Bama violations, again...

#51
#51
I hate bama as much as the next Vol fan.. But i dont know why this is against the rules. It's not like they can read anyway.
 
#52
#52
Alabama's response to the NCAA was based on arguments that:
- A textbook system was in place, though "it simply failed to do an adequate job."
- Wrongdoers did not knowingly violate NCAA rules.
- The "vast majority" of violations were unintentional.
- The infraction was isolated, and benefits were of an academic nature, and no cash exchanged hands.

Sure.....no $$$ exchanged hands. Anybody believe some $$$ didn't get passed around?
 
#53
#53
Alabama football (2002)
Since the SMU case, the closest that the NCAA has come to imposing the "death penalty" against a football program was against the University of Alabama in 2002. The most severe violation involved boosters paying players (most notably Albert Means) to come to Alabama. Alabama was eligible for the "death penalty" because of a 1999 case in which men's basketball assistant coach Tyrone Beaman tried to convince boosters to help him start a slush fund for recruits. The boosters immediately contacted the athletics department, Beaman was fired and the incident was self-reported to the NCAA. Infractions committee chairman Thomas Yeager said that the committee seriously considered giving Alabama the "death penalty." He called the violations "some of the worst, most serious that have ever occurred" in NCAA history and claimed that the Crimson Tide were "absolutely staring down the barrel of a gun." It finally settled on five years' probation, a two-year bowl ban and the loss of 21 scholarships over three years. Yeager strongly hinted that if the Tide committed another major violation during the five-year period, it was very likely that it would get the death penalty.[10]


thought this was kinda interesting...
 
#54
#54
I don't know how many as read this, but it shows what could happen.

What is Alabama's potential punishment for the textbook infractions? - The Bama Beat - al.com

In regards to penalties, the NCAA wrote this in its notice of allegations to Alabama ...


"If the committee finds that major violations have occurred, then it will determine what penalties are appropriate as provided in Bylaws 19.5.2.1 or 19.5.2.3 of the online version of the 2007-08 NCAA Division I Manual. Inasmuch as your institution was previously found in violation of NCAA rules in an infractions report decided Feb. 1, 2002, your institution is subject to the penalties set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.3."

Bylaw 19.5.2.1 defines "presumptive penalties" for major violations while Bylaw 19.5.2.3 deals with "repeat violators," where Alabama falls since the textbook investigation crossed into 2005, which was within the five-year window after the sanctions of 2002.

Those guidelines read as follows ...

19.5.2.1 Presumptive Penalty The presumptive penalty for a major violation, subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions on the basis of specifically stated reasons, shall include all of the following:
(a) A two-year probationary period (including a periodic in-person monitoring system and written institutional reports);
(b) The reduction in the number of expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport for one recruiting year;
(c) A requirement that all coaching staff members in the sport be prohibited from engaging in any off campus recruiting activities for up to one recruiting year;
(d) A requirement that all institutional staff members determined by the committee knowingly to have engaged in or condoned a major violation be subject to;
--(1) Termination of employment;
--(2) Suspension without pay for at least one year;
--(3) Reassignment of duties within the institution to a position that does not include contact
with prospective or enrolled student-athletes or representatives of the institution's athletics interests for at least one year; or
--(4) Other disciplinary action approved by the committee.
(e) A reduction in the number of financial aid awards;
(f) Sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport, particularly in those cases in which:
--(1) Involved individuals remain active in the program;
--(2) A significant competitive advantage results from the violation(s); or
--(3) The violation(s) reflect a lack of institutional control.
(g) Institutional recertification that the current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.


OK ...

***Throw out (d), because UA stated in its formal response to the allegations that "These violations did not result from any active or intentional conduct on the part of University officials, and no University officials consented to, or permitted, the wrongdoing."

***The (f) section regarding postseason play is highly unlikely since UA did not gain a "significant competitive advantage" and likely didn't demonstrate the dreaded "lack of institutional control." I'm not sure if (c) -- off campus recruiting by coaches -- will be used either, since these infractions didn't involve coaches or recruits.

***That leaves a two-year "probation" (a); reduction of recruiting visits for one year (b); a reduction of scholarships (e); and institutional recertification (g). These all could be applied, and UA is almost certainly going to now be placed on "probation" by the legal definition of the term.

Where things start getting truly frightening for UA is the "repeat violator" rule the NCAA referenced in the notice of allegations ...

19.5.2.3.2 Repeat-Violator Penalties In addition to the penalties identified for a major violation, the minimum penalty for a repeat violator, subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions on the basis of specifically stated reasons, may include any or all of the following:
(a) The prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation for one or two sports seasons and the prohibition of all coaching staff members in that sport from involvement directly or indirectly in any coaching activities at the institution during that period;
(b) The elimination of all initial grants-in-aid and all recruiting activities in the sport involved in the latest major violation in question for a two-year period;
(c) The requirement that all institutional staff members serving on the Board of Directors, Leadership Council, Legislative Council or other cabinets or committees of the Association resign those positions, it being understood that all institutional representatives shall be ineligible to serve on any NCAA committee for a period of four years; and (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)
(d) The requirement that the institution relinquish its voting privilege in the Association for a four-year.


Now ...

***Surely, Alabama is not going to get the death penalty over a self-reported textbook matter that did not involve a competitive advantage and no cash changed hands. Pay attention to the wording of rule. "May involve," doesn't mean it is required. But clearly, the door is now open to legally make that move if the NCAA wants. It won't happen this time, but if this was possible, Alabama's room for compliance errors in the near future just got even smaller. By the way, the (c) rule above does not apply in Alabama's current case, as it was adopted in 2008.
Click to expand...
 
#55
#55
"Surely, Alabama is not going to get the death penalty over a self-reported textbook matter that did not involve a competitive advantage and no cash changed hands."

