• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Hypocrisy of the NCAA "Extra Benefits" rulings

Da Coach

Da Coach

Moderator
Staff member
Here is another example of how the NCAA applies this "Extra Benefits" rule and the penalties quite differently depending on the school and situation.

USC (Southern California) has an All American wide receiver, Dwayne Jarrett, who was suspended after it was revealed that he lived in a shared apartment with All American quarterback Matt Leinart (who is now in the the NFL). It turns out that Leinart's father paid most of the rent, utilities, and other expenses for the apartment. The rent alone was a whopping $3866 per month (must have been quite a nice apartment!). According to the NCAA rules, Jarrett should have paid 1/2 of all the costs himself. The NCAA ruled that for the 13 months he lived there, Jarrett's extra impermissable benefits were $18,001. That's quite a bit more "Extra Benefits" than POB or Will got.
See the articles below.

Now, we remember the story we were told when Patrick O'Bryant received approximately $1200 of extra benefits. It is an automatic suspension for 30% of the team's games, and there could be no mitigating circumstances. So despite the fact that the NCAA agreed that POB's overpayment was an honest mistake, and was done inadvertantly by a non-booster the suspension was not appealable. In addition, Bradley was held accountable and was later served with probation, despite the fact there was no competetive advantage gained by Bradley. In fact, they didn't even know about it.

But in this case with USC and Dwayne Jarrett, the NCAA has ruled that if Jarrett pays $5352 to a charity of his choice, he will be reinstated with NO PENALTY to him or the school. He will not miss a game!

Here is what the NCAA said--
???‚¬?“Mr. Jarrett made a mistake, and we believe that had he known he was required to pay his full share of the rent for the apartment, he would not have chosen to live there,???‚¬?? Jennifer Strawley, NCAA director of membership services and student-athlete reinstatement, said in a statement.

???‚¬?“Reinstatement is a delicate balance of addressing the benefit or competitive advantage gained with student-athlete well being. In this instance, requiring some level of repayment was a fair and reasonable outcome given the specific facts.???‚¬??

Can anyone explain this? Where was this Jennifer babe last fall when Bradley exhausted all attempts to appeal the POB and Will Franklin suspensions? Why wasn't she and the rest of the NCAA or their "student-athlete reinstatement" department concerned about helping to reinstate POB? Was there some competetive advantage gained by POB by his relatively tiny overpayment, compared to the magnitude of this one with Dwayne Jarrett? Or does USC just need this kid to be eligible, and the NCAA is in their back pocket? This doesn't make sense to me.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14274961/

Here is an article from last June. Note in the 3rd paragraph, NCAA spokesman, Bob Williams said a case like this can be resolved in three ways: A student-athlete can be denied reinstatement, regain eligibility with no conditions attached or be required to miss games and/or pay back the extra benefit. "It depends on the particular circumstances involved in each case," Williams said.
Again, I recall hearing last fall that the NCAA applies the punishment in these "Extra Benefits" cases the same. The student must be penalized, and the punishment is based only on the amount of the extra benefits. Where was Bob Williams last fall when we could have used a little common sense from the NCAA? --

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2486792
 
This USC case fascinates me. I see no big difference between what the USC kid did in receiving the extra-benefits in the form of a luxury downtown LA apartment, and POB's inadvertant overpayment on a summer job, except the USC kid got a lot more than POB did. So I also need someone to explain this vastly different ruling. Why was the NCAA so intent on working to reinstate the USC kid if he pays the money back, yet refused to hear Bradley's appeals even after POB made restitution before he was asked to do so? Why was Bradley put on probation, and the NCAA sounds like they are congratulating USC for working with them one this matter?

Something really smells bad with the NCAA.
 
Different Rule?

Different Rule?

Are there two different sets of NCAA rules for football and basketball?

That can be the only explanation :?
 
I remember a few posters saying last November that Bradley and the players got what they deserved, that Bradley was at fault for lack of instutional control, and the Bradley fans should stop whining and complaining about the NCAA.

And as a fan, I can accept all that if these rules are just applied evenly and fairly across the board. But this case proves they are not. The NCAA nailed Bradley to make an example of them, and because they were just Bradley. They went easy on USC because they are one of the favored NCAA marquee teams.

$18000 worth of extra benefits vs. $1200? And POB had already paid his back. Yet the USC kid gets no penalty at all and POB gets 8 games. Bradley gets an institutional penalty, and USC doesn't. The NCAA is a bunch of bozos.
 
USC football is the heart and soul of all the millions of $$ that the NCAA makes to pay the salaries of babes like Jennifer.
And Jarrett is an All American Wide Receiver.
There is no way in heck they would suspend one of USC's top players.

