the Nebraska team at the time. He was declared ineligible to play until he repaid the cost of a ham sandwich and the cost of airplane fuel because of transportation provided. As soon as he paid that money (paid to charity) his eligibility was reinstated.

The guy that bought the sandwich was also on their Board...running for some state position and had asked Eric to help him on his campaign. Eric wasn't paid for his help. The NCAA came snooping around Lincoln and asked if Nebraska had checked it out because it could be a violation. They (Neb.) had informed the guy what he could and couldn't do...but when the researched it further they found the transportation and meal.

The extra benefit falls into that "above what others are getting."

I know I'm reaching here...but, it would almost be like this...I could buy cars and give one to every student at UA that works out...it would include the entire football team, but wouldn't be an extra benefit for a student athlete...not totally accurate, but you get the picture.

----

Last note on Nebraska.

These two (Crouch and the BOR guy) had a pre-existing relationship before football...so, it shouldn't have mattered one way or another.

 

[rammerjammer]

I'm am on the outside looking in like most everybody else. As chop stated nobody knows what the NCAA is thinking. (neither does the NCAA IMO)

CNS and UA have been extremely proactive in staying within the confines of the rules. The textbook ordeal and also the Andre Smith situation. As much as the NCAA expects and as hard as the institutions try, you cannot control the actions of all of your players all the time.

I may be looking at it through crimson colored glasses, but I just don't see them finding anything else that could have been done. I think the reason this is such a big deal is because there is nothing else to talk about.

 

[imported_porkchop]

I'm not versed on the NCAA rules when it comes to what is a violation or not, but I think in large part the difference was that when Shula had those players over they were already U of A players, correct? I might be wrong about that. I do remember vaguely the incident you're referring to, and I thought that these kids were already UA signed. Crouch's violation had something to do with a recruiting visit. If that's the case, then anything extra, above and beyond could conceivably be construed as an extra benefit provided provided in an attempt to influence the player's decision.

Again, it's complicated, and I've not spent a lot of time reading the NCAA compliance manual. :lol:

You confusing Shula and Saban? Dude! :shock:

It had to do with a single player vs something for the team. One of the areas UA was cited for under DuBose was Cottrell allowing a player to sleep at his house for a bit when he was sick. Single player.

This with the thanksgiving dinners...again, a group thing.

Eric Crouch was a member of the Nebraska team at the time. He was declared ineligible to play until he repaid the cost of a ham sandwich and the cost of airplane fuel because of transportation provided. As soon as he paid that money (paid to charity) his eligibility was reinstated.

The guy that bought the sandwich was also on their Board...running for some state position and had asked Eric to help him on his campaign. Eric wasn't paid for his help. The NCAA came snooping around Lincoln and asked if Nebraska had checked it out because it could be a violation. They (Neb.) had informed the guy what he could and couldn't do...but when the researched it further they found the transportation and meal.

The extra benefit falls into that "above what others are getting."

I know I'm reaching here...but, it would almost be like this...I could buy cars and give one to every student at UA that works out...it would include the entire football team, but wouldn't be an extra benefit for a student athlete...not totally accurate, but you get the picture.

----

Last note on Nebraska.

These two (Crouch and the BOR guy) had a pre-existing relationship before football...so, it shouldn't have mattered one way or another.

I C.

 

[TerryP]

http://www.huskerpedia.com/interviews/Gary_Bargen.html

HP: This brings to mind a story a while back about how Eric Crouch got in trouble for eating a sandwich and he had to go back and pay for it or something like that?

GB: You have to understand, that a person who was running for the Board of Regents knew Eric very well. He was a friend of Eric Crouch when the man lived in Omaha and now he was running for the Board of Regents. He had been Eric’s doctor at one time, thus had a pre-existing relationship with Eric. He wanted to know if Eric could help him campaign. And the answer was yes he could, but Eric could not receive anything for helping with the campaign. Eric could not be reimbursed for his expenses. Both Eric and the man running for office were informed that Eric could be involved in the campaign, but that he could not receive anything for doing so. They were also told that Eric should not be provided transportation when they campaigned in different cities. However, Eric rode with the candidate in an airplane that was provided by a person who was a friend of the candidate, to travel to three cities. They talked about it before they got on the plane, that Eric might have to pay for his expenses. Within two days the NCAA called and said are you sure you don’t have a violation. I said I don’t think so, because we had informed them earlier on what Eric could do and what he could not do. We investigated and sure enough Eric had been provided transportation and lunch at the home of a friend of the person campaigning. So we had to figure out what the expenses were for the gas used to fly the airplane, and the ham sandwich. Eric made repayment to a charity in the amount of the expenses he had received and was declared ineligible for competition. Once Eric made the repayment his eligibility was restored.

HP: You talked about somebody had called the NCAA about Eric Crouch’s ham sandwich, do you ever get phone calls from people “turning in other schools for violations?” Would somebody call you up and say, hey I saw this recruit for Kansas State getting some special consideration, or would they contact the NCAA directly?

GB: Usually people don’t call us and tell us about a possible violation that some other school may have been involved in. They may tell us about something that our institution has done. If someone calls us and tells us about something they have heard that may be a possible violation within our institution, we will check it out and self report it to the NCAA if there is a violation.

Pretty decent read there as well...