Textbook Scandal: The Ball State Comparison
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 11:53 AM CST
Email
PrintOne of the interesting things about our current textbook scandal is that it largely mirrors what happened to Ball State University a few years back.
In the Ball State case, the abuse was a good bit more widespread than it was at Alabama. There the infractions involved 89 athletes in 10 different sports, and the monetary value of what was received was much higher, totalling nearly $30,000. In their situation, they had a system in place where student-athletes got $1,000 a semester for books, and without having to show any schedule verification, that allowed them to use whatever excess money they had left in their student account to buy books for friends.
Now, Ball State self-reported just like we did, and chose to resolve the case through the summary-disposition process rather than a formal hearing before the Committee on Infractions. For their violations, the football program at Ball State received two years probation and lost three scholarships, which they were able to stretch out over two seasons.
The more you read about the Ball State case, the more positive it makes you feel about our case. Ball State basically had the same situation going on that we did, but their infractions were to a much higher level. We only know of five football players involved in our textbook scandal, whereas they had almost 90 student-athletes. Furthermore, and this is a big difference, Ball State was hit with lack of institutional control, something that Alabama is not being charged with. We are being charged with a less serious violation of failure to monitor.
Generally speaking, it should bode well for us. Ball State's scandal was much more widespread, they were charged with lack of institutional control, and their case was also going on at a time when their men's basketball coach had resigned amid accusations that he and his assistants broke NCAA rules (which was a separate case from the textbook case), and even with that they received "only" two years probation and three scholarships lost. Rationally speaking -- and I know trying to be rational with the NCAA is a dangerous precedent -- the Ball State penalties should be the absolute maximum upper end that we can receive, and in fact I would argue we should receive significantly less (if any) based on the fact that our textbook fiasco was on a much smaller scale, we were only hit with failure to monitor, and none of our other athletic programs were being investigated at the time.
All in all, it's pretty positive news for us, and so the damage should be quite small. Then again, we are Alabama...
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Right, except...
…that we’re going to be looked at as a “repeat offender” on account of the 2002 sanctions, so I would actually guess we get a greater penalty than Ball State did.
If we were on probation for 5 years....
Ok we were put on 5 years probation, afterwhich a “repeat offender” status should not be relevant (as would be anyone who ever had a penalty, after the probationary period is over, that should wipe the slate clean), so the real question is when did the violations begin? It has been said 3 semesters, which would include summer, and since it was discovered in fall of 2007(fall 07, summer 07, spring 07) that means that it would have only been taking place in 2007. So when during the calender year of 2002 did the probationary period begin, because if it was somehow backdated to 2006 we would be in the clear
"The game demonstrated the superiority of the Southern teams over any aggregation that the damn yankees could send across the Mason and Dixon Line." Sports writer Charles Israel of the Philadelphia Bulletin after the Tide's 61-6 win over Syracuse in the 1953 Orange Bowl.
Problem
It appears that this went back further than the 2007 season. From all indication this was also transpiring during the Shula period. We were still under probation at that time, and that is why we would be a “repeat offender.”
My concern is not that the penalties will be too extravagant, but that Alabama will have to be put back on probation. If anything else happens during that period it will almost certainly make things worse.
First: I mathed wrong. It’s actually seven semesters if you include the summer terms (2005-06 to Fall of ‘07)
That’s not how it works.
Second: Repeat offender status has nothing to do with probation. Repeat offender status kicks in if you commit a major violation within 5 years of the start of the penalties for another major violation.
Feb 1, 2002 was the start of the sanctions, these activities started at least as far back as 2005.
SHIT
Read as SHIT
SHIT
SHIT
SHIT
We’re going to get f’in drilled I know it
"The game demonstrated the superiority of the Southern teams over any aggregation that the damn yankees could send across the Mason and Dixon Line." Sports writer Charles Israel of the Philadelphia Bulletin after the Tide's 61-6 win over Syracuse in the 1953 Orange Bowl.
Good to know, but I know there is a term for a university that gets hit with another violation when they are on probation. It is what happened last time. Our basketball program actually lengthened our time on probation, and that was what caused the harsher penalties back in 2002.
“but I know there is a term for a university that gets hit with another violation when they are on probation”
There’s not. Many people confuse “repeat offender” status with violations on probation because it is almost impossible to get the former without the latter. It would require a probationary period of longer than five years.
If, for example, you had a 7 year probation and committed another violation in year 6, you wouldn’t face sanctions under the repeat offender bylaw.
Part of this confusion comes from the fact that the “probation” is generally misunderstood. Typically what “probation” means is closer and more hands-on monitoring from the NCAA as well as some additional hoops to jump through for the athletic department’s compliance staff. The NCAA bylaws do not have any provision that I can find for enhancing the sentence of a team already on probation for committing more violations.
Define irony
“Not that we should expect our Auburn friends to understand basic reading or math, but it took about 5 minutes of each to figure that out.”
and
“I mathed wrong.”
