Pinpointing responsibility...

Here is the release from the NCAA webpage:


INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has penalized University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, for major violations involving 16 sports in its athletic program.

These sports include softball, baseball, women's gymnastics, football, men's basketball, women's basketball, men's golf, women's golf, men's swimming, women's swimming, men's tennis, women's tennis, men's track and field, women's track and field, women's soccer and women's volleyball.

The violations include a failure to monitor by the university and impermissible benefits obtained by 201 student-athletes through misuse of the university's textbook distribution program. The total retail value of these impermissible benefits is approximately $40,000. It was found that $21,950 of this value was obtained by student-athletes who were aware they were receiving impermissible benefits.

Penalties in this case include three years probation, vacation of records, and a $43,900 fine.
The university is a repeat violator, having appeared before the committee in 2002 for violations in its football program. At the time of the 2002 case, the university was also a repeat violator due to a 1999 case involving its men's basketball program.
As stated in its report, "Although the committee commends the institution for self-discovering, investigating and reporting the textbook violations, it remains troubled, nonetheless, by the scope of the violations in this instance and by the institution's recent history of infractions cases."

Of the 201 student-athletes that received impermissible benefits, 22 were identified by the university as "intentional wrongdoers," as they were aware they received improper benefits. These student-athletes – 14 of whom were members of the men's and women's track and field programs – exploited the university's textbook distribution system for scholarship student-athletes to acquire textbooks and materials of value greater than $100 for girlfriends, friends and other student-athletes.

The value of the impermissible benefits obtained by these intentional wrongdoers ranged from a low of $32.30 by a women's track student-athlete to a high of $3,947.19 by a football student-athlete. The committee noted that the four highest amounts, ranging from $2,714.62 to $3,947.19, were obtained by football student-athletes.

The second type of infraction involved student-athletes who unintentionally received the impermissible use of non-required textbooks and materials. Among the student-athletes who unintentionally violated NCAA rules, about 125 received benefits that totaled less than $100 each.

The committee found that the scope and nature of the violations demonstrate that the university failed to effectively monitor the student-athlete textbook distribution system. Although the university had created and implemented a system to control the textbook distribution process for NCAA compliance, it fell short in three areas, the committee explained.

First, the university did not provide adequate rules education on the textbook issuance process for employees and student-athletes. Second, the university did not sufficiently monitor the textbook process before the textbooks left the store to prevent violations. Third, the university did not sufficiently monitor the textbook process afterwards to detect the violations in a timely fashion. The student-athletes were able to bypass the process in place for textbook purchases made with athletics aid, were not restricted by any purchase limits and not required to show photo identification.

As a result of the violations, there was a sharp increase in the total cost of books and supplies over a two-year period. Specifically, there was a 30-percent spike in charges between the 2004-05 academic year and the 2006-07 academic year. Had the university been carefully monitoring these numbers, the committee said, it seems likely this increase would have been investigated.

Finally, the committee notes that the university was unable to produce any records prior to the 2005 fall semester. As a result, the university could not ascertain whether violations of this nature may have occurred prior to the fall of 2005. Therefore, the scope of the case was limited to violations that occurred after that date.
The penalties imposed by the committee are below. Additional details are available in the public report.
  • Public reprimand and censure.
  • Three years of probation (June 11, 2009 to June 10, 2012).
  • Vacation of all wins in which any of the seven football student-athletes identified by the university as "intentional wrongdoers" competed while ineligible during the 2005-06 through 2007-08 academic years. Further, in the sports of men's tennis, men's track and women's track, the individual records of the 15 student-athletes identified as "intentional wrongdoers" shall be vacated and team point totals shall be reconfigured accordingly. This includes regular season contests, postseason contests and any NCAA championship competition. The university's records regarding all of the involved sports, as well as the records of the head coaches of those sports, will reflect the vacated records and be recorded in all publications in which these records are reported, including, but not limited to, university media guides, recruiting material, and university and NCAA archives. Finally, any public reference to these vacated contests, including conference championships, won during this time shall be removed from athletics department stationery, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear.
  • The university shall pay a fine of $43,900 to the NCAA. This figure represents an approximate value of the benefits obtained by the "intentional wrongdoers" ($21,950) multiplied by a factor of two.
The members of the Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case include Paul Dee, lecturer of law and education at the University of Miami and formerly the institution's athletics director and general counsel. He is the chair of the Committee on Infractions. Other members are John S. Black, attorney; Melissa Conboy, deputy director of athletics at University of Notre Dame; Eileen Jennings, general counsel at Central Michigan University; Britton Banowsky, commissioner of Conference USA; and Dennis Thomas, the commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference and formerly director of athletics at Hampton University.
 
Earle is right. Our ENTIRE athletic dept needs to be totally reorganized and infused with new blood. For the most part, did you know that the exact same people that work in that dept were ALSO around when we got in trouble in '95 and '00? Well, guess what--just about all of them--Finus Gaston, Jon Dever, Kevin Almond, etc...---ARE STILL THERE. Hello? If these gentlemen had jobs in the private sector like most of the rest of us where we're held responsible for results then they would have been fired a long time ago. I've met some of these folks and I hate to say it but some of them are some of the most arrogant people that I have ever been around. They've got relationships with trustee members in some cases and thus seem to think they are accountable to no one. They have carved out their little fiefdoms and the last thing they want is for the status quo to go away, and I think some of think that they actually have jobs for life because of their length of tenure, but regardless of their job performance.