I'm still waiting for someone to give an explanation why the player from Iowa State (Jiri Hubalek) only got a 6 game suspension when his impermissible benefits far exceeded Patrick's.

As most posters recall, last fall and winter it was revealed that USC's All American Reggie Bush was living in an incredibly expensive house that was being paid for by a big time sports agent and a guy who was trying to steer Bush professionally.
This was CLEARLY an extra benefit that no other students had access to!!
These allegations were known to everyone and appeared in an ESPN story last August, but the football season came and went and still no interest from the NCAA.
In April of 2006, the Pac 10 began an investigation, and later the NCAA said they'd look into it.
But Bush has finished his eligibility, been drafted, and the NCAA has already taken MORE THAN TWICE THE TIME it took to investigate and hand down penalties to POB & BU, and they haven't even begun to ask the right questions.

It is so painfully obvious that they DON'T WANT to pursue anything against their beloved USC program!!
What a truckload of lying hypocrites they are.
I am waiting for even one tiny explanation of how anyone can consider any of this fair.
 
Here is another case of NCAA suspensions--
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2176476
16 Ball State football players were suspended for receiving improper textbook loans. The University discovered it and reported it to the NCAA, bu the athletes were still penalized.
Too bad it was Ball State. If it had been Oklahoma or USC, they would have probably been rewarded with an extra year of eligibility.

I think most fans, myself included, have gotten past the penalties to POB and WF, and the anger toward the NCAA. But these other cases keep demonstrating that there is an undeniable double standard when it comes to the NCAA enforcing their "rules".

Instead of some public relations person (I suspect that's who Jennifer Strawley is), it would be more respectable if someone in a higher position of authority at the NCAA would go public with these explanations, but tell us why the penalties are so different from ones like Bradley, Ball State, and other schools get.
 
sounds like the ncaa kinda singled bradley out for a harsh penalty. wonder what their motive was? whatever, it didn't work. we still went to the sweet sixteen and had a great season. time to move on.
 
But I do recall last fall that the reasons given why Bradley's appeal of the POB penalties were not heard, was that the NCAA does not consider excuses, or extenuating circumstances when deciding extra benefits cases. We were told that whether they did it intentionally or inadvertantly, they still must be penalized by the guidelines of the NCAA rulebook which was written something like 30 or 40 years ago.

So I am not understanding why the NCAA sent out some spokeswoman to explain why they did not penalize the USC kid at all. It should have been cut and dried.
Jarrett got the benefits, he should pay the penalty.

Hey, POB did do some work at Star didn't he? If Jarrett got off free because he paid a tiny portion of the rent, then POB should be absolved because he did do some work for Star!
 
Yet another item for the "Is this fair" column....

Today's Kansas City Star lists all the NCAA violations that KU will be discussing at their meeting today with the Infractions Committee.

There are big time money payments to Darnell Jackson, who stayed at Kansas and got an 8 game suspension, like Patrick O'Bryant.

There are several academic violations where Kansas people gave test answers or helped players get better grade.

There are impermissible contacts and dozens of "seconday violations" many of which weren't reported even after KU knew about them.

but the one that stands out to me
is that while he was at Kansas, JR Giddens AND his family were given cash and extra benefits by a known big-time KU booster, the same guy who gave $5-10,000 to Darnell Jackson.
These extra benefits were still being given to Giddens even after he was kicked out of Kansas when he got into a bar fight.

I guess what bugs me is that the Giddens info has been kept pretty hush-hush, and if it's true, as the NCAA says it has evidence, then why isn't JR going to sit out 20% of this year's games?

I would like to see the answer on this one.
 
BU Bill said:
But I do recall last fall that the reasons given why Bradley's appeal of the POB penalties were not heard, was that the NCAA does not consider excuses, or extenuating circumstances when deciding extra benefits cases. We were told that whether they did it intentionally or inadvertantly, they still must be penalized by the guidelines of the NCAA rulebook which was written something like 30 or 40 years ago.



BINGO.....I have been asking that SAME question on another board and nobody will/can answer it. I get a variety of answers but not a single one answers the point you are making.

No room for mitigating factors per the NCAA....x amount of dollars (xtra benefit) = X amount of pentalty. PERIOD.

EXCEPT if you are a cash cow with some name recognition and clout. :roll:
Click to expand...
 
let's face it. we got the shaft from the ncaa more than once. but what are you gonna do? doesn't do anygood to whine and complain. time to move on,imo, and be positive.
 
flipper said:
let's face it. we got the shaft from the ncaa more than once. but what are you gonna do? doesn't do anygood to whine and complain. time to move on,imo, and be positive.
Click to expand...