"Jay Jacobs can't go to the bathroom without Bobby Lowder's permission" - Paul Finebaum
by GumptownTiger on Mar 6, 2009 12:49 PM CST up reply actions
No,
I get it. I just found this humerous as well
"Jay Jacobs can't go to the bathroom without Bobby Lowder's permission" - Paul Finebaum
by GumptownTiger on Mar 6, 2009 12:52 PM CST up reply actions
No, it is funny. He's right.
I’d definitely had pointed it out if someone else had done it. Turn-about’s fair play.
Bound to happen, because I majored in Comp Sci and not counting . . . also, I still have no idea how all of the editing features of the SB Nation blogs work and I definitely published this on accident before I had proofed it. There are probably more issues than just that one.
Happens all the time...
You always get a ton of typos in the comments. I don’t know why, but SB Nation has no feature to edit the comments. You either have to leave the typos, or delete the comment and start over from scratch.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions
Parsing your speech.
Now, Ball State self-reported just like we did, and chose to resolve the case through the summary-disposition process rather than a formal hearing before the Committee on Infractions.
I was under the impression that Bama tried to resolve the case through summary disposition but was denied. Thus, they were forced to go through the formal hearing. Is that not the case?
This is right.
From Page 3 of the notice of allegations:
It is my understanding that the enforcement staff has discussed the possibility of processing this case through the summary disposition process and that currently this process does not appear appropriate.
At least you guys weren't trying to give out internships at the state capitol...
This thing could have been deadly.
Not necessarily repeat offender...
It’s not a given that we will be brought about as a repeat offender. I would hope that we wouldn’t, and I think there’s a decent chance we might not get that.
Besides, even if we do get repeat offender, that only events out the transgressions to a degree with the Ball State situation, meaning we would get about what they got. In no way do I expect us to get more than they did.
The real concern moving forward is not the loss of scholarship from this, or anything of the sort, it’s the extension of the probationary window.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 12:46 PM CST reply actions
No, we’re a repeat violator no matter what. It’s not some kind of allegation that has to be proven or disproven, but a simple fact given the dates of the last sanctions and the dates on which the violations occurred.
19.5.2.3.1 Time Period. An institution shall be considered a "repeat" violator if the Committee on Infractions finds that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty. For this provision to apply, at least one major violation must have occurred within five years after the starting date of the penalties in the previous case. It shall not be necessary that the Committee on Infractions’ hearing be conducted or its report issued within the five-year period.
Right...
… but if what I have read on it we do not necessarily have to be punished like a repeat offender, which would generally entail more harsh sanctions, and I think that’s the hope right now.
The basketball deal about 10-11 years ago stemmed from the fact that an assistant went to a booster and tried to get some money from him to help recruit a kid (out of Houston, I believe). I forget the exact amount, but I think it was something in the neighborhood of several thousand dollars. Anyway, I’m hoping it’s going to take behavior like that to really get hammered because of the repeat offender status, and obviously this isn’t a deal like that.
Even so, though, considering the repeat offender tag, I still don’t see where what we did is near as bad as what Ball State did, and again we don’t have another investigation ongoing with another major program.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 1:05 PM CST up reply actions
Here...
Here was the direct quote yesterday in Ian Rapoport’s article…
According to the documents released Thursday, including the NCAA’s May 2008 letter to President Robert Witt, system abuse occurred at least beginning in the 2005-06 academic year and continuing through the fall of 2007.
Therefore, Alabama can be — but does not have to be — considered a repeat violator in a five-year window that began with probation in 2002. The NCAA could impose additional, severe penalties, such as probation or scholarship losses.
I just hope we aren’t considered as such.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions
This is just factually incorrect. It’s been repeated numerous times, but it’s just not true.
We are a repeat violator. Period. There are mandatory sentences imposed for such a thing, but they’re only “mandatory” in the sense that if they aren’t given, specific reasons have to be listed by the Committee as to why not.
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:
So, right, we don’t necessarily have to be punished like one, but we certainly are one.
I’m still not sure why the media folks don’t take the 10 minutes to look up the relevant NCAA Bylaws.
That's right...
I think the media is basically getting it right, they just aren’t quite getting the terms right. We are a repeat offender, no question about that, but we don’t have to be subjected to the mandatory penalties as such. The NCAA can choose not to if they want, and that’s basically the hope.
Either way, though, I couldn’t care less about the labels. All of this garbage about “repeat offender” and the like don’t mean anything to me, I’m looking for the the raw sanctions will be. If we can get out of this with no scholarships lost or years of probation, they can deem us “Evil pieces of dog shit,” and I won’t care the least.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 3:08 PM CST up reply actions
I agree
But it’s not hard to use the right terminology, and using the wrong terminology just makes for readers who end up thinking things that aren’t really true.
Irritates me to no end, and I’m really surprised that Ian and Hinton both fell for it.
The problem is......
We are trying to put rational thinking to a group of people who do not proceed in any matter, whether major or minor, with a logical let alone rational way of thinking. I still contend that the bias that we have had to deal with for well over 40 years will still prevail here. And it is not just against Bama, but against anything Alabama. (don’t forget barners the ncaa and media has screwed you also-2004 ring a bell).
