Alabama players getting paid?

[4down20]

I think you're right. Georgia tech and South Carolina didn't get any bowl bans and USC didn't get in any trouble. So, we'll see. UNC got a bowl ban because they had ineligible players play, I'm not sure how its different unless its because john Blake was a football coach instead of a football player.

Being a part of the staff is a whole different ball game, that's for sure.

 

[uncfan103]

Being a part of the staff is a whole different ball game, that's for sure.

Our staff members didn't pay players, your football players were paid by the football player that was paid by agents

 

[963BUSC]

Being a part of the staff is a whole different ball game, that's for sure.

At USC Lake was not part of the staff or a player on the team, it involved fewer players but more money. I don't think it really matters to the NCAA who did what or what they did.

 

[LawDawg]

Our staff members didn't pay players, your football players were paid by the football player that was paid by agents

You seem to want to draw a comparison to what happened at UNC and what may have happened at Alabama. Once the facts are out, that may well be the case. If it is, they should receive the same penalties that UNC received. However, nothing that we have seen thus far is as egregious as what happened at UNC. Not saying that what appears to have happened isn't bad. Not saying that they won't get hit hard. Just saying you are drawing a comparison where one does not yet exist.

From the NCAA site:

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill is responsible for multiple violations, including academic fraud, impermissible agent benefits, ineligible participation and a failure to monitor its football program, according to the decision announced today by the Division I Committee on Infractions.

Over the course of three seasons, six football student-athletes competed while ineligible as a result of these violations, and multiple student-athletes received impermissible benefits totaling more than $31,000.

Public Infractions Report

Read the Public Infractions Report here.

While employed by the university, a former assistant football coach was compensated by a sports agent for the access he provided to student-athletes and failed to disclose the income to the university. The former assistant coach and a former tutor both committed unethical conduct and failed to cooperate with the investigation.

“This case should serve as a cautionary tale to all institutions to vigilantly monitor the activities of those student-athletes who possess the potential to be top professional prospects,” the committee stated in its report. “It should also serve to warn student-athletes that if they choose to accept benefits from agents or their associates, they risk losing their eligibility for collegiate competition.”

Penalties for the case include a one-year postseason ban, reduction of 15 football scholarships, vacation of records and three years probation. The former assistant coach received a three-year show-cause penalty restricting any recruiting activity.

The academic fraud violations stemmed from the former tutor constructing significant parts of writing assignments for three football student-athletes. The tutor wrote paragraphs for papers, revised drafts, composed “works-cited” pages, researched and edited content and inserted citations, among other violations. The tutor also provided more than $4,000 in impermissible benefits, including airfare and paying for outstanding parking tickets, to 11 football student-athletes after she graduated and was no longer a university employee. The tutor also refused to cooperate with the investigation.

The former assistant football coach was also cited for a failure to cooperate and unethical conduct. According to the committee, not only did he refuse to provide information relevant to the investigation, but he also furnished false and misleading information. At the hearing, in a reversal of his previous refusal to provide information, the former assistant coach expressed a willingness to provide the pertinent records. However, he did not provide the documents for more than three months following the hearing, resulting in a significant delay in bringing this case to conclusion.

The former assistant coach also did not report $31,000 in athletically related outside income from a sports agency. According to the committee findings, the former assistant coach was either employed or compensated by the sports agent. It was found that even after returning to college athletics, the former assistant coach continued recruiting clients for the sports agency, including student-athletes he was coaching.

The committee also found the university failed to monitor its football program, in part when it allowed a former student-athlete to have regular access to current student-athletes at its athletic facilities without any scrutiny. The former student-athlete was deemed an agent runner during the NCAA investigation. In addition, the university failed to investigate information it obtained suggesting one student-athlete, who accepted the most in impermissible cash and benefits, may have violated NCAA agent rules.

This case also included the provision of thousands of dollars in impermissible benefits to multiple student-athletes. Seven football student-athletes accepted more than $27,500 in benefits from various individuals, some of whom triggered NCAA agent rules. These impermissible benefits included cash, flights, meals, lodging, athletic training, admission to clubs and jewelry, among others. While the value of the benefits the student-athletes accepted varied, one student-athlete received more than $13,500 cash and gifts.

The university took decisive action after discovering the academic fraud violations and when the former assistant coach’s violations came to light. In addition, the school cooperated fully during the investigation.