I agree, an outsider looking at this board would think we are whinest bunch of babies in the college basketball world. Is this all we have to talk about? Fair or not deal with it, it seems people on this board get great pleasure out of 1) putting down other programs because they some how think it makes Bradley look better 2) Crying about the unfair college sports landscape. Life is unfair stop crying and lets play ball
 
I can't agree. This board has some of the most objective information I've seen on any college sports message board.

I don't see anyone whining, just pointing out an obvious inconsistency and hypocrisy by the NCAA.
 
Biff said:
I can't agree. This board has some of the most objective information I've seen on any college sports message board.

I don't see anyone whining, just pointing out an obvious inconsistency and hypocrisy by the NCAA.
Click to expand...

biff- i didn't mean that the numerous links and threads about other schools problems with the ncaa is not objective information. we all know that the ncaa is both inconsistent and hypocritical.

but when is enough, enough. just think sometimes it would be more fun to read and post about positive stories about bu and less about the ncca penalties against us or other schools. once again, just my opinion.
 
Hypocrisy is what it is. Of course it's obvious - the bigger schools, the moneymaking schools are treated differently than little guys like BU. It's the same way in society - rich people get away with murder (literally), while the underpriviledged go to jail for petty theft. There's double-standards throughout society, and while the NCAA may try and portray itself on being on some sort of higher moral ground, they're really no different than anyone or anything else. They're not in it for the kids, the academics, or the competition. They're in it for the money. The more money you have and provide, the more you get away with. It's as simple as that.

What's done is done. BU made mistakes, got caught, and was reprimanded. Fair or not, it exposed the need for a compliance officer, which most schools already have. For once it seemed BU did learn from its past mistakes and didn't try and cover things up. They learned from the mid-80's that self-reporting, self-discipline, and cooperation is best way to move past these problems with as little penalties as possible. We went to the Sweet 16 for God's sake! POB and WF's absence cost us maybe 2 games at most, and had nothing to do with how our great season turned out. If anything it kept POB fresh for the stretch run.

I think there is a lot of whining and finger-pointing that goes on at times on this board, and it gets tiresome. BU is not above what other schools go through, and pointing out other's shortcomings and mistakes only makes us look worse when we have our own. We should worry more about ourselves and getting our house in order than what others did or did not do.
 
But Bradley Brave, I think this topic and discussion can stand alone, totally unrelated to the things that happened to Bradley.
Sure some people compare the violations and penalties to those in the BU case, but I don't think I see the whining as being BU people crying sour grapes.

What I see is a fan base that's intelligent, well read and informed, and who care very much about college basketball and they decry the foul play that's going on and the lack of discipline handed down to those who are leading the charge in NCAA violations.

All I would like to see is a serious probe into some of these obviously more serious violations, and then some appropriate penalties.
Cases involving big-time boosters paying $5,000-$18,000 to recruits, cases where recruits knowingly took not just money, but living quarters, food, clothing, and gifts supplied by pro agents and boosters, and cases involving massive, wide open violations of recruiting rules like phone calls, in-home visits, and impermissable contacts.

Those are the cases discussed numerous times on this board (Jerry Wainwright, Sampson, Self, OU. USC, etc...) almost all of which have had no penalties or very light penalties handed down.

Sure there might be a time to desist and get past the problems Bradley had, but there's never a time to just stop discussing ongoing cheating and the NCAA's pattern or easing up on the big guys. I plan to keep the discussion going as long as it takes until fairness reigns, and I hope others do too.
 
chitownBUB said:
But Bradley Brave, I think this topic and discussion can stand alone, totally unrelated to the things that happened to Bradley.
Sure some people compare the violations and penalties to those in the BU case, but I don't think I see the whining as being BU people crying sour grapes.

What I see is a fan base that's intelligent, well read and informed, and who care very much about college basketball and they decry the foul play that's going on and the lack of discipline handed down to those who are leading the charge in NCAA violations.

All I would like to see is a serious probe into some of these obviously more serious violations, and then some appropriate penalties.
Cases involving big-time boosters paying $5,000-$18,000 to recruits, cases where recruits knowingly took not just money, but living quarters, food, clothing, and gifts supplied by pro agents and boosters, and cases involving massive, wide open violations of recruiting rules like phone calls, in-home visits, and impermissable contacts.

Those are the cases discussed numerous times on this board (Jerry Wainwright, Sampson, Self, OU. USC, etc...) almost all of which have had no penalties or very light penalties handed down.

Sure there might be a time to desist and get past the problems Bradley had, but there's never a time to just stop discussing ongoing cheating and the NCAA's pattern or easing up on the big guys. I plan to keep the discussion going as long as it takes until fairness reigns, and I hope others do too.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you say, and I want to see the cheaters get punished as badly as the next guy. It's just that the "woe is Bradley" stuff gets old. I'm not accusing you of it, just making a general observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top