Sprints is Still Sorting Through Scandal // 07.27.11

by Year2 on Jul 27, 2011 12:42 PM EDT in Sprints

The NCAA's Division I Amateurism Cabinet, which we now know is something that exists, has proposed some new legislation to greatly expand the definition of who can be an agent for a player. Take it away, NCAA article:

The new definition would include certified contract advisors, financial advisors, marketing representatives, brand managers or anyone who is employed by or associated with such individuals.

The new definition also would apply to third parties, including family members, who shop prospects to various institutions for personal financial gain. In the past, the agent definition applied generally to third parties marketing an athlete’s skills to a professional sports team. The cabinet’s proposal expands the definition to include people marketing athletics skills to a collegiate institution for personal gain.

So, we've got this bit about family members, and the article quotes Mark Emmert saying that it's "wrong for parents to sell the athletic services of their student-athletes to a university". Yup, we basically have the NCAA admitting that this is how it plans to close the Cecil Newton loophole.

The master has become the student, or something

South Carolina quarterbacks coach G.A. Mangus had a rough night Monday. He was urinating in public when police stopped to question him. He was obviously drunk and didn't prove helpful, so they arrested him on "nuisance conduct" charges. Steve Spurrier has suspended him indefinitely

The funniest part is not that Mangus coaches noted scofflaw Stephen Garcia. Rather, it's that this week is the South Carolina Athletic Coaches Association annual clinic, and fellow staff member Shawn Elliott gave a presentation on Monday morning titled " How Not to Be Fired, Sued, or Arrested." Apparently Mangus missed that session.

He's not a-leavin' the Bayou

As you may remember, Tennessee is looking for a new men's athletics director. Yesterday afternoon produced a flurry of reports about LSU AD Joe Alleva first considering the Tennessee job, then leaning towards it, then having a handshake deal in place to take it. LSU decided to give Alleva a sweeter deal, and that kept him in Baton Rouge.

Somewhere, Jimmy Sexton is either beaming with pride or cursing himself for not getting in on this action.

Nothing to see here, except some displays that aren't for sale

Clay Travis has been reporting on his new website about the relationship a Tuscaloosa clothing store owner has with current and former Alabama football players. The guy has had autographed jerseys displayed in his store and had pictures of players (including current player Trent Richardson) signing autographs for him on his Facebook page before taking them down. Alabama Compliance Director Mike Ward did not find any NCAA violations in the deal, explaining:

"Based on our review of this matter, we concluded that [store owner] Mr. Albetar was in compliance with NCAA regulations," added Ward. "It is not a violation for student-athletes to sign autographs and it is not a violation for a business to display photos, jerseys or other items depicting current student-athletes. We found no evidence that any student-athlete received any extra benefits."

On December 22 of last year, probably not coincidentally the same day that we learned Ohio State players were trading autographs for tattoos, Alabama sent him a cease and desist letter asking him to stop selling autographed merchandise of current players. In March, Ward went further in disassociating the store owner from the program for three years. None of the players whose signatures appeared at the store say they received impermissible benefits, and the compliance department didn't find any evidence to the contrary.

My best guess as to why the C&D order and disassociation were necessary is that Bama compliance wanted to make sure that a delicately balanced situation didn't fall off the proverbial cliff. Players apparently weren't committing violations, but they were right up against the line of what is and isn't allowed. It's always in any program's best interest to shepherd players back from that line, and that's what appears to have happened here.

Previewing Arkansas, one of six exceptional teams from last year

Bill Connelly has his Arkansas season preview up, and it's as good as all the others in his series. Go there to find out why Arkansas was in an elite club last year that only five other programs were in.

Charting the SEC teams against select others nationally

Remember when I charted the SEC teams' 2010 performaces? Well, I made some more charts comparing SEC teams to others nationally and posted it to Football Study Hall. Go check out the pretty colors and find out in what way Tennessee was nearly identical to Big East champ UConn.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

With that new rule...

How does it affect the ongoing investigation? I’m assuming the NCAA can’t/won’t retroactively enforce the rule (or can they?), so are they letting the Newton/MSU issue slide?

by AuburnMisfit on Jul 27, 2011 12:56 PM EDT reply actions

This new rule (which is still just a proposal right now), cannot be retroactively enforced when it comes to Cecil Newton’s dealing with Mississippi State.

Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2

by Year2 on Jul 27, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions

i disagree

Players apparently weren’t committing violations, but they were right up against the line of what is and isn’t allowed. It’s always in any program’s best interest to shepherd players back from that line, and that’s what appears to have happened here.

the compliance people were emphatic that no player acted in any way that would be considered impermissible. it is not an infraction for a player to sign autographs. it is not an infraction for a player to be photographed with people. the players never acted in any way that would be “across the line.”

the problem was that the store owner had posted the photographs in a manner that could suggest endorsement. thus the C&D and subsequent disassociation. if there was anyone too close to “the line” it would be he.

look at it from the perspective of the ncaa (which is what the compliance folks are paid to do). if folks in indy became aware of the photos on the merchant’s website they might be compelled to ask the school to investigate. if that occurred the school would be obligated to suspend the players in question until the inquiry was resolved and their eligibility was confirmed.

ua compliance clearly believed that such an inquiry would find nothing but if they had taken no action, the players and the team would have been penalized due to the ncaa’s process of evaluation. thus, the C&D.

Remember the Rose Bowl: The Story of the Alabama Crimson Tide & the Grandaddy of Them All

by kleph on Jul 27, 2011 1:48 PM EDT reply actions

Right

I never said they crossed the line. They got close to the line, as it’s a very small step from signing autographs for a businessman for free to signing autographs for a businessman for impermissible benefits. It’s then in the compliance department’s best interest to back them away from that line for just the reasons you list.

Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2

by Year2 on Jul 27, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions

i'm disagreeing with the wording

nothing done here by the players was in any way incorrect. it was the store owner who was close to the line and who the university asked to alter his conduct.

athletes can sign autographs. theoretically every time they do they are “close” to the line because some dumbass can turn around and sell it creating the illusion of impropriety. coach saban said straight out, there isn’t a prohibition from players frequenting the store since that would unfairly restrict their freedom to do business where they please.

Remember the Rose Bowl: The Story of the Alabama Crimson Tide & the Grandaddy of Them All

by kleph on Jul 27, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Are you saying that Alabama football players are so stupid

that they cannot discern the difference between signing items for fans who may or may not resell it versus signing items for store owners who will definitely resell it? Given Alabama’s history with the NCAA and the general demeanor of NCAA investigators lately (i.e., that of a bipolar grizzly bear that has just woken from hibernation) I think it would behoove us all to stay as far away from the line in the sand as possible.

by danmarcel on Jul 27, 2011 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions

I think the answer to that would have to be given with another question.....

If he signed 5 or 10 jerseys for a business owner that happens to be an Alabama fan I would say his actions were genuin but if he signed 30 or 40 then he should have suspected something would be set up for sale. Either way, it doesnt matter because there is no limit on the number of items a player can autograph. This is a non-story that will fade into the sunset.

by burmbuster on Jul 29, 2011 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions

At the very least, I don't think anybody wants to see pictures like those

It may not be a violation, but it definitely doesn’t look good in this environment.

Writer (and a handsome one at that),
And the Valley Shook

by Billy Gomila on Jul 27, 2011 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

TCU - the BEST team in 2010...

Followed pretty closely by Boise State…using your charts?

by Phocion on Jul 27, 2011 3:29 PM EDT reply actions

The charts indicate how teams performed in relation to their conference averages. The final one indicates that TCU and Boise dominated their respective conferences to the greatest degree in terms of points per game and yards per game on both sides of the ball. It doesn’t say anything about their absolute quality.

Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2

by Year2 on Jul 27, 2011 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Interesting Year 2

You repeat complete and utter garbage about LSU almost verbatim from the joke that ESPN has become, ignoring facts in order to make a non story sound juicier. Juxtapose this with downplaying Bama news and placing it below the fold/jump. Not saying Bama is in need of a witchhunt, but the Lyles dvd non story had way less (read: nothing, nada, zilch) to go on than this Bama non story but that didn’t stop you did it? Write equally or don’t write at all.

That joke of an article ESPN put out was crap and you bit on it. It’s a shame you haven’t gone back to correct it. You want to see what you should’ve written? Go check out Saturday Night Slant, dude runs circles around you and ESPN. But hey, what do the facts matter right? Just stick to gossip about AU, boy.

by LSUJOSHUA on Jul 27, 2011 3:40 PM EDT reply actions

Interesting indeed

LSU is under an official NCAA investigation, whereas Alabama is not. That is why one gets a full story and the other is a bullet point in a linkdump post.

If you go back and read the third paragraph of my LSU/Lyles post, you can see that I point out that some of the video LSU got was useful contrary to what you’d expect from ESPN’s headline. You might also recall what the conclusion to the post said (or maybe not, I don’t know) where I said there’s nothing in the video story for LSU fans to worry about and questioned whether LSU was in trouble at all.

What part of that, exactly, is objectionable?

Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2

by Year2 on Jul 27, 2011 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions