Some
facts during a titanic storm of opinions and “inside sources” on the Alabama
case.
By
Jeff Sallas
As
the old saying goes, “if I had a dime for every…”, well if I had a dime for
every Alabama/NCAA article I have seen or talk radio discussion I have heard, I
would definitely be a rich man. It is
all different too. This person says
this, this person says that. This
person has this “inside source”, this person has a different one. Some say Alabama will get hammered, some say
they won’t. It just all runs together
and becomes meaningless after awhile but sportswriters and radio personalities
have to make a living. However, there
is no doubt that this case will have a big effect on the SEC.
It
is a big story and deserves the attention but I have found myself wanting some
facts that are pertinent to this discussion.
I don’t know any “inside sources” and don’t have any special powers of
prediction. However I do believe the NCAA
legal system is similar to our regular legal system in some ways. I believe that NCAA penalties follow trends
and that the legal term of “precedence” is applicable. So by looking at some case histories, I
think you can make a much more educated guess of what the NCAA will do than by
all these “inside sources”.
Of
course you won’t find any of this info in the newspapers because it might force
some of our resident sportswriters to actually do some research. So I finally decided to do some myself. The first thing I thought of was Ole
Miss. The Ole Miss NCAA probation was
the worst of the last decade and it seemed like a good place to start. You always hear people talk about it but
what EXACTLY were the penalties? I
wanted to know.
After
wasting some time it finally occurred to me to go to the NCAA’s official
site. I hit paydirt. I have to give it to the NCAA, they have an
excellent research database set up for completed major infraction cases. (I think we can safely assume that this case
with Alabama will be a “major infraction” case.) It is set up like a automated law library. You can find just about any info you need
concerning major infractions and any school.
You can get a summary of the case and then view the public report for
more details. I found some typos in
some of the case summaries but easily found the correct details in the public
report.
BTW,
if you would like to check this out, go to:
www.ncaa.org
-> Enforcement & Reinstatement -> Major Infractions Database
Again,
all the info you could hope to find. I
went and found the Ole Miss case plus looked at the other recent major
infractions cases involving football. I
pulled out the summaries and they are listed below in descending chronological
order. (ALSO LISTED BELOW is each SEC
school and the number of their major infraction cases for all sports.)
The
schools involved in the cases below are Georgia, Miss St, Alabama, Ole Miss,
Auburn and Tennessee. LSU and Arkansas
had major cases involving their basketball programs but none concerning
football during the 90s. Kentucky has
just received their letter for major infractions in the football program. Florida’s last case was in 1989-90 but
involved several sports. Vandy has only
been in trouble with the NCAA once and that involved women’s basketball. South Carolina hasn’t had any NCAA trouble
with football recently.
Before
looking at the case summaries, let me help explain the 6 different kinds of
penalties listed in each case summary.
The first is “TV”. That is talking
about many years that team is restricted from playing on TV. The next kind of penalty is “Postseason” and
that is talking about how many years that team is restricted from playing in a
title or bowl game.
The
“Probation” heading shows how long the actual probation period is. This seems unimportant but I believe that is
deceiving. This number means a whole
lot if you are caught breaking the rules within or for a certain time after
this period. The “Reduction in
Financial Aid” is the BIG ONE. Let me
come back to that. The “Recruiting”
penalty includes reductions in things like official visits. The “Show Cause restriction on employees” is
a penalty against actual people involved.
Back to the “Reduction in Financial Aid” penalty. Again this is the big one. This is the area where scholarships are taken away. This is basically done in 2 different areas, “initial awards” and “overall awards”. For those unfamilar with the recruiting process, let me explain. NCAA Division 1-A football teams are allowed a maximum of 85 players on scholarship. They are allowed 85 “overall awards”. In addition to this maximum, each team is only allowed to give away 25 scholarships or “initial awards” each year. You can give out 25 a year as long as it doesn’t put you over the 85 limit.
The
NCAA can restrict both of these. In
most of the cases below they have restricted the “initial awards”. However in the 2 most recent cases against
Miss St and Georgia, they restricted BOTH.
Basically, all these other kinds of penalties can hurt but this is the
one that can really hurt. This is
really the only one that people really worry about regarding their team. This is where the NCAA can cripple your
program for years to come. As bad as it
gets sometimes, recruiting is the LIFEBLOOD for EVERY good college football
team. Here are the summaries and my
take on each…
---------------------------------------
Institution:
University of Georgia
Date:
05-MAR-97
Facts
Summary: Improper recruiting contacts and inducements by an athletics
representative; excessive number of official visits; extra benefits; improper
recruiting by student-athletes.
