Don Bosco Prep being investigated for possible benefits violation involving Peppers

Submitted by SAvoodoo on October 29th, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Apparently Peppers and his mother had an apartment arranged for them as a "favor" when he was at Don Bosco, which he was forced out of when he transferred schools.  Any possibility U of M will face consequences for recruiting a player who is later deemed ineligibile (if that's the case)?  Sorry if this isn't an appropriate topic, feel free to delete. 



October 29th, 2014 at 4:17 PM ^

Didn't Jamal Crawford's issues happen in high school?  Without knowing for sure, I would assume impermissible benefits in high school could cause one to forfeit amateur status.

It's going to be tough to prove anything impermissible happened here.  Yes, Peppers was renting from Bosco's coach's brother.  However, the brother has already denied anything shady and simply wants restitution for money he is owed.  If anything, I bet the NCAA would force Peppers to repay a portion of the "benefit" and he'd be cleared to play.  I don't see it ever getting that far, though.


October 29th, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^

If he received an inpermissable benefit (reduced rent, etc.)  it certainly can impact his eligibility.  If it was a violation of NJ high school rules regarding his recruitment to Don Bosco but the lease was legal and the rent was reasonable, then it wouldn't impact his eligibility


October 29th, 2014 at 4:12 PM ^

Sorry if it was unclear, I meant it would make him ineligible in high school.  The question I have is that if he is found to be ineligible (in high school) do we (the university) have any problems for recruiting someone ineligible? My guess is no, because we were not aware of it at the time (that's my hope at least).


October 29th, 2014 at 4:14 PM ^

I know international basketball players have been ruled ineligble for receiving too much money from club teams before (Enes Kanter with Kentucky, even though it was supposedly mostly used towards education). Could an apartment be a similar impermissable benefit?