November 6th, 2012 at 7:54 PM ^

that they don't have to do a full repayment of the impermissible benefits, but instead have to do a fraction smaller than 10%.  Anyone know the NCAA rule on why that is?


November 7th, 2012 at 9:30 AM ^

I don't think there is a specific formula that they use in the NCAA handbook, although they do make it clear in Bylaw 16 that you could be asked to pay the full amount potentially. The fact that they considered this a secondary violation also means that they did not find the "impermissible benefit" here to be "significant" (the word in the handbook). In Bylaw 13, boosters are among those prohibited from providing offers or inducements not sanctioned by the NCAA (some of this sounds like per diem expenses, on which there is a definite cap).


November 7th, 2012 at 12:04 AM ^

It's really a slippery slope. I mean... $185 over 7 years that a dude's ex wife used to buy bumper stickers? That's 9 games for each player and $1500 they must repay because their legal guardian bought them coats when they moved to northern Indiana.

I realize this doesn't equate, but I just donated a comparable amount of money to a kickstarter sponsored by Martavious Odoms that had his history as a Michigan player in the request text. I donated the money specifically because I admired the way Martavious represented the University during some trying times. Does this mean I couldn't direct my kid to play for UM?

It's a ridiculous thought, certainly, but after watching this university get pounded for stretching after a witch hunt by a newspaper looking for subscriptions, and seeing two kids getting benched 9 games each because a foundation bought them a coat and the leader happened to pay 185 bucks to a school the kids committed to I'm beginning to wonder what where the absurd line is drawn.


November 7th, 2012 at 12:45 AM ^

Is why people hate and mock the NCAA.

UNC athletes being steered to classes that never meet and have no work due? "We don't do anything about that kind of thing."

Cam Newton's dad receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from an Auburn booster to get his son to go there? "Well, the money didn't actually go to the student athlete, so, this is not our problem."

Orphans from Africa come to the US via a chairty, and get free clothes to start their new lives from a guy who once bought a bumper sticker? "HOLY SHIT! ATTACK!"


November 7th, 2012 at 12:47 AM ^

As an IU student I'm furious about this. It is saying you can't help kids out even if u are their legal guardians. It makes no sense and was not during any of these kids recruitments and I can't believe the NCAA did this. It seems like an intentional attack on IU.

His Dudeness

November 7th, 2012 at 8:18 AM ^

You don't say? A team comes out of nowhere (they had tradition, no doubt but they haven't been great for a while) to get an incredible recruiting class and you say it is because of payments to student-athletes?!?!?

See: Providence (bball), Clemson (fball), Auburn (fball), UK (bball),


November 7th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^

read the post/article.This wasn't a bagman deal, hundred dollar handshakes, or even free team gear from visiting prospects.

This was a guy who runs a charity to help African orphans, who once, ages ago, donated $180 total to Indiana athletics, buying coats, shoes, and necessary life essentials for a couple of kids his charity rescued from Africa, while he was their legal guardian.


November 7th, 2012 at 9:00 AM ^

I am blown away by how petty the NCAA looks in all this. Some years ago, I donated a large sum of money to the University of Michigan. In return, I was given a very exclusive gift. What I gave was tuition and they gave me a degree. I'd better hope my child never wants to play sports at Michigan or there will be sanctions...


November 7th, 2012 at 9:13 AM ^

Your degree is not a gift. You did not buy it, and you did not donate anything in exchange for it. You bought the opportunity to learn something from an institution full of experts in various fields that would, in exchange, credential you, if and only if you were successful in learning enough about one or more of those fields.

I mean, if your version were right, wouldn't Tate have a degree?

That said, don't all alumni count as boosters according to the NCAA? I can't buy Michigan tickets for teams I coach, because as an alum and student/GSI, I was told by the compliance office that it'd render all of them ineligible.


November 7th, 2012 at 9:59 AM ^

But remember, according to the NCAA it was A-OK for Auburn to give Cam Newton's dad hundreds of thousands of dollars, because Cam "didn't know about it". 

What a joke.

piston honda

November 7th, 2012 at 2:58 PM ^

They cited mitigating circumstances as to why only a percentage. Meaning, they know Perea and Jurkin could have no idea of Adams' "booster" status since the "infractions" happened BEFORE THEY WERE BORN.


How insane is the NCAA?


Basically, they don't like Adams' A-HOPE foundation, but they can't pin anything specific on him or the group, so they are using this minor infraction to lower the boom they wish they could, all at 2 innocent kids' expense. SMH.


November 7th, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^

I couldn't agree with Blazefire more. Given what's been happening at North Carolina with phantom classes and curriculum, this is not even worth looking at. The way the NCAA spends their time and effort makes no sense. This should have been discussed for 5 seconds and thrown away to spend more time trying to find out who else is actually cheating in college athletics.

Wolverine Pride

November 7th, 2012 at 2:24 PM ^

Good thing he didn't buy them a bagel with ALL the toppings!  What the hell, this is getting out of hand.  

At what point does a conference or a group of schools get together and say "we are done with the NCAA."  Start a new governing body and just start over.  Does the NCAA hold that much power with all of these schools that it can't be done?   Are the presidents that blinded by $$$$$ to see the inconsistency that seems to get more comical with each incident?

What will it take?