Violation Summary: IMPROPER RECRUITING: improper recruiting contacts made by and inducements provided by an athletics representative when he obtained high-school transcripts for university coaches, made improper in-person or telephone contact with prospective student-athletes, provided cash and meals to prospective student-athletes on numerous occasions, and paid for or provided cash to prospective student-athletes to attend the university's football camp and to visit the institution's campus; and football student-athletes had improper recruiting contact with a prospective student-athlete at the direction of a coaching staff member. EXTRA BENEFITS: an athletics representative paid at least $7,000 for tuition, room, board and spending money to a walk-on student-athlete.
Penalty
Summary: Public reprimand; reduction in initial awards from 25 to 20 for
1997-98; reduction in total awards from 85 to 79 for 1997-98 and from 85 to 82
for 1998-99; reduction in official visits from 56 to 48 for 1997-98 and from 56
to 52 for 1998-99; reduction of one football coach permitted to recruit off
campus at any one time for 1997-98; disassociation of one athletics
representative; prohibition against recruiting in Palm Beach County, Florida,
during 1997-98 and 1998-99; and annual reports.
Involved
Sports: Football
Involved
Penalties:
TV: 0
yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: Yes
Postseason:
0
yrs Recruiting: Yes
Probation: 2
yrs Show Cause restriction on
employees: No
SALLAS SUMMARY: Georgia’s case here involved some major infractions but wasn’t a huge case. They got a slap on the wrist.
---------------------------------------
Institution:
Mississippi State University
Date:
07-MAR-96
Facts
Summary: Impermissible recruiting inducements; provision of extra benefits;
unethical conduct; lack of institutional control.
Violation
Summary: IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING: recruiting assistant offered cash and other
inducements to prospective student-athletes. EXTRA BENEFITS: athletics
representative provided improper bonuses, cash, loans and meals to
student-athletes, some of whom he employed. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. LACK OF
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.
Penalty
Summary: Public reprimand; reduction by one in the number of coaches who could
recruit off campus in October and November 1994; disassociation of two
athletics representatives; reduction by 13 to 12 initial grants for 1997-98;
reduction from 85 to 80 total grants for 1997-98; reduction from 56 to 42
official visits for 1996-97; annual reports; recertification.
Involved
Sports: Football
Involved
Penalties:
TV: 0
yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: Yes
Postseason: 0
yrs Recruiting: Yes
Probation: 1
yrs Show Cause restriction on
employees: Yes
SALLAS SUMMARY: This case really didn’t get a lot of press (at least not in Alabama) and I believe Sherill was cleared. However it did involve the dreaded “lack of institutional control” and Miss St did get more than a slap on the wrist. Losing 13 initial grants and losing the 5 total grants isn’t a back breaker since Miss St won the SEC West the next year and has been very good since but it does make things tougher.
---------------------------------------
Institution:
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Date:
02-AUG-95
Facts
Summary: Improper bank loans; lack of institutional control. (REFLECTS CHANGES
MADE BY INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE.)
Violation
Summary: AMATEURISM, EXTRA BENEFITS: $24,000 in impermissible banks loans made
to a student-athlete; institution did not obtain the appropriate records. LACK
OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL in the investigation into and report of information
regarding the amateur status of student-athletes. (REFLECTS CHANGES MADE BY
INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE.)
Penalty
Summary: Public reprimand; dissasociation of athletics representatives;
reduction from 85 to 81 total grants for 1995-96 and 1996-97; reduction from 25
to 12 initial grants for 1996-97; forfeiture of contests in 1993-94; annual
reports; attendance at NCAA compliance seminar; recertification. (REFLECTS
CHANGES MADE BY INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE.)
Involved
Sports: Football
Involved
Penalties:
TV: 0
yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: Yes
Postseason: 1
yrs Recruiting: No
Probation: 2
yrs Show Cause restriction on
employees: No
---------------------------------------
ALABAMA
DETAILED PENALTY DESCRIPTION:
1.
The committee adopted as its own the following penalty self-imposed by the
institution:
Disassociation
of two representatives of the institution's athletics interests.
2.
The committee imposed the following additional penalties:
Public
reprimand and censure.
Three
years of probation.
