A Primer on the NCAA Sanctions
by PeteHoliday on Jun 12, 2009 10:18 AM CDT
in Football
Email
PrintOver the past 24 hours, there has been no shortage of press on the sanctions handed down by the NCAA this week. There has also been no shortage of ill-informed comments from bloggers and "real" journalists alike. Rather than try to confront all of this ignorance where it exists, here's an easy-as-pie list to help you with the more complicated issues that may arise.
The Wins: There is a difference between a "vacated" win and a "forfeited" win. In both cases, the Alabama win will become an asterisked loss. The difference is in the record books of our opponents. Specifically, with a forfeit, the team that had previously had a check mark in the "loss" column, now has a win. With a vacated win, the team that really lost still has a loss, but now Alabama does, too. In this situation, the relevant Alabama wins were vacated, not forfeited. Which is to say: Sorry, Colorado, you didn't win your bowl game in 2007. Also of note, vacating the wins has no effect on Alabama's losses. Those all still stand. [Update: There's some discussion as to whether Alabama's affected wins turn into losses or just disappear entirely, and the NCAA manual is not really clear on that point.]
Repeat Violator Status and Probation: This may be the most common confusion. Probation is not the same as "repeat violator" status is not the same as a post-season ban. Probation is defined in the NCAA Bylaws at section 19.5.2.4. Within that section, the Bylaws define the conditions of a probationary period:
The committee . . . may identify possible conditions that an institution must satisfy during a probationary period. Such conditions shall be designed on a case-by-case basis to focus on the institution's administrative weaknesses detected in the case and shall include, but not be limited to, written reports from the institution pertaining to areas of concern to the committee . . ., in-person reviews of the institution's athletics policies and practices . . ., implementation of educational or deterrent programs, and audits for specific programs or teams.
In other words, probation from the NCAA is a lot like other kinds probation. It's a way for the NCAA to keep an eye on teams who have committed major violations. Violating probation can lead to more sanctions or an extension of the probationary period.
Repeat violator status, the bylaws for which you can find quoted here, comes up when an institution commits a major infraction within five years of the start of another major infraction's penalties. Note two things: the date of the original infraction doesn't matter -- repeat violator status starts with the punishment. Second, repeat violator status is in no way, shape, or form related to probation. If the NCAA instituted a 10 year probationary period, after five years of that had elapsed, further major infractions would not trigger the repeat violator status.
Finally, post-season bans are just a punishment that can be handed down for infractions. They are separate from probation. Alabama being placed on probation for the next three years will not stop the team from appearing in the SEC Championship Game or in a bowl game.
The Repeat Violator Status Enhanced the Punishments: No, it didn't. If you look at the relevant bylaws, you will find that the permitted enhancements afforded by "repeat violator" status are few and severe. The only two that impact the actual teams involved are the so-called "death penalty" and the post-season ban. The other two are purely administrative. A quote from the COI:
"Because of the institution's status as a repeat violator, the Committee on Infractions considered both a ban on postseason competition and the enhanced penalties for repeat violators," the NCAA report said. "The committee decided against those penalties because the violations were spread across several sports and other penalties, such as vacation of records, were more appropriate.
In other words: they considered the repeat violator enhancements, and decided against using them.
Lack of Institutional Control vs. Failure to Monitor: These are two distinct violations, with the former being far more serious than the latter. Alabama was not cited for "Lack of Institutional Control" but for failure to monitor. From the Committee on Infractions report:
[T]he committee strongly considered making a more serious finding of a lack of institutional control, rather than a failure to monitor. However, because the institution ultimately detected the violations and promptly reported them, the committee decided against making the more serious finding of lack of institutional control.
[Note: this section was added after the article was initially published --PH]
Them Cheatin' Bammers Sold Textbooks: No, they didn't. Even the most egregious offenders did little more than borrow books for friends. Alabama operates a "book loan" system for its athletes. What this means is that the athletes take the books for free at the beginning of the semester. At the end of the semester, they are required to either a) return the books or b) pay for the books. So even the athletes who borrowed thousands of dollars in books were not found to have profited in any way from it. To wit, from Mal Moore's statement (emphasis supplied): "No players gained financially or otherwise; no competitive advantage was gained; all of the books were returned."
Also worth noting: the NCAA went through Alabama's athletic department with a fine-toothed comb and found nothing suggestive of any other violations.
OMG, The Whole Athletic Department Was Cheating: No, it wasn't. The NCAA made a clear distinction between intentional and unintentional violators. The intentional violators numbered less than two dozen and spanned only a handful of sports. These are the folks who knew they were getting something they shouldn't. The unintentional violators filled the balance of those found to have received impermissable benefits. The vast majority of the sports contained only these types of violators.
The reason the violations were so widespread was because many of the unintentional violations were caused by Alabama Bookstore staff bundling recommended materials (which are not permitted to be paid-for by the university) with required materials in the players' book orders. The Athletic Department would send over class schedules, the bookstore staff would put the books into bags, and then the players would pick them up. It is likely that the players involved, even if they knew the rule about required/recommended books, had no idea that they had received recommended materials. They trusted the bookstore staff.
I will spare you my rant about the NCAA not allowing schools to pay for materials that the professors recommend.
The Ruling Lacked All Irony: Also false. All you have to do is to think back to that school down the road's Hop On Pop scandal. Isn't it interesting that the organization that is constantly chirping about looking out for what's best for student athletes can find only secondary violations when a school is handing out free grades to athletes, but the moment a player gets an extra textbook they start vacating records and considering post-season bans?
So there you have it: misconceptions and misunderstandings about the penalties and NCAA bylaws cleared up in one easy-to-reference summary.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Many of the misunderstandings are intentional on the part of our rivals.
The SOLD textbooks part for profit is the one that is most irksome and has been repeated by print media (the Dothan Eagle columnist.) So far, that paper hasn’t corrected the column despite both Alabama and the NCAA making clear that students didn’t profit from this.
by capstonereport on Jun 12, 2009 10:27 AM CDT reply actions
I agree
…but I also hate that they can feign ignorance. The most amazing to me was seeing national print media confuse forfeits and vacated wins. If your job is to write about college football, shouldn’t you at least understand the basic terms used?
by PeteHoliday on Jun 12, 2009 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Perhaps it's time to start our own intentional misunderstanding
Perhaps if we repeat it enough, we can convince some of our rivals from West Georgia that the entire 2005 and 2006 seasons are vacated (wins and losses) and they only get to claim 4 in a row now.
Not sure how the NCAA figured vacating wins was a suitable punishment
“No players gained financially or otherwise; no competitive advantage was gained; all of the books were returned.”
I think that says it all, doesn’t it? Look, I’ll be the first guy in line to say programs should get what they deserve, but in this case, it seems pretty ridiculous.
Thanks
Any chance someone could lay out a schedule of these seasons to see exactly what games were vacated? Was it every win from 2005-2007? I’ve heard different things, only 10 wins and as many as 21.
Good job
posting this Pete since its obvious we’re getting people from other fan bases and parts of the country.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
WTF!
I guarantee you this text book sceme is happening at every school in the country. Maybe not now since they all saw the results of textbook gate on Bama. I know there are many case in life where you see these minor things happening you know in the work place at home even in school. Where the person in charge says hey I see this happening all yall need to get your act together or there will be bad reprecussions if you do not comply. Where does the NCAA get off on deciding hey you get his for punishment then hey you over there looks like you did this and this so well well just warn you about it this time but dont let it happen again. I mean come on its not like we just gave some kids some grades and they werent even in the class or bought their mom and dad a new 250,000 dollar house to live in. Or let the whole team go on a shopping spree in the mall. Or even say hey I am goin to hire you here at this car dealership however you dont need to show up I know you need to study and practice for football so ill just sendthe check to you in the mail.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Sorry bout that guys just pissed bout this I know its not that bad but still bad pub for Bama. I hate it for those kids, coaches, parens and the school.
I am a member of the Sabanation Roll!!Tide!!
It wasn't the scheme...
…it was the fact that the University was allowing students to get more textbooks than they should have. The book-borrow system is legit, so long as the books borrowed are only the ones permitted by the NCAA.
But, yes, it’s stupid. I’d love to see how the NCAA calculated the value of the benefit. Clearly borrowing a book for 3 months is not worth the same amount as buying a book at full retail.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 12, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions
even worse...
considered how inflated the values of these books are. There’s no way to determine “true” value, only the hyper-marked up value given by the SUPE store…
I would bet...