 

[smilesid]

OK, let's talk about elephants. Look at the top 25. Virtually every team on it, has been accused, investigated, or found guilty of violations, some serious, some trivial. Punishments have been incredibly inconsistent, from basic finger wagging to huge fines and penalties.

Anyone who has spent time at a big time institution where football is king, hell, even at some 3rd tier places, knows that football stars get special treatment.

1. They get "jobs" that have cushy requirements.
2. They get signed up for classes from "understanding" professors.
3. They get better food, better accommodations, all sorts of little and big considerations around campus.
4. Go look at the parking lot during practice. How did all those impoverished kids from poor backgrounds find the money to drive those cars? Check out what they wear heading out? When I was in college, I sure couldn't afford those fancy jackets and shoes.
5. The bigger the star, the better the treatment.

Are Alabama players getting paid? Hell yes, and so are players from a dozen more programs. The only issue is how careful are they in Tuscaloosa to cover their tracks? Anyone who believes otherwise, hey I got some fine ocean front property right here in Idaho that I'd love to sell you.

 

[963BUSC]

You seem to want to draw a comparison to what happened at UNC and what may have happened at Alabama. Once the facts are out, that may well be the case. If it is, they should receive the same penalties that UNC received. However, nothing that we have seen thus far is as egregious as what happened at UNC. Not saying that what appears to have happened isn't bad. Not saying that they won't get hit hard. Just saying you are drawing a comparison where one does not yet exist.

From the NCAA site:

More athletes, academic fraud and a member of staff directly involved in making payments but less than half of USC's penalty. It doesn't matter what you did or didn't do, the NCAA will punish Alabama or not to any level they feel like. There is no logic behind their decisions or precedence they follow.

 

[LawDawg]

At USC Lake was not part of the staff or a player on the team, it involved fewer players but more money. I don't think it really matters to the NCAA who did what or what they did.

Look, if Bama did wrong, kick their ass. My Dawgs took it in the shorts in the 80s, and then again with hoops in the late 90s. But, you guys keep trying to draw comparisons where they don't exist - yet. Once developed, where there be more? It is certainly possible ... if one is doing it, there could be more. But we don't know yet. Here is what we do know about USC from the NCAA:

The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld the findings of NCAA violations and associated penalties for the University of Southern California. The case primarily involved agent and amateurism violations for a former football student-athlete and a former men's basketball student-athlete.

The findings in this case include a lack of institutional control, impermissible inducements, extra benefits and exceeding coaching staff limits.

Explaining USC’s postseason ban and scholarship reductions

The Infractions Appeals Committee’s decision to uphold the penalties for the University of Southern California means the penalties are now in effect. The appealed penalties are placed on hold until the appeals process is completed. The penalties appealed by the university include a reduction in football scholarships for three years and the second year of the postseason ban.

In this case, USC requested they be able to immediately enact the first year of the postseason ban during the appeals process. The appeals committee granted this request and the first year of the postseason ban was applied to the 2010 season. The remaining year will be applied to the upcoming 2011 season.

The reduction in football scholarships will begin with the 2012-13 academic year. USC will be able to offer 15 initial scholarships (instead of the maximum of 25) and 75 total scholarships (instead of the maximum of 85) for each of the next three academic years. This reduction will not impact those student-athletes who have already signed for the 2011-12 academic year.

The penalties include four years probation; a two-year football postseason ban; a one-year basketball postseason ban; vacation of regular and postseason wins for all three involved sports (football, basketball and women’s tennis); scholarship reductions for football and basketball; and recruiting restrictions for men's basketball. They also include a $5,000 financial penalty; forfeiture of revenue from the 2008 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship; and limitations for the access granted to boosters and non-university personnel to team charters, sidelines, practices, locker rooms and camps for men's basketball and football. The university also must disassociate itself from three boosters, including the former football and men's basketball student-athletes involved in this case. As a part of this disassociation, the university will not be able to accept financial contributions or other assistance for the athletics department from these individuals, and is prohibited from providing these individuals with any benefits or privileges.

In its appeal, the university requested the penalties be reduced, asserting they were not supported by the facts and were excessive to an extent that they constituted an abuse of discretion. It also contended that the findings of violations should be set aside as contrary to the evidence.

