More NCAA Troubles?

1) Even if this is found to be a violation (and there’s a good chance it might not), if the value of the trip is revealed to be less than $100, the players write a check to charity and this goes away.
2) If it is a violation, and it’s found to have a value over $100, you are looking at suspensions….but, for a value that is as low as this, no more than a game or two. Obviously, that wouldn’t be good, given our opener, but neither is it the end of the world.
3) Best news of all: this is a player eligibility issue, not an institutional violation issue. In other words, for good or bad, this is all over when we kick off against Virginia Tech.

Anderson knew Julio from Julio’s days of working at the marina and they were friends outside of football, as Anderson claims, I would say there is no foul. And, since there appears to be no connection by Anderson to anything Alabama how can the NCAA claim this was a football related benefit? They can not.

If Julio or Ingram get even 1 qt. of a game suspension while USC continues to go scott free there is no justice at the NCAA.

Oh well, I guess we better start working on a game plan for no Julio or Ingram for a while because this is the National Committee Against Alabama we are talking about. And just pray that some student at Bama hasn’t let GMac cut in the food line at the Ferg.

you can’t even take a breath without letting the NCAA know nowadays…
I agree with some rules, but for the most part, let these kids live…

A fishing trip = game suspension? There are words on the tip of my tongue that I dare not speak at the moment but the sentiments can be summarized thusly: $##%#$^&(*%^$%##^%$#%$^

When two players cannot take a fishing trip with a friend because the NCAA thinks it’s some sort of “benefit” for being a football player, then I say to hell with the NCAA. Let’s go semi-pro.

It was an Auburn booster that hosted the fishing trip!!

The NCAA hasn’t said word one about this yet, so getting pissed at them is a mite pointless.

This was a self-investigated issue, likely initiated because of a) the repeat violator window and b) enhanced compliance requirements from being on probation. The football team has likely known about this issue for weeks if not months, and you still saw Julio and Ingram taking a lion share of reps. What does this tell us?

The football team doesn’t think it’s a big deal. If Saban thought there was even a chance that Julio would be suspended in week 1, you would see his injury played up and his reps significantly reduced in an effort to get the #2 guy ready to play in the #1 spot.

Also, if everything the guy said in his interview is true, it would be incredibly difficult to call him a booster. Not impossible, but difficult to say the very least. The max suspension typically meted out for extra benefits major violations are 1/3 season (4 game) suspensions. There’s almost no way this was a sub-$100 trip (they chartered a fishing boat), but still we’re not talking about thousands of dollars a person.

My guess is that this is passed up the chain but nothing comes of it.

If I’m not mistaken didn’t the article say something about them only traveling out about six miles because of his medical condition. I think a couple of years ago me and two of my friends chartered a boat in Gulf Shores, we didn’t go out but a few miles and it was definately less than $100.

“The University is aware of Mr. Anderson, and has taken appropriate steps,” said Deborah M. Lane, UA’s assistant to the president and assistant vice president for university relations. “Mr. Anderson is not affiliated with UA. He is not a UA booster, fan or alumnus, and is not a UA season ticket holder. In fact, Mr. Anderson told us that all of his family are fans of another SEC school.”

Zeke’s offers daily “offshore fishing cruises” for a wide range of prices, depending on the time of trip, length of trip and the size of the boat. It’s possible that the cost of a trip for Anderson, Jones and Ingram could have totaled less than $100 per person, which sources have said matches UA’s findings in this case.

Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6 of the NCAA rulebook outlaws “Preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual’s athletics reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete. … For violations of this bylaw in which the value of the benefit is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual shall not be affected, conditioned on the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her choice.”

because Auburn people ran their mouths? Maybe I’m confusing it with one of the thousand other rumors of illegal Bama doings I read about on the internet, but I think something like this is so minor that the only reason it ever came up is that some Auburn ballsmoker went out of his way to try to get Bama in trouble.

From the outset, I don’t expect anything to come of this one. Nevertheless, I imagine we should hear something official on this really soon, likely by the end of the week. Virginia Tech preparations will start Thursday, and I’m sure at the absolute latest we’ll know something by Monday so we can plan accordingly.

Again, though, I’m not really expecting much to come of this. And Pete is right, don’t get pissed at the NCAA over this one yet. As far as I can tell, to date they have merely had an advisory role with us just keeping them really well informed on our investigation.