Surely, this never happened.
 
#60
#60
This is a big non issue......Bammers are enrolled in Dolly's Book a Month Club. No words are in the books, only pictures and crayons for connecting the dots.
 
#61
#61
C'mon Vols...a little FRAUD every now and then is not so bad.

HA! Round the bowl, down the hole, RTR!!!
 
#62
#62
Hahaha! Has anyone read the comments following that article? MaryUAT69 effing roasts some bammers and their replies are "blow me" or calling her a ding bat. Classic! I may be showing my age, but no matter how intense UT/UF may get, the deep seeded disdain for anything UA will NEVER go away!
 
#63
#63
I think we may lose a few schollies over this one. I am hearing that our A.D. Mal Moore will not make it through this one. He was part of Coach Bryant's first recruiting class here and the last link to that era.
 
#64
#64
With the heat being turned up on Bama, I wonder if Satan is looking for a new gig. When CLK was in the news for minor violations the Bama brigade was out in force with their stupid RTR crap on here. I recall numerous posts from them on how Satan ran a taunt ship and knew better then to do anything. I guess since the media is not all over this story the Bama faithful are shell shocked not knowing the outcome.
 
#65
#65
TuskALoosa said:
I think we may lose a few schollies over this one. I am hearing that our A.D. Mal Moore will not make it through this one. He was part of Coach Bryant's first recruiting class here and the last link to that era.
Click to expand...

I guess Moore feels like these kids should be able to get paid seeing how he was recruited by the Bear.

Bama is breaking the law and will not turn over information even though they have a freedom of information law. They still will not release how much money was involved in the whole mess. One player alone had charges showing between $1300 and $1600 dollars for the fall of 07 according to reports. The average price would have been around $400.

With this falling in the 5 year window. Bama should lose alot more than a "couple of sholarships" and will in my opinion.

There is more to this. We only know what has been reported and that isn't much because Bama won't release any info. The NCAA will hopefully make an example of the Tide. And Mr. Saban will leave you high and dry once more.
 
#66
#66
GmanTN said:
With the heat being turned up on Bama, I wonder if Satan is looking for a new gig. When CLK was in the news for minor violations the Bama brigade was out in force with their stupid RTR crap on here. I recall numerous posts from them on how Satan ran a taunt ship and knew better then to do anything. I guess since the media is not all over this story the Bama faithful are shell shocked not knowing the outcome.
Click to expand...

Saban cheats like hell. Look at the recruitment of the WR out of memphis he already has a commit from for this year. He was not supposed to have contact at all when it came down. Yet the kid details how he and Saban chatted about his Miami hat and how he described his time in Miami.

He Cheats, He lies, hell he is the coach at Alabama. It is in the Job decription.
 
#67
#67
What is strange about this is that they have yet to be able to link this issue with UT. Them calling us UcheaT has made them look like UA$$!

But we knew that all along. Their whole history has been derived from cheating.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#68
#68
TuskALoosa said:
I think we may lose a few schollies over this one. I am hearing that our A.D. Mal Moore will not make it through this one. He was part of Coach Bryant's first recruiting class here and the last link to that era.
Click to expand...

You wish, I got a bad feeling you guys are in some serious trouble now...No sarcasm intended...How could one school be so damn stupid as to not monitor what was going on after what You just went through???...That my friends is pure stupidity...Wow...Just Wow
 
#69
#69
As much as you guys might like to see the demise for the football program, it won't happen. The majority of the problems come from the lesser programs, i.e. womens track and field, volleyball, soccer,etc. The football program punished the 5 that were involved and as someone stated it came out the time of the UT game 2 years ago. They were suspended for 4 games. The NCAA reinstated all athletes afterward. No textbooks were resold. All were returned. The problem was as many of you know, they bought them for themselves, friends and or boyfriends/girlfriends. I see these programs losing a few schollies and or official visits but don't see the football program taking a hit like so many of you wish.
 
#70
#70
What's funny to me is that the university claims none of these players were selling books for money. That is the true issue here. Were some of the players getting free books and selling them at reduced prices to friends? If so, that would constitute a major violation and I would think the burden of proof would have to be on Alabama to prove that that DIDN'T happen.
 
#71
#71
uagrad93 said:
As much as you guys might like to see the demise for the football program, it won't happen. The majority of the problems come from the lesser programs, i.e. womens track and field, volleyball, soccer,etc. The football program punished the 5 that were involved and as someone stated it came out the time of the UT game 2 years ago. They were suspended for 4 games. The NCAA reinstated all athletes afterward. No textbooks were resold. All were returned. The problem was as many of you know, they bought them for themselves, friends and or boyfriends/girlfriends. I see these programs losing a few schollies and or official visits but don't see the football program taking a hit like so many of you wish.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter which sports programs were the biggest offenders. If the football program was involved, which they were, they can get the death penalty since they were still under probation.
 
#72
#72
All of the textbooks were returned by the athletes in question. Those that got recommended readings as those professors like to call them returned them as well. No extra benifits occurred. If pens, pencils, notbooks, test booklets, etc. went onto the accounts, those were paid back by said student athlete.
 
#73
#73
uagrad93 said:
All of the textbooks were returned by the athletes in question. Those that got recommended readings as those professors like to call them returned them as well. No extra benifits occurred. If pens, pencils, notbooks, test booklets, etc. went onto the accounts, those were paid back by said student athlete.
Click to expand...
that's like me stealing a car and then giving it back.. a violation still occurred..
 
#74
#74
The punishment according to the NCAA was sufficient 2 years ago. The UA compliance staff has proved their case and as per NCAA policy, it will be probably 2 months bfore results are known. The only reason this is back in the news is because the University wouldn't release the documents out last Fall even though the scum that is the media kept requesting them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top