I'm holding off on putting anything in story form until more details come out from the UA side. Unfortunately, Saban seemed to be in no mood to discuss them at the press conference today, so it's going to have to trickle out from other sources over time.
The first thing is that there are two issues any time you talk about potential violations. One is what could happen to your past, the other is what could happen to your future. Even if everything Yahoo reported is 100 percent accurate, I don't see any culpability for UA going forward in terms of scholarship limits or future probation. Those things usually get doled out over institutional (re: booster/coach) misconduct, and amplified by poor compliance or worse, covering it up. That doesn't apply in this case unless someone comes up with evidence to prove UA acted like Tressel did in the Ohio State tattoo case or USC did with Reggie Bush. I don't see that in this article and have not heard anyone make mention of it, so I'm going to rule it out, at least for now.
Now, the issue about what happens to your past. Players that get paid are ineligible, and everyone should know that by now. The point at which it starts to affect past records is a bit more cloudy. And this is where this particular case rests right now. If stories equaled proven violations, Auburn would be 0-13 in 2010 and Johnny Manziel would be spending his days oscillating between playing Xbox and working with a personal trainer while he awaited next April's NFL Draft. So all we have to discuss are hypothetical situations.
Hypothetically, if Fluker was found to be in the service of an agent, what happens to Alabama's games during that time? There is a chance they'd be wiped out. I think the AP national championships for whatever year(s) was/were affected by the violations would stand, but the crystal footballs could be taken away. It is a possibility and acting like it's not a possibility is just home-cooking.
Many people have noted that Alabama's compliance department, and the atmosphere in the SEC office, are not the same as they were during Alabama's last two NCAA cases. While this is true, the operative question is how that affects a case such as this. What happens when you put in the best controls, check-up procedures and work to build friendly relationships, only to have it blow up anyway? We don't know because it hasn't happened before. The last time something like this was visited upon Alabama, it was the 2007 textbook case that actually started on Mike Shula's watch. That case, of course, ended in games being vacated, along with minor scholarship losses. It could have been much worse, given UA was thought to have known about the problem under Shula but did nothing about it. But games were vacated nonetheless.
On the other side of that coin, you have the Andre Smith situation in the 2009 Sugar Bowl. UA has never reported exactly what happened, so I can say only this: It played out in a very similar fashion to how personal eligibility cases play out. Alabama declared Smith ineligible as soon as it was made aware of the case, and lost no games from the 2008 season. The investigation was done completely in-house and accepted by the NCAA. Obviously, the major difference here is that Fluker is no longer around to punish, so the big question becomes whether the NCAA would (or should) be expected to look at Fluker and say, "Well, darn it, we missed the opportunity to punish that guy, we'll just have to wait for the next one." Again, check your biases at the door before you answer that, because were it to happen at a rival school, I know what people would say they wanted.
The most encouraging thing from Alabama's point of view at the moment is the Tuscaloosa News' report that Luther Davis has effectively been barred from campus. We at TideFans have heard this didn't just happen recently -- which essentially proves UA is telling the truth when it says it has been investigating the matter for some time. On the other hand, that seems to prove there is something to the charges. You don't just go around banning people from campus for no reason. Either way, it would suggest Alabama has been investigating the situation for several months, with the SEC's help, and that's a far cry from how anything preceding the Nick Saban era was done in Tuscaloosa.
I don't have any guesses as to what will happen. I am always wary of stories sourced by agents or their alleged runners. The possibility for conflict of interest is astronomical. Oddly enough, it was the Gene Jelks case that has likely influenced the perception of these axe-to-grind stories, meaning the NCAA has gotten more diligent about vetting sources. Just as it's home-cooking to suggest all is well, it's only fair to also raise the question of credibility. Johnny Manziel is playing this Saturday, presumably, because the same concerns were raised about his accusers.
The Tuscaloosa News is also reporting that Fluker is cooperating with the investigation. I suspect what he has to say will be what ultimately frames the boundaries of the case for Alabama.
The first thing is that there are two issues any time you talk about potential violations. One is what could happen to your past, the other is what could happen to your future. Even if everything Yahoo reported is 100 percent accurate, I don't see any culpability for UA going forward in terms of scholarship limits or future probation. Those things usually get doled out over institutional (re: booster/coach) misconduct, and amplified by poor compliance or worse, covering it up. That doesn't apply in this case unless someone comes up with evidence to prove UA acted like Tressel did in the Ohio State tattoo case or USC did with Reggie Bush. I don't see that in this article and have not heard anyone make mention of it, so I'm going to rule it out, at least for now.
Now, the issue about what happens to your past. Players that get paid are ineligible, and everyone should know that by now. The point at which it starts to affect past records is a bit more cloudy. And this is where this particular case rests right now. If stories equaled proven violations, Auburn would be 0-13 in 2010 and Johnny Manziel would be spending his days oscillating between playing Xbox and working with a personal trainer while he awaited next April's NFL Draft. So all we have to discuss are hypothetical situations.
Hypothetically, if Fluker was found to be in the service of an agent, what happens to Alabama's games during that time? There is a chance they'd be wiped out. I think the AP national championships for whatever year(s) was/were affected by the violations would stand, but the crystal footballs could be taken away. It is a possibility and acting like it's not a possibility is just home-cooking.
Many people have noted that Alabama's compliance department, and the atmosphere in the SEC office, are not the same as they were during Alabama's last two NCAA cases. While this is true, the operative question is how that affects a case such as this. What happens when you put in the best controls, check-up procedures and work to build friendly relationships, only to have it blow up anyway? We don't know because it hasn't happened before. The last time something like this was visited upon Alabama, it was the 2007 textbook case that actually started on Mike Shula's watch. That case, of course, ended in games being vacated, along with minor scholarship losses. It could have been much worse, given UA was thought to have known about the problem under Shula but did nothing about it. But games were vacated nonetheless.
On the other side of that coin, you have the Andre Smith situation in the 2009 Sugar Bowl. UA has never reported exactly what happened, so I can say only this: It played out in a very similar fashion to how personal eligibility cases play out. Alabama declared Smith ineligible as soon as it was made aware of the case, and lost no games from the 2008 season. The investigation was done completely in-house and accepted by the NCAA. Obviously, the major difference here is that Fluker is no longer around to punish, so the big question becomes whether the NCAA would (or should) be expected to look at Fluker and say, "Well, darn it, we missed the opportunity to punish that guy, we'll just have to wait for the next one." Again, check your biases at the door before you answer that, because were it to happen at a rival school, I know what people would say they wanted.
The most encouraging thing from Alabama's point of view at the moment is the Tuscaloosa News' report that Luther Davis has effectively been barred from campus. We at TideFans have heard this didn't just happen recently -- which essentially proves UA is telling the truth when it says it has been investigating the matter for some time. On the other hand, that seems to prove there is something to the charges. You don't just go around banning people from campus for no reason. Either way, it would suggest Alabama has been investigating the situation for several months, with the SEC's help, and that's a far cry from how anything preceding the Nick Saban era was done in Tuscaloosa.
I don't have any guesses as to what will happen. I am always wary of stories sourced by agents or their alleged runners. The possibility for conflict of interest is astronomical. Oddly enough, it was the Gene Jelks case that has likely influenced the perception of these axe-to-grind stories, meaning the NCAA has gotten more diligent about vetting sources. Just as it's home-cooking to suggest all is well, it's only fair to also raise the question of credibility. Johnny Manziel is playing this Saturday, presumably, because the same concerns were raised about his accusers.
The Tuscaloosa News is also reporting that Fluker is cooperating with the investigation. I suspect what he has to say will be what ultimately frames the boundaries of the case for Alabama.
