https://www.tidesports.com/alabama-expected-receive-ncaa-findings-today/
The investigation did not go before the NCAA Committee of Infractions.
The investigation did not go before the NCAA Committee of Infractions.
A former Alabama assistant football coach acted unethically when he provided false or misleading information about impermissible recruiting contacts, according to a Division I Committee on Infractions panel. The university also committed Level III recruiting violations when a second former assistant football coach had impermissible off-campus contact with a recruit during an evaluation period and members of the football staff impermissibly allowed a prospect’s youth football coach to attend a recruiting visit at the prospect’s home.
This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative effort where the involved parties collectively submit the case to the Committee on Infractions in written form. The NCAA enforcement staff, university and participating parties must agree to the facts and overall level of the case to use this process instead of a formal hearing. The panel held an expedited penalty hearing because the former assistant coach did not agree with the conditions of the show-cause penalty.
The former assistant coach knowingly committed a recruiting violation when he participated in an impermissible meeting arranged by a booster with four prospects at their high school. The booster later initiated another impermissible meeting with three of the prospects on her own. The contacts provided the university with a recruiting advantage because, contrary to NCAA rules, the activity occurred before the end of the prospects’ junior year of high school and allowed the booster to recruit prospects. When the former assistant coach was asked about his recruiting activity by the university and the NCAA enforcement staff, he denied the recruiting activity and the booster’s involvement. His statements were in direct contradiction to information provided by two of the prospects and the high school’s football coach. The panel noted the seriousness of the case was substantially exacerbated by the former assistant coach’s provision of false or misleading information.
From what I've read, the booster in question is a former player's mom.That booster should have to forfeit his Tide Pride points.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fixed. I can think of at least two instances in which the NCAA used a ridiculously narrow definition of booster in order to let ND and Tennessee skate.Also, the NCAA has a very, very broad definition of booster when it suits their purposes.