While the university stated that the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions erred in concluding that sports marketers in the case were Southern California boosters, the appeals committee disagreed, “We are persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to support the Committee on Infractions’ conclusions regarding these issues, and find no basis on which to reverse the pertinent findings,” the appeals committee said in its public report.

The university also argued the lack of institutional control finding should be set aside because some of the facts found by the Committee on Infractions did not constitute rules violations and that the Committee on Infractions did not consider a number of mitigating factors. The appeals committee, however, did not find any basis to reverse the finding.

The appeals committee also upheld all penalties in the case, noting there was no basis to conclude the Committee on Infractions departed from prior decisions.

In considering the university’s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notice of appeal; the transcript of the university’s Committee on Infractions hearing; and the submissions by both the university and the Committee on Infractions.

The Infractions Appeals Committee may overturn a determination of fact or finding of violation if the Committee on Infractions’ finding is contrary to the evidence presented; the facts found by the Committee on Infractions do not constitute a violation of NCAA rules; or a procedural error affected the reliability of information that was used to support the findings. A penalty by the Committee on Infractions may be set aside on appeal if the penalty is excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion.

 

[uncfan103]

You seem to want to draw a comparison to what happened at UNC and what may have happened at Alabama. Once the facts are out, that may well be the case. If it is, they should receive the same penalties that UNC received. However, nothing that we have seen thus far is as egregious as what happened at UNC. Not saying that what appears to have happened isn't bad. Not saying that they won't get hit hard. Just saying you are drawing a comparison where one does not yet exist.

From the NCAA site:

I think it's only similar to Greg Little, Marvin Austin, and Robert Quinn, who were all guilty of accepting benefits. The rest of it all only came to light because we let the NCAA and Pack Pride investigate it. Butch wasn't responsible at Carolina and Saban won't be held responsible at Alabama. There are similarities, but there are a lot of things at Carolina that haven't been investigating at Alabama, so obviously it's different.

 

[963BUSC]

Look, if Bama did wrong, kick their ass. My Dawgs took it in the shorts in the 80s, and then again with hoops in the late 90s. But, you guys keep trying to draw comparisons where they don't exist - yet. Once developed, where there be more? It is certainly possible ... if one is doing it, there could be more. But we don't know yet. Here is what we do know about USC from the NCAA:

I'm actually not saying that. I am saying that an agent making payments through a coach to multiple athletes coupled with academic fraud seems worse or at least equal to what you just reprinted about USC. UNC more players, more coach involvement, more games played with inelligible athletes, more academic fraud, less money, lower profile athletes. What is the formula or precedence they used to say that all of that equal less than 1/2 of USC's penalty? If you can explain it tell it to the NCAA because they have refused to try. Instead of following precedence they have come up with the idea that every case is unique.

So whether or not Alabama is guilty of equal or greater infractions to UNC or any other school is of no consequence. It only matters what the NCAA wants to do in this case.

 

[LawDawg]

I think it's only similar to Greg Little, Marvin Austin, and Robert Quinn, who were all guilty of accepting benefits. The rest of it all only came to light because we let the NCAA and Pack Pride investigate it. Butch wasn't responsible at Carolina and Saban won't be held responsible at Alabama. There are similarities, but there are a lot of things at Carolina that haven't been investigating at Alabama, so obviously it's different.

I don't profess to know everything that happened at UNC (even though I live in Cary and consider myself a Heel fan), and I think we tend to agree more than we disagree. However, the fact that UNC had a coach getting paid to direct players to the agents, who them lied during the investigation; and a tutor who admitted to doing work for the students and would not cooperate in the investigation seems to be substantially more problematic than what we've heard thus far at Bama.

 

[LawDawg]

I'm actually not saying that. I am saying that an agent making payments through a coach to multiple athletes coupled with academic fraud seems worse or at least equal to what you just reprinted about USC. UNC more players, more coach involvement, more games played with inelligible athletes, more academic fraud, less money, lower profile athletes. What is the formula or precedence they used to say that all of that equal less than 1/2 of USC's penalty? If you can explain it tell it to the NCAA because they have refused to try. Instead of following precedence they have come up with the idea that every case is unique.

So whether or not Alabama is guilty of equal or greater infractions to UNC or any other school is of no consequence. It only matters what the NCAA wants to do in this case.