Prohibition
from participating in postseason competition in football during the 1995-96
academic year.
Reduction
by four in the number of permissible financial aid awards in football during each
of the 1995-96 and 1996-97 academic years. The university self-imposed this
reduction for the 1995-96 academic year.
Reduction
in the number of initial financial aid awards in football by 13 during the
1996-97 academic year and by 9 during the 1997-98 academic year.
Forfeiture
of the 11 regular-season football games in which an ineligible student-athlete
participated during the 1993-94 academic year.
Requirement
that the institution continue to develop a comprehensive athletics compliance
education program, with annual reports to the committee during the period of
probation.
Requirement
that the university send four individuals to an NCAA rules seminar each year of
the probation.
Recertification
of current athletics policies and practices.
ALABAMA
APPEAL:
2.
The institution appealed the following penalties imposed by the Committee on
Infractions:
a.
The third year of probation;
b.
Prohibition from participating in postseason competition in football during the
1995-96 academic year; and
c.
Reduction in the number of initial financial aid awards in football by nine
during the 1997-98 academic year.
ALABAMA
APPEAL RESPONSE:
"After
weighing all of these considerations, the Infractions Appeals Committee
concludes that the third year of probation (1997-98) and the reduction in the
number of initial financial aid awards in football by nine during the academic
year (1997-98) are excessive and inappropriate. It, therefore, sets aside the
third year of probation and the 1997-98 limitation on initial financial aid
awards.
The
Infractions Appeals Committee also concludes that the third penalty appealed by
the institution -- prohibition from participation in postseason competition in
football during the 1995-96 academic year -- is neither excessive nor
inappropriate."
SALLAS SUMMARY: This was probably the most surprising penalty in the 90s. I didn’t know much about NCAA penalties or recruiting when this came out and I didn’t know till I studied the case how bad the NCAA hammered Alabama. However Alabama got a lot back on appeal. I have included some more details on this case. There is no doubt that before the appeal that this was a very stiff penalty. It is still an eye-opener after the appeal but manageable.
---------------------------------------
Institution:
University of Mississippi
Date:
17-NOV-94
Facts
Summary: Impermissible recruiting by athletics representatives; improper
recruiting inducements; extra benefits; lack of institutional control;
unethical conduct. [UPHELD ON APPEAL.]
Violation
Summary: IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING: improper contacts by athletics
representatives; transportation, lodging, clothing and entertainment provided
by athletics representatives during official visits; offer of automobile, money
and airline tickets; entertainment outside 30-mile radius during official
visit; impermissible comments regarding prospective student-athlete. EXTRA
BENEFITS: clothing valued at $200-300; impermissible loan; use of staff
member's automobile. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. [UPHELD
ON APPEAL.]
Penalty
Summary: Public reprimand; annual reports; reduction from 25 to 13 initial
grants for 1995-96 and 1996-97; reduction from 56 to 40 official visits for
1995-96 and 1996-97; recertification. [UPHELD ON APPEAL.]
Involved
Sports: Football
Involved
Penalties:
TV:
1 yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: Yes
Postseason:
2 yrs Recruiting: Yes
Probation:
4 yrs Show Cause restriction on employees: Yes
SALLAS SUMMARY: THE BIG ONE. The NCAA put it to the Rebels taking 24 initial scholarships and 32 official visits over 2 years. They also took TV for one year and bowls for 2 years. They pretty much slapped them with the whole enchilada.
---------------------------------------
Institution:
Auburn University
Date:
18-AUG-93
Facts
Summary: Cash and unsecured loans provided to student-athletes as extra
benefits; lack of institutional control; unethical conduct.
Violation
Summary: EXTRA BENEFITS: athletics representatives provided at least $4,000 in
cash and merchandise; assistant coach provided $500; administrative assistant
provided several thousand dollars in cash payments; athletics representative
approved a $9,200 and several other unsecured loans based upon future earnings
as professional athletes; student-athletes allowed to enroll with outstanding
accounts with the university. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. UNETHICAL CONDUCT.
ERRONEOUS CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
Penalty
Summary: Public reprimand; annual reports; reduction from 25 to 24 initial
grants for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96; reduction from 88 to 86 total grants
for 1993-94 and from 85 to 83 for 1994-95 and 1995-96; permanent disassociation
of former assistant coach, former administrative assistant and two athletics
representatives; separation of duties of head football coach and athletics
director; recertification.
