This is what we're getting from our sources at the moment as to where the case is, the fallout and where it might be going next...
1) At this time, it would not seem the results of the first four games of the season are in any kind of peril.
2) The suspension is expected to be short.
3) There aren't any other players involved.
4) The loan repayment, suspension of Clinton-Dix and discipline of the staff member are expected to be satisfactory punishment.
Having said that, for those who feel it their duty to look for the negative (and I put myself in that category sometimes, unfortunately), the fly in the ointment here is that Clinton-Dix was reported to have received extra benefits from a staff member. That makes it an institutional issue should the NCAA wish to pursue it as such.
In cases in which student-athletes receive benefits from rogue agents, runners or in some cases even boosters, it's a player eligibility issue only, and repayment/suspension ends the process in 99 percent of cases. Had Clinton-Dix not repaid this loan (the Tuscaloosa News story says he provided documentation, but if the staff member said he didn't receive the money, Clinton-Dix has a problem), his eligibility for 2013 (and possibly beyond) very well could have ended last week.
But the person alleged to have made the loan is/was an employee of the school. There is little differentiation at the NCAA level as to how "important" the guy was, in terms of his job duties. He was an athletic department employee, end of story as far as the NCAA is concerned.
In Alabama's favor, just like in the D.J. Fluker case we outlined just after it broke, the trump card in Alabama's deck is this was a self-reported violation, compliance handled it swiftly as soon as being made aware of it, and there was apparently no attempt to cover it up (in the Fluker case, Alabama had already reported it to the NCAA well in advance of any published story). I don't know for sure, obviously, but I wouldn't expect the staff member to be retained. For those who want to take a shoot, shovel and shut up approach to compliance, this is exactly why you don't, because in the end it doesn't appear this is going to rise to the level of something more than what it already is.
Obviously, Alabama will continue to investigate the depth of the problem and something else could come out that isn't already known, but if this is it, I don't expect to see it develop beyond an eligibility issue for Clinton-Dix and an employment issue for the staff member.
1) At this time, it would not seem the results of the first four games of the season are in any kind of peril.
2) The suspension is expected to be short.
3) There aren't any other players involved.
4) The loan repayment, suspension of Clinton-Dix and discipline of the staff member are expected to be satisfactory punishment.
Having said that, for those who feel it their duty to look for the negative (and I put myself in that category sometimes, unfortunately), the fly in the ointment here is that Clinton-Dix was reported to have received extra benefits from a staff member. That makes it an institutional issue should the NCAA wish to pursue it as such.
In cases in which student-athletes receive benefits from rogue agents, runners or in some cases even boosters, it's a player eligibility issue only, and repayment/suspension ends the process in 99 percent of cases. Had Clinton-Dix not repaid this loan (the Tuscaloosa News story says he provided documentation, but if the staff member said he didn't receive the money, Clinton-Dix has a problem), his eligibility for 2013 (and possibly beyond) very well could have ended last week.
But the person alleged to have made the loan is/was an employee of the school. There is little differentiation at the NCAA level as to how "important" the guy was, in terms of his job duties. He was an athletic department employee, end of story as far as the NCAA is concerned.
In Alabama's favor, just like in the D.J. Fluker case we outlined just after it broke, the trump card in Alabama's deck is this was a self-reported violation, compliance handled it swiftly as soon as being made aware of it, and there was apparently no attempt to cover it up (in the Fluker case, Alabama had already reported it to the NCAA well in advance of any published story). I don't know for sure, obviously, but I wouldn't expect the staff member to be retained. For those who want to take a shoot, shovel and shut up approach to compliance, this is exactly why you don't, because in the end it doesn't appear this is going to rise to the level of something more than what it already is.
Obviously, Alabama will continue to investigate the depth of the problem and something else could come out that isn't already known, but if this is it, I don't expect to see it develop beyond an eligibility issue for Clinton-Dix and an employment issue for the staff member.