My hope is that as Nick really begins to settle in here he will use some of the 'capital' that he has and his growing influence over the program to gradually weed these dinosaurs out and bring in competent, responsible people with integrity that will manage our program within the rules. This group has demonstrated time and again that they cannot be entrusted with that responsibility.

Let's show some compassion here. Most of the old crowd have spent their entire careers working in a very comfortable environment where the only thing upon which they were judged was their ability to tell funny and/or touching stories about Paul Bryant. They are not capable of doing their assigned duties, and no one has asked them to do their jobs for the past 25 years. And now all of a sudden you want them to actually perform? And you are calling for their heads just because they have been totally incompetent? Where do you think an incompetent 60 year old man whose only skill is nostalgia is going to find a high paying job with afternoons off for golf in this economy? You are changing the rules very late in the game. And it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Leave them alone. They are happy. You should be too.
 
Let's show some compassion here. Most of the old crowd have spent their entire careers working in a very comfortable environment where the only thing upon which they were judged was their ability to tell funny and/or touching stories about Paul Bryant. They are not capable of doing their assigned duties, and no one has asked them to do their jobs for the past 25 years. And now all of a sudden you want them to actually perform? And you are calling for their heads just because they have been totally incompetent? Where do you think an incompetent 60 year old man whose only skill is nostalgia is going to find a high paying job with afternoons off for golf in this economy? You are changing the rules very late in the game. And it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Leave them alone. They are happy. You should be too.

I sense sarcasm in your post but I don't think so.

So they should be left to do their "job" that they have failed to do? :rolleyes:

Leave them alone, they are happy, what kind of statement is that. I'd be happy if they left. I believe I will be happy by the first game I see them dropping like flies.
 
I sense sarcasm in your post but I don't think so.

So they should be left to do their "job" that they have failed to do? :rolleyes:

Leave them alone, they are happy, what kind of statement is that. I'd be happy if they left.I believe I will be happy by the first game I see them dropping like flies.

Damn Goose, that's pretty cold. :p_sad:
 
Damn Goose, that's pretty cold. :p_sad:

Cold, nothing. Those folks are lucky that many people, including most of the "sidewalk alums," have an immediate revulsion to anything involving the NCAA. It's a scapegoat that makes it easier to hide the full measure of their imcompetence. Were it not for that, these guys would be lucky not to be hanged in effigy.

Just my opinion, but I think it's nuts if they stay on staff for the next five years. Surely there's an RV lot somewhere that needs their personal supervision.
 
I didnt read this whole thread, well, because I didnt feel like reading all those pages, but here is my opinion:

Top to bottom "reorganization" is just retarted. Being a fan on the outside (which ALL of us are, no matter how "inside" you think you are), how can you hold Mal Moore responsible for this. What even makes you even believe you have enough knowledge of what goes on in the Athletic Department to make such a strong statement. I would say yall calling for Moores head must know ALOT, because I would say that since he hire Saban, that they have a pretty good relationship. Also, I would assume they have some pretty strong agreement as to how thing will be run. Sure, fire Moore, and hope the next guy gets along with Saban. I feel confident that Saban would probably be the one that picks the new AD, but still either way you look at it, it might go wrong. The new guy could end up not working so well with Saban (like alot of his assistants who think they have the work ethic, then a year or two later relize they liked it better before), or Saban hand picks a guy who we may or may not be stuck with for years.

As for the actual incident: The textbook industry at the college level is an absolute joke. I mean textbook prices are unjustly through the roof. Almost every year, the book companies release "new editions", which basically has a new cover that says "ed.6" rather than "ed.5". Why the professors require the newest edition I have no idea *(I would be willing to bet the same reason doctors precribe name brand rather than generic, bc drug reps feed them benefits). Anyways, students get stuck with a one year old book they paid $100 or more for, that they cannot sell to anyone because teachers require the newer one. These athletes found a way to cheat this flawed system. In my mind, they did nothing wrong. I dont care what you think is right or wrong, wait to you or your kid get constantly hustled by the book companies for no reason. Once you wallet feels it you might think a little differently. I know the athletes dont pay for books, but they found a way to help out friends who do, illegally I guess.

Actually, after typing that I think Mal Moore should be fired. A "reorganization" sounds realllll good. It makes so much sense.
 
Seems to me that the internet should have had roughly the same effect on textbooks as it has on the newspaper business. With a notebook, you have much more info available and apparently at the one-time cost of a few books.
 
Seems to me that the internet should have had roughly the same effect on textbooks as it has on the newspaper business. With a notebook, you have much more info available and apparently at the one-time cost of a few books.

should but unfortunately it doesnt. Now, alot of textbooks go hand and hand with an online website course thing that has quizzes and homework assignments that your professor uses. These assignments are usually all that compliments your exam grades in the class. To get access to these websites, you have to buy the book in order to get a webkey to register for that site. So you buy the book, tear off the shrink wrap, get the web key, and never open the book again (all for usually over $100). You cant buy the web key by itself, and you cant sell back the back, because they release a new edition next year.

With English (and others) classes, You have to have the book in order to have the short stories, etc, plus there is usually a grade just for having your book. This wouldnt be a problem if you could use it for a year then sell it. Usually though, they release a new edition for the same course. But how many times can they rearrange the stories and sell it as a new book? Math is another subject that they frequently release new editions. Just how many times has math changed?? Even if they dont release a new edition, you buy a new book for $100, and no joke you get about $15 when you sell it back to the University book stores. Then they turn around and sell the used books for about $80. Scam if Ive ever seen one. Im glad some people have the guts to try and screw them.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads