Did T-Town Menswear Cause an NCAA Violation For Alabama? (UA says no)

[RTR91]

NCAA bylaw 12.5.2.2 requires student-athletes to take the necessary steps to stop such an activity, in order to retain eligibility:

If a student-athlete’s name or picture appears on commercial items (e.g., T-shirts, sweatshirts, serving trays, playing cards, posters, photographs) or is used to promote a commercial product sold by an individual or agency without the student-athlete’s knowledge or permission, the student-athlete (or the institution acting on behalf of the student-athlete) is required to take steps to stop such an activity in order to retain his or her eligibility for intercollegiate athletics.​

Is that not what UA did? Seems like we're ok then.

 

[Hamilton]

I share that worry, but it is possible that the loser who owns the store - and is it really high-end menswear? - just uses the signed jerseys in the window for promotional purposes, to make himself look important.

I'm sure he does. And that makes the athletes ineligible if they knew about it.

Is that not what UA did? Seems like we're ok then.

Yes, but it becomes an issue of, "Who knew what, when?" That's the problem. If the athletes signed items in September, October, and November on separate occasions (and this is just a hypothetical), then they knew before the letter was issued in December. We know at least one of them signed things on multiple occasions.

 

[RedStar]

This is bad. I was unaware that athletes' signatures being sold by third parties--even though the athlete receives no beneft--was against NCAA bylaws and led to inelgibility of the athlete. According to the article and the bylaw listed, that's the case. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that an athlete makes multiple trips to a store and "doesn't know" the owner is selling items autographed by that athlete or using them for a promotion. From the looks of it, it does not matter whether or not the athletes received clothing or discounts...they would still be ineligible because they knew that their signatures and likenesses were being used for promotional purposes (which, again, I didn't know was impermissible).

It's even money that we won't be seeing some key players at the start of the season, unfortunately.

But that's the problem. If it's illegal for a 3rd party to sell that merch even if the athlete doesn't get compensated in any way, then nearly every NCAA athlete is ineligible. Even Tyler Bray has 10 autographed items for sale on eBay. Tyler Freakin' Bray.

 

[CrimsonProf]

I'm sure he does. And that makes the athletes ineligible if they knew about it.

I'm confused. Every pizza joint in every college town in America has an autographed poster on the wall. That fact alone can't make a player ineligible.

 

[DiamondDust]

I share that worry, but it is possible that the loser who owns the store - and is it really high-end menswear? - just uses the signed jerseys in the window for promotional purposes, to make himself look important.

Actually, I don't think so anymore. Turns out, I'm decent friends with his sister-in-law (I know how that sounds, but anyone on this board who knows me knows I stand by what I say). The guy who owns the store is really a big fan of the team and got turned on to Alabama in the mid 90's. I thought it was a promotional thing as well, but after listening to her (And, naturally, she's not too happy about her family being drug into this), I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Hamilton]

But that's the problem. If it's illegal for a 3rd party to sell that merch even if the athlete doesn't get compensated in any way, then nearly every NCAA athlete is ineligible. Even Tyler Bray has 10 autographed items for sale on eBay. Tyler Freakin' Bray.

I know, it's stupid, but it's the rule.

I'm confused. Every pizza joint in every college town in America has an autographed poster on the wall. That fact alone can't make a player ineligible.

I didn't make the rule. It's pretty clear in what it says--if the athlete knows, he must ask them to stop (or the institution on the athlete's behalf). That is, of course, if it is a "commercial item." If there were return trips while the previously signed items were displayed and the athlete did not ask him to stop displaying them...especially when his motto was "We Dress Alabama Football" or whatever...well...that's against the rules.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Is that not what UA did? Seems like we're ok then.

Yep, and compliance sent the C&D as soon as they became aware of the issue.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Yes, but it becomes an issue of, "Who knew what, when?" That's the problem. If the athletes signed items in September, October, and November on separate occasions (and this is just a hypothetical), then they knew before the letter was issued in December. We know at least one of them signed things on multiple occasions.

Compliance asked him to remove the stuff twice before they sent the C&D.

I know some of you like to worry about stuff, but right now you're just falling into the barn trap.

 

[RedStar]

I know, it's stupid, but it's the rule.



I didn't make the rule. It's pretty clear in what it says--if the athlete knows, he must ask them to stop (or the institution on the athlete's behalf). If there were return trips while the previously signed items were displayed and the athlete did not ask him to stop displaying them...especially when his motto was "We Dress Alabama Football" or whatever...well...that's against the rules.

If that's the rule, then there will be no College Football this fall. I don't know if any team would be able to field enough eligible players.

Heck, even Mississippi State's 2nd string QB Tyler Russell has autographed merch on eBay. If he's got stuff on there, who doesn't?

 

[RedStar]

Here's a football for sale on eBay signed by 48 members of the 2010 Auburn squad. Are all the guys who didn't go pro or graduate ineligible for the upcoming season?

I mean if we're getting technical. The NCAA has a huge issue on their hands.

 

[Hamilton]

Compliance asked him to remove the stuff twice before they sent the C&D.

I know some of you like to worry about stuff, but right now you're just falling into the barn trap.

Maybe so. If compliance issued the letter "as soon as they became aware," then how did they ask him to remove it twice before they sent it? Also, if nothing the guy did was wrong and had no bearing on our players' eligibility, why did they tell him to stop (I know you're not saying this, but others are)?

 

[CrimsonProf]

Actually, I don't think so anymore. Turns out, I'm decent friends with his sister-in-law (I know how that sounds, but anyone on this board who knows me knows I stand by what I say). The guy who owns the store is really a big fan of the team and got turned on to Alabama in the mid 90's. I thought it was a promotional thing as well, but after listening to her (And, naturally, she's not too happy about her family being drug into this), I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I trust that, and we've got mutual friends, to boot. (you and me, I mean, not me and Tom). Good to hear.

And when I say