This is from Stewart Mandell from SI in the mailbox.
Looking back, do you think the NCAA was unfair in its punishment of Alabama in 2002 for recruiting violations? I mean, people have been screaming about violations at Tennessee for years, and every time, "nothing" is found -- even when there was a paper trail leading to improper benefits for Tee Martin. More recently at Ohio State, the NCAA just gave up trying to investigate Maurice Clarett's allegations. Alabama did its time and is moving on, but I'm curious to see what people think with the benefit of hindsight.
--James, Birmingham, Ala.
I'm sure Alabama fans will continue to seethe until the day Tennessee finally receives its "justice" for all those so-far unsubstantiated tales of misdeeds that have been circulating for years. And I know it had to be particularly galling for Tide followers to see Ohio State get off scot-free now that it's clear to all but the most blindly loyal Buckeye followers that something was going on in Columbus. (Last November, Clarett described a culture where boosters set up players, including him, with phantom jobs where they were paid without having to do any actual work; six weeks later, Troy Smith gets busted for ... taking $500 from a booster who, according to the NCAA's report, put Smith on his company's payroll but never had the player do any work. You do the math.)
The difference is, Alabama got caught, and no, I do not think it was unfairly punished. If anything, the Tide was fortunate to get off as lightly as it did. Because of the school's status as a "repeat violator" (the Tide had been tagged in 1995 for violations under Gene Stallings), the NCAA would have been well within its right to impose the death penalty, but many believe it'll never again do that because of the painfully severe effect it had on SMU.
The NCAA enforcement division is hardly a model of fair justice. Because its investigators are so limited in their powers (they cannot force anyone to testify), they are almost entirely dependent on the presence of a voluntary whistle-blower. With Alabama, they had several, most notably Albert Means' assistant high school coach, Milton Kirk. With Ohio State, however, once Clarett declined to cooperate, the investigators had none. :dlol:
Looking back, do you think the NCAA was unfair in its punishment of Alabama in 2002 for recruiting violations? I mean, people have been screaming about violations at Tennessee for years, and every time, "nothing" is found -- even when there was a paper trail leading to improper benefits for Tee Martin. More recently at Ohio State, the NCAA just gave up trying to investigate Maurice Clarett's allegations. Alabama did its time and is moving on, but I'm curious to see what people think with the benefit of hindsight.
--James, Birmingham, Ala.
I'm sure Alabama fans will continue to seethe until the day Tennessee finally receives its "justice" for all those so-far unsubstantiated tales of misdeeds that have been circulating for years. And I know it had to be particularly galling for Tide followers to see Ohio State get off scot-free now that it's clear to all but the most blindly loyal Buckeye followers that something was going on in Columbus. (Last November, Clarett described a culture where boosters set up players, including him, with phantom jobs where they were paid without having to do any actual work; six weeks later, Troy Smith gets busted for ... taking $500 from a booster who, according to the NCAA's report, put Smith on his company's payroll but never had the player do any work. You do the math.)
The difference is, Alabama got caught, and no, I do not think it was unfairly punished. If anything, the Tide was fortunate to get off as lightly as it did. Because of the school's status as a "repeat violator" (the Tide had been tagged in 1995 for violations under Gene Stallings), the NCAA would have been well within its right to impose the death penalty, but many believe it'll never again do that because of the painfully severe effect it had on SMU.
The NCAA enforcement division is hardly a model of fair justice. Because its investigators are so limited in their powers (they cannot force anyone to testify), they are almost entirely dependent on the presence of a voluntary whistle-blower. With Alabama, they had several, most notably Albert Means' assistant high school coach, Milton Kirk. With Ohio State, however, once Clarett declined to cooperate, the investigators had none. :dlol:
:neener: