• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

QB Troy Smith (2006 Heisman Trophy Winner)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
The "objective" guidelines used by the NCAA for what admittedly is a "subjective" determination.

4.

Benefits to Student-Athletes and Prospective Student-Athletes

Guidelines previously developed by the former Interpretations Committee and the current Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Legislative Review/Interpretations have been applied to situations in which benefits have been provided to a student-athlete (recruited and nonrecruited) or a prospective student-athlete by an individual whom the student-athlete or prospective student-athlete is not legally or naturally dependent.

1. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete’s parents) and the individual providing the benefits develop as a result of the athlete’s participation in athletics or notoriety related thereto?

2. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete’s parents) and the individual providing the benefits predate the athlete’s status as a prospective student-athlete?

3. Did the relationship between the athlete (or the athlete’s parents) and the individual providing the benefits predate the athlete’s status achieved as a result of his or her athletics ability or reputation?

4. Was the pattern of benefits provided by the individual to the athlete (or the athlete’s family) before the athlete’s attainment of status as an athlete similar in nature to those provided after attaining such stature?

The subcommittee has acknowledged that it is difficult at times when relationships develop as a result of athletics participation to determine whether the relationship between the donor and the recipient of the benefits reaches a level where one can definitively say that the benefits are unrelated to the individual’s participation in athletics. The subcommittee noted that the development of these guidelines was designed to provide an objective standard to analyze what arguably may be a subjective matter. The subcommittee noted that the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, in assessing the appropriate conditions for reinstating a student-athlete’s eligibility, should take such arguments into consideration.

The purpose of the guidelines is not intended to preclude a future relationship between a donor and the recipient of benefits. However, because athletes sometimes have reached a certain "celebrity" status because of their athletics skill or reputation, it is the responsibility of each institution to ensure that any benefits provided to the athlete are not being or have not been provided on the basis of their athletics ability or reputation.
Click to expand...

6.

The Distinction between Eligibility Ramifications

If an institution or a booster is involved with providing benefits to student-athletes or prospective student-athletes, the institution ultimately is responsible for reporting such a violation(s) to the NCAA enforcement services staff. Such violations impact the eligibility of the recipient unless the value of the benefit is de minimus is nature (i.e., less than $25). If an individual not associated with a particular institution provides a benefit(s) to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete, the violation impacts the recipient’s amateur status, and the institution must process a reinstatement request through the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff. The student-athlete must be withheld from competition from the time the violation is discovered/acknowledged until the individual’s eligibility has been reinstated.
Click to expand...

ISSUES RELATED TO EXTRA BENEFITS
 
Upvote 0
So Alan's number 3 has

3)receiving cash from someone very close to him. and if you know who that someone is, then this is another example of the ncaa being retarded.
Click to expand...
The intriguing part of that is the "if you know who that someone is, then this is another example of the ncaa being retarded."

So if someone who was a long time father figure to Troy fronted him some cash -- because this long time father figure is not a blood relative its an ncaa violation.

I suppose the whole _public_ perception will depend on who that someone is.

in loco parentis?
 
Upvote 0
Alan said:
it seems like you can throw #1 out of the equation....which is great news....

and strohs....b/c of what georgia players did a couple of years ago.....that would be a big no-no....
Click to expand...
actually the players were later cleared of any wrongdoing by the ncaa it is not illegal as long as they did not receive more than the deemed fair market value.
 
Upvote 0
sandgk said:
So Alan's number 3 has


The intriguing part of that is the "if you know who that someone is, then this is another example of the ncaa being retarded."

So if someone who was a long time father figure to Troy fronted him some cash -- because this long time father figure is not a blood relative its an ncaa violation.

I suppose the whole _public_ perception will depend on who that someone is.

in loco parentis?
Click to expand...
It's not a violation if a non-blood relative had a relationship with the person before he was ever recruited by the university, but, it becomes a violation if that same person was a booster or worked for the university. A long time father figure could give anything he wanted to Troy as long as that person wasn't involved with the university. The NCAA does this to protect amatuerism. Without the rule, bribes and gifts would run rampant.
 
Upvote 0
Yeah I agree, sometimes Tressel talks like he thinks our team is definatly going to lose... Heck we could be playing San Deigo State or whatever and he's still saying "they have a great team, and it'll take all our effort to put these guys away". Now I'm glad he doesn't say we'll blow them over but don't give them that much credit! lol sometimes you have to wonder if he truly makes this team play scared?Well Besides the Michigan/National Championship games.....
 
Upvote 0
Am I the only one here not ready to commit suicide over Smith's suspension? Sure it is a huge blow to the team that smashed UM on 11/20, but that doesn't mean that tOSU has suddenly returned to the lethargic team that lost three games in a row.

Chad Henne is a very good QB. He struggled against tOSU b/c he had no time and no running game to keep blitzers at bay.

I think Zwick is going to surprise a lot of people. Also, keep in mind that Zwick was not passing to Ted Ginn or Tony Gonzalez. Those are two huge weapons that have made a huge difference for the revamped offense.

Also, our defense has been improving week by week and has finally shown it can hold up its end of the bargain in JT's ball control system. The DL has been surging lately, and the linebackers have been living up to their billing moreso in the latter portion of this season.

So I don't really understand why everyone is ready to throw in the towel. I realize everyone is emotional about this, which is understandable, but we're not playing for the national title here. oOSU is a good team and all, but our defense should still be able to handle them, and Zwick with Ginn/Holmes/Gonzo and a decent line and running game shoudl be able to be much more effective then the old Zwick-Holmes-swiss-cheese-OLine system.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
NJ-Buckeye [/b said:
confused... because didn't MoC's problem originate from a friend he had years of relationship with... almost as a caretaker.. yet since he was not family... it was against the rules?
Click to expand...



The story with Clarett goes like this. A guy named Dellimuti struck up a relationship with Clarett when Reece transferred to Harding after his freshman year. Dellimuti was a guy that helped out underprivilaged high school football players in town. He helped out Maurice with what Clarett said were to pay his cell phone bills. Because he had only struck up a friendship with Maurice because he was a very talented football player that had a very poor life, the NCAA found that to be a violation when Dellimuti gave Maurice money while at OSU. In it's bylaws, they state that you cannot help out an athlete based on his or her ability if that ability is how you struck up a friendship. If that athlete accepts an athletic scholarship, you cannot continue to give financial assistance to that athlete. If Reece did not accept anything from Dellimuti while at OSU, there would be no problem. Had Dellimuti been a relative or any kind or been a friend by circumstances other than football, there would be no problem. That's the NCAA's story....Thom McDaniels, Clarett's coach at WH was outraged over that story, saying that Dellimuti and Clarett did nothing wrong and that Dellimuti was a great samaritan or something to that effect. Initially, Clarett lied about who gave him the money but the NCAA found out anyways. They then nailed him for lying about it. There's 2 violations on that matter.

That's how the story goes....
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top