Involved
Sports: Football
Involved
Penalties:
TV: 1
yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: Yes
Postseason: 2
yrs Recruiting: No
Probation: 2
yrs Show Cause restriction on
employees: Yes
SALLAS SUMMARY: The famous “Eric Ramsey” case. The bulk of this penalty was in the TV and Postseason areas. They were certainly effective in this case since Auburn had 2 of it’s better teams ever (including the only one to go 11-0) and they could not compete for the SEC title or anything national. A few scholarships were taken but not enough to really matter.
---------------------------------------
Institution:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date:
18-SEP-91
Facts
Summary: Improper recruiting transportation, contacts and inducements;
unethical conduct.
Violation
Summary: IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING: arrangement for an airline ticket on credit
to a prospective student-athlete; improper off-campus contacts; recruitment of
prospective student-athletes before completion of junior year; impermissible
transportation. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. ERRONEOUS CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE.
Penalty
Summary: Public reprimand; maximum of 85 grants for 1992-93 and 1993-94;
reduction of one coach for one year; suspension of senior camps; annual
reports; recertification
Involved
Sports: Football
Involved
Penalties:
TV: 0
yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: Yes
Postseason: 0
yrs Recruiting: No
Probation: 2
yrs Show Cause restriction on
employees: Yes
SALLAS SUMMARY: This was a major infraction case with almost NO penalties. The detailed report stated the following:
“The Committee on Infractions determined that this case was a "unique" case in which the institution should receive less than the full set of minimum penalties otherwise required by NCAA legislation. The important mitigating factors in this case included: prompt detection of violations, thorough investigation and reporting of violations to the NCAA; cooperation in the processing of the case, and initiation of strong disciplinary and corrective actions.”
---------------------------------------
SEC
SCHOOLS AND NUMBER OF NCAA MAJOR INFRACTIONS
AUBURN
- 6
KENTUCKY
- 6
GEORGIA
- 5
BAMA
- 4
FLORIDA
-4
MISS
ST - 4
OLE
MISS - 3
SOUTH
CAROLINA - 3
LSU
- 2
ARKANSAS
- 2
TENNESSEE
- 2
VANDY
- 1
---------------------------------------
THE
INSTITUTIONS WITH MOST MAJOR INFRACTIONS
(SEC
SCHOOLS IN CAPS)
8
MAJOR INFRACTONS
Southern
Methodist University
7
MAJOR INFRACTIONS
Arizona
State University
Texas
A&M University, College Station
Wichita
State University
6
MAJOR INFRACTIONS
AUBURN
UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
OF KENTUCKY (COUNTING CURRENT UNFINISHED CASE)
Florida
State University
Kansas
State University
University
of California, Los Angeles
University
of Minnesota, Twin Cities
University
of Wisconsin, Madison
5
MAJOR INFRACTIONS
UNIVERSITY
OF GEORGIA
Michigan
State University
North
Carolina State University
University
of California, Berkeley
University
of Cincinnati
University
of Illinois, Champaign
University
of Kansas
University
of Memphis
University
of Oklahoma
University
of Texas at El Paso
University
of Texas, Pan American
4 MAJOR
INFRACTIONS
MISSISSIPPI
STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY
OF ALABAMA, TUSCALOOSA (COUNTING CURRENT UNFINISHED CASE)
UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA
Baylor
University
Clemson
University
Jackson
State University
New
Mexico State University
Oklahoma
State University
University
of Arizona
University
of Houston
University
of Miami (Florida)
University
of Nevada, Las Vegas
University
of Southern California
University
of Tulsa
West
Texas A&M University
West
Virginia University
3
MAJOR INFRACTIONS
UNIVERSITY
OF MISSISSIPPI
UNIVERSITY
OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COLUMBIA
Alabama
State University
Bradley
University
Centenary
College (Louisiana)
Grambling
State University
Howard
University
Montana
State University-Bozeman
Ohio
State University
University
at Buffalo, the State University of New
University
of Colorado, Boulder
University
of Dayton
University
of Louisiana at Lafayette
University
of Louisville
University
of Missouri, Columbia
University
of Nebraska, Lincoln
University
of Nebraska, Omaha
University
of Notre Dame
University
of San Francisco
University
of Texas at Austin
University
of Washington
Virginia
Polytechnic Institute & State University
Washington
State University
Western
Kentucky University
Western
State College of Colorado
THE REST OF LIST IS 2 OR LESS...