Fair enough. For Alabama's sake, they better hope there isn't the rest of the iceberg out there. This whole feel good thing they have going could come crashing down pretty quickly if there is more.

 

[UNA Lion]

Fair enough. For Alabama's sake, they better hope there isn't the rest of the iceberg out there. This whole feel good thing they have going could come crashing down pretty quickly if there is more.

Concur completely. I'll be the first to admit that if Bama coaches are somehow involved in this, then the NCAA should bring the hammer.

That stated, from what we currently know (and Yahoo! Sports did a pretty good job on their article), there was apparently just one Bama player receiving money he shouldn't have, and there is no indication that anyone but he and those doling out the money knew.

 

[bamabear82]

That is all.

 

[Camfantasy]

That is all.

I told you Foley put out some bad eggs my brotha.

 

[bamabear82]

I told you Foley put out some bad eggs my brotha.

I really liked Fluker too, Ima be mad if his big ass fucked us.

 

[SOCALPIPELAYER]

Alabama will be punished because they are a successful team right now. Just like USC it will take years though. The NCAA hates success so Alabama is screwed.

 

[rolltide14_0]

Concur completely. I'll be the first to admit that if Bama coaches are somehow involved in this, then the NCAA should bring the hammer.

That stated, from what we currently know (and Yahoo! Sports did a pretty good job on their article), there was apparently just one Bama player receiving money he shouldn't have, and there is no indication that anyone but he and those doling out the money knew.

Agree. I love Alabama as much as anything, and I don't want to go through the shit we've only recent recovered from all over again, so I'm hoping we can get break, but if anyone in our athletic department knew about this, we deserve what we get.

I think the part that gets me more than other things is being labeled a cheater because of something 1 or 2 players did with an agent. I think Bama fans(or maybe just me) more than most sympathized with USC when they got in trouble because we have went through that ourselves, and you have to think about it from a fan perspective, how bad it would be for your team to be in that situation over 1 idiot. It sucks and I wouldn't wish it on anyone...except maybe Auburn...

I think SMU would qualify as cheaters back then, but not this shit..imo.

 

[potzer25]

Remember, it's after August 1st now:

https://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connec...ts+tougher+more+efficient+enforcement+program

At its core, the new enforcement structure:

• Introduces a four-tier violation hierarchy that ranges from severe breaches of conduct to incidental infractions. The structure, which replaces the current two-tier approach (major and secondary violations), is designed to focus most on conduct breaches that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Constitution (Levels I and II in the accompanying list).
• Enhances head coach responsibility/accountability and potential consequences for head coaches who fail to direct their staffs and student-athletes to uphold NCAA bylaws. Penalties include imposed suspensions that can range from 10 percent of the season to an entire season.
• Increases the Division I Committee on Infractions from 10 to as many as 24 voting members from which smaller panels will be assembled to review cases more quickly and efficiently.
• Continues to offer harsh consequences (postseason bans, scholarship reductions, recruiting limits, head coach suspensions, show-cause orders and financial penalties) that align more predictably with the severity of the violations. The new penalty structure also places a premium on aggravating and mitigating circumstances in each case.
• Emphasizes a culture among head coaches, the compliance community, institutional leadership and conferences to assume a shared responsibility for upholding the values of intercollegiate athletics.

 

[LawDawg]

Alabama will be punished because they are a successful team right now. Just like USC it will take years though. The NCAA hates success so Alabama is screwed.

Why would the NCAA hate success, and what proof do you have of that? Internal memos? Or did you just pull that out of your ass?

 

[Steelboy84]

Agree. I love Alabama as much as anything, and I don't want to go through the shit we've only recent recovered from all over again, so I'm hoping we can get break, but if anyone in our athletic department knew about this, we deserve what we get.

I think the part that gets me more than other things is being labeled a cheater because of something 1 or 2 players did with an agent. I think Bama fans(or maybe just me) more than most sympathized with USC when they got in trouble because we have went through that ourselves, and you have to think about it from a fan perspective, how bad it would be for your team to be in that situation over 1 idiot. It sucks and I wouldn't wish it on anyone...except maybe Auburn...

I think SMU would qualify as cheaters back then, but not this shit..imo.

Charles Barkley is gonna root for bama saturday because he is sick of johhny football.