… the NCAA used a system where the full price (i.e. new) of any book wrongly received would constitute the value of the impermissible benefit. For example, if you got five books for a friend, and they cost $100 each, then they calculated you received an impermissible benefit in the value of $500.
Of course, though, this overlooks the reality that the books will be returned in four months as used books, and the Supe Store will re-sell them a few weeks later as used books for about 80% of the original retail price. So, if you go that route, the whole $40,000 in impermissible benefits probably only cost UA about $8,000, because they were just turning right back around and selling the books the following semester for a pretty healthy profit margin.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 12, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions
With a vacated win, the team that really lost still has a loss, but now Alabama does, too.
Are you sure? I was thinking it was that the team that lost still has a loss, but we just can’t record it as a win. So our record for 2007 would be 2-6. That’s the 6 actual losses and the Tennessee win and the Colorado win, which weren’t vacated since the ineligible players were suspended for Tennessee and reinstated for the Colorado game.
My understanding
is that a vacated win becomes a loss. That said, the NCAA Bylaws are astonishingly unlcear on that fact. The only section of the bylaws that comes even remotely close to defining the vacation of wins is 31.2.2.3(e), which says:
The record of the team’s performance may be deleted, the team’s place in the final standings may be vacated, and the team’s trophy and the ineligible student’s award may be returned to the Association.This seems to support to your theory more than mine, as a “deleted” performance seems to imply that the game would just disappear. That said, it’s hardly obvious what that means and it’s never really defined anywhere else.
It’ll all be answered in due time, though, as the University is going to be required to confirm with the NCAA Director of Statistics the status of those season’s wins. From the COI’s report:
[T]o ensure that all institutional and student-athlete statistics and records are accurately reflected in official NCAA publication and archives, the sports information director (or other designee as assigned by the director of athletics) must contact the NCAA director of statistics to identify the specific student-athlete(s) and contest(s) impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must provide a written report to the NCAA statistics department detailing those discussions with the director of statistics. This document will be maintained in the permanent files of the statistics department. This written report must be delivered to the NCAA statistics department no later than 45 days following the initial Committee on Infractions release or, if the vacation penalty is appealed, the final adjudication of the appeals process.It certainly wouldn’t be as fun for our opponents if those games just disappeared, would it?
Great job, as usual
This blog is not just the champagne of Bama Bogs, it’s the Cristal of all sports blogs. Thanks to Pete and all of the other people who make it so.
marycontrary
Team Speed Kills brings up an interesting point in light of the contention that there was no competitive advantage in these athletes continuing to play:
This is not entirely true. I forget who made the point — I must sadly admit that I believe it was someone on College Football Live — but Alabama is being punished at all because ineligible athletes played. Having ineligible athletes play who otherwise would not have played is a competitive advantage. We have to assume they were on the field because they were better than the next guy on the depth chart, meaning Alabama had a better team playing than one comprised entirely of eligible players. That is, in a very subtle way, a competitive advantage.
i fully understand our position counter to this (it begs the question) but lets say we give them that point… does this line of reasoning hold up? lets say that a single student-athlete caught in a situation such as the one described. what would the penalty be for him and the sport he competed in?
and while i’m at it. i’d like to commend TSK for providing an excellent example of how this issue should be covered. they look at the available evidence and provide an insightful assessment. some of it jives with what we believe, some of it doesn’t, but it never stoops to level of other SB Nation blogs who have chosen to weigh in on this matter today.
Here's where I disagree with that line of thinking...
Alabama did not knowingly play ineligible players. Yes, we had a “competitive” advantage by using players that shouldn’t have been on the field and were ostensibly better than the next guy on the depth chart, but it’s the same competitive advantage every team has by playing their starters. Now, had we known they were ineligible, then playing them would have been an unfair advantage because we weren’t supposed to use them. Does that make sense?
Right now...
…it’s one of the few things that does.
Other than a high-fiber breakfast.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jun 12, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
It
makes sense, I just think overall TSK is stretching it a bit…
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
The argument is a result of lazy reasoning.
Nobody is suggesting that the team would’ve been just as good without those players on it. The point that is being made is that the textbooks themselves did not provide the advantage.
The point in the process during which “competitive advantage” is considered is before the eligibility issues are discussed, because the competitive advantage (or lack thereof) can actually change the eligibility issue. An otherwise minor infraction that provides a competitive or recruiting advantage can cause an eligibility issue where one would not otherwise exist.
You’ll note that Alabama was not cited for playing ineligible players (because nobody knew they were ineligible). That wasn’t a violation incurred by the Tide, so it is 100% accurate to say that none of the infractions created a competitive advantage.
i agree with that...
but that’s not quite what i’m asking.
if a single player was doing this – using his scholarship to obtain textbooks for, say, his girlfriend – it is a violation of the NCAA rules. what i’m trying to understand is what would be the penalty given the relevant NCAA statute? would that player lose their scholarship? would they be automatically ineligible to play? would the team be forced to vacate wins that player participated in?
or, to put it another way, what would be the NCAA’s course of action if they didn’t fall back on the “lack of institutional oversight” line of reasoning?
Of course, this assumes that this sort of "benefit" should make a player ineligible
Which I don’t agree with in the slightest. To me, the sorts of violations that ought make a player ineligible include academic fraud and benefits that could be construed to give a recruiting advantage in the future — things like players receiving payments, free equipment they shouldn’t, etc.. This is neither of those. Is a kid thinking, “Man, I should go to Alabama because I can borrow textbooks for my friends!” To me, that should be the definition of an “extra benefit” that can make a player ineligible.
Did the players do something they shouldn’t have? Sure. But so do guys who get arrested. Yet the NCAA isn’t stepping in on those.
“what would be the NCAA’s course of action”
I don’t even pretend to know what the NCAA is thinking at any particular time. That said, your hypothetical would probably play out MUCH differently. Remember that before the NCAA gets around to punishing a school, that school has already punished itself, and has a much larger arsenal of tools to do that.
For example, the school can kick a player off the team / revoke their scholarship for pretty much anything. The NCAA can never revoke scholarships and can only end a player’s eligibility in certain circumstances.
One player committing a 3-4k book borrowing violation? Assuming it was discovered while the player actually had eligibility remaining, my guess is that the player would be thrown under the bus — forced to pay for the extra books, kicked off the team, and scholarship revoked. The NCAA would likely find that to be an acceptable punishment, consider it a “minor” violation, and call it a day.
But your guess is as good as mine — there are so many variables involved, not the least of which is the neurotic tendencies of the Committee on Infractions, that it’s damn near impossible to figure out what they’d do.
This should not have fallen under NCAA jurisdiction period. The only party victimized in this was the University of Alabama, not the NCAA and not the SEC. No competitive advantage was gained on the field or off. It was not some sinister draconian plan drawn up by the Board of Trustees or Bear Jr. to somehow achieve football supremacy through textbooks. It is lunacy to believe Alabama was trying to lure recruits with promises of extra schoolbooks.
Out of 201 athletes UA’s investigation only turned up (and the NCAA accepts) 22 "intentional wrongdoers." I believe, although UA did not find nor did the NCAA accuse, that these are the ones intentionally scamming the system for profit however small, let’s face it even the largest amount stolen from UA individually ($3900)wouldn’t cover the mortgage/rent or even monthly expenses of half of those reading this. So let’s say for the sake of argument that some or all of those 22 did profit, how is that any of the NCAA‘s business? There was no competitive advantage gained and the crime was committed against UA. Those 22 student-athletes violated their scholarships by intentionally defrauding the University.
Yet somehow the NCAA finds a way, through the labyrinth of oxymoron’s, double talk and insanity they call the NCAA rule book, to stick their fat money grubbing nose where it has no business. A 43.000 dollar fine for what? The students have already paid restitution to the victim (UA). That amount would not even make a dent in Nick Saban’s piggybank let alone UA’s athletic budget, i’m not saying that they are doing this for money but come on what’s the point?
The NCAA is nothing more than good ole’ boys/fat cats club and if you’re not one of them you are SOL. They either slam you for doing what others do (see USC, Oklahoma, OSU, etc.) or drag your schools name threw the mud and embarrass you for something that doesn’t add up to squat; simply because they can.
"If you believe in yourself and have dedication and pride - and never quit - you'll be a winner. The price of victory is high but so are the rewards." - Paul Bryant
by The Crimson Avenger (aka) St Nick on Jun 12, 2009 9:35 PM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
