Forum Classics

A Brief Summary of the NCAA Events in 1994-95

Posted by Abercrombie on December 18, 2000

Note: This post originally started out as a response to a request for me to explain the second sentence in the paragraph below, which was my response to a post by Brad. I decided to expand the response because some people may not be aware of the sequence of events leading up to the NCAA sanctions. (Unfortunately, there was no TI then. However Bama FAX was lots of fun at that time.) Some of what is in this post was covered in a thread started by ALTTIDE and contributed to by Red Dog and others.

RESPONSE TO BRAD:

Brad, I have not seen any indication that the administration was less than candid about the seriousness of the NCAA charges. I think that the administration was blind sided just like everyone else by the severity of the sanctions and the new and unfounded (and nonspecific) charge which was made by the infractions committee. If someone has information to the contrary, I would be very interested in hearing it.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE EVENTS:

When the NCAA letter of official inquiry was received Alabama hired the Kansas law firm of Overland Park to provide an independent and unbiased assessment of the extent and severity of the violations. In conjunction with the NCAA enforcement staff (investigating team) and taking into account the opinion of the law firm, the conclusion was that the findings of legal counsel and the NCAA enforcement staff were in agreement and that summary-disposition was the appropriate way to deal with the violation. (Summary disposition allows the institution to establish its own penalties and for that to be the suggested way of handling things was a very good sign.) The penalties suggested as appropriate were mild. (Something like the loss of 4 scholarships. I don't recall for certain.)

The NCAA enforcement staff wrote a complimentary report. That report was published in some Bama publication. I think it was Bama Magazine. I am presently unable to find my copy, but it would be interesting for someone who has a copy of it to scan it and post it. (The UA officials made all documents relating to the investigation public on June 2, 1995.) If I recall correctly, the report even stated that Alabama had cooperated during the investigation. The report sounded real good and stopped just short of saying congratulations. At this point in time, things looked really good for Alabama.

Then things were turned over to the NCAA Infractions Committee. Surprisingly, the Infractions Committee stated that questions remained. When this happened, the University and the NCAA enforcement staff wrote a joint petition to the Infractions Committee. One of the things stated in the letter was: "The basic underlying findings would remain the same: that while mistakes were made, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the mistakes were willful or intentional, or that they represent a systemic absence of institutional control." The important thing here is that the NCAA investigating team said that there was no lack of institutional control.

When the UA representatives and the NCAA enforcement staff met with the NCAA Infractions Committee, no new issues or new information was presented.

The big surprise came when the NCAA Infractions Committee brought new charges which were never specified but were housed under the phrase "lack of institutional control." It was sort of as if they said "... by the way we have a new charge against you which we will not explain and here are your penalties." And, as everyone knows, the penalties were mind boggling, given the rather mild outcome of the investigation.

Now, up until this point, what I have stated can be called the facts. Oh, I may have dangled a participle somewhere, or perhaps had a minor misstatement. But, basically, those are the facts according to published reports. However, from this point on what I am saying is my opinion. And opinions vary about the NCAA sanctions. Some Alabama fans say that Bama had it coming and got what it deserved. For those people who say that, I have never known whether they are unaware of the manner in which the events took place, or perhaps need someone in the University to blame, or whether they have inside information which even the NCAA was unwilling to provide to back up its case. However, until someone can furnish an explanation for what was done, I will assume that it was nothing more than a hit job. Basically, Red Dog summed up my view on this in an earlier post today. The NCAA is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies are subject to becoming very political. So, I smelled a rat, and still do.

One thing that has been mentioned on TI is that one or two UA officials may have gotten into an argument with someone at the NCAA. If this is so, IMO, it may provide an explanation for the actions of the Infraction Committee, but not a justification. People who are in a position of responsibility have an obligation to be professional and levy sanctions according to the violations rather than strictly according to personal feelings.

Granted, it was not a good thing for any UA official to argue with an NCAA representative, even if the representative was overbearing and obnoxious. However, just like a policeman or teacher who must maintain professionalism, the NCAA representatives are under that obligation also. For example, if a student argues with a teacher, the teacher may be irritated and in all likelihood will not do the student any favors. However is the student has a B average, it would be unprofessional for the teacher to assign the student an F grade based on personal feelings.

Another theory is that a member of the NCAA Infractions Committee had revenge in mind for when H. Ingram served on an NCAA committee which levied sanctions against that NCAA committee member's institution. Once again, that would provide an explanation, but not a justification of the NCAA's actions.

My feeling is this. When the NCAA issues sanctions, it should be able to provide an explanation for those sanctions (e.g. in the case of Miami, in excess of 90 (I think 96) fraudulent Pell Grants among other stated infractions). I think that the NCAA Infractions Committee used the term "lack of institutional control" as their wild card against Alabama because they had no other card to play. I also think that in a desperate attempt to provide some validity to their claims, the NCAA made the blunder of naming someone (Tom Jones) without any evidence to back up their assertion of unethical conduct. Thus, the NCAA was forced under threat of lawsuit to rescind some of the penalties. The sad thing is that once the NCAA retracted the claim against Tom Jones, there was nothing left. That is, nothing left except NCAA penalties against Alabama.

By the way, I am open to changing my mind if someone can offer some evidence or explanation which has eluded me. In the absence of such, I am left to conclude that someone in the NCAA was out to do a hit job on Alabama and in spite of a transparent and bungling effort, succeeded