I want to optomistic with OTS, but I find it hard, when history is certainly not on our side.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
Oh I agree...
As I said earlier, assuming rational behavior is a damn dangerous thing when it comes to the NCAA and Alabama.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions
How many total violators?
I’m trying to find out just how many total violators we had, and compare that to Ball State.
We know that there were five football players involved, and according to published reports by the Tuscaloosa News, men’s and women’s track and cross country athletes were involved, along with one women’s soccer player.
Combined we’ve got about 50-60 athletes in track and cross country, combining both men and women’s, though I don’t know how many of them are all on scholarship. Even if you assume that every single member is on scholarship (I have no clue how many really are), and if you assume that all violated NCAA rules with the textbook stuff, that would still only put us at about 55-65 total violators, which is significantly less than Ball State had.
I’m hoping that it was contained to maybe 5-10 athletes in track / cross country, and that will put the total number of violators we had as only 11-16 total athletes. If that turns out to be the case, that would help us out a lot.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 1:10 PM CST reply actions
All of that info
was redacted in the documents, and I doubt we’ll find out anything about it until the NCAA releases its final report. Short of having a source, there’s really no way to know how many folks were involved.
'fraid so...
Hopefully the Tuscaloosa News can get some further scoops on it, but as you said unless that happens, we really have no way of knowing.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 3:14 PM CST up reply actions
ok
been really busy at work…this is like a nightmare…if we get pinned again by some book scandel then i might just go ape shit on FSU and USC!! Both their infractions were 100 times worse then some book BS but yet NOOO!!! HAs FSU or USC seen any probation?? NOt yet and probably won’t! All cause Carroll is ESPN’s little whore and Bobby Bowden is supposedly some football god…all i can say is this is gay and i hate the NCAA..i say the SEC should revolt and start our own league….
When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.
Actually, FSU...
… is getting something. They are going to have to forfeit wins, lose a few scholarships, and have four years probation.
Again, though, what we did is nowhere near as bad as they did — 30+ players turn out to be academically ineligible, and the infractions span 10 athletic programs — so it shouldn’t be that bad.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 3:09 PM CST up reply actions
Another note on Ball State...
Here is another note on Ball State I ran across…
“The NCAA said the university’s compliance staff became aware of the violations but failed to act on the information or report it to the NCAA.”
In other words, Ball State found out about the violation but failed to self-report ASAP. From what I’ve read, they drug their feet on things a bit, which is far different than what we did. We found out about it, immediately self-reported, and then had 40 people searching our student athlete’s receivables accounts looking for warning signs.
That’s another positive in our case relative to their case. The only thing that makes us worse is that we are a repeat violator, so hopefully that won’t turn out to be a major issue. Either way, you can easily boil this all down and say Ball State did the exact same thing we did, only that it was further widespread and they drug their feet on the subject, so if fairness means anything — and with the NCAA it might not — we shouldn’t get what they got.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 3:13 PM CST reply actions
How long.....
will the Gestopo (ncaa) take in making their ruling? The FSU scandal seems to be more recent than our new problem, so should we expect some word in the near future or will they drag this out until just before the season gets kicked off ?
IMO I’d rather them get this over with and lets move on. I so enjoyed reading about CNS comments on the players and the upcoming spring drills rather than this blather. COME ON SPRING PRACTICE!!!!
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
Thankfully it should be soon...
The word yesterday was that we should know something by May, and that continues to be the case today. You have to keep in mind that this hasn’t exactly gone quick — it’s been going on for 18 months now — it’s just for all but one day of those 18 months the general public had no clue about any of this stuff. Fortunately, most of the waiting has already been done at this point.
Spring practice will start next Friday, and that that will last about a month. The A-Day game will be in mid-April, and I would realistically expect a final decision to come a week or two after that.
by outsidethesidelines on Mar 6, 2009 4:00 PM CST up reply actions
The difference between Ball State
and Alabama is that Ball State has David Letterman as an alum and we have Rece Davis. Now I like Rece, but so what. Meanwhile Letterman is a big star. The NCAA is star struck and no way they are going to hammer Letterman’s school. However Rece Davis’s school- they might bury that place.
Think about it, our next biggest celb beside Rece is probably Jim Nabors or Sela Ward. Now Sela won an Emmy, but she is no Letterman. Yep, we are going down. Now USC they are Hollywood U. No way the NCAA touches them.
If only a really famous star had gone to Bama we might be able to dazzle the NCAA and skate out of this thing. FSU got touched up a bit today, but not what they could have gotten for such widespread cheating. The NCAA was actually sort of soft on them all things considered— they got no bowl ban etc….thank you Burt Reynolds.
We have a bona fide star
Joe “Pantyhose” Namath
"The game demonstrated the superiority of the Southern teams over any aggregation that the damn yankees could send across the Mason and Dixon Line." Sports writer Charles Israel of the Philadelphia Bulletin after the Tide's 61-6 win over Syracuse in the 1953 Orange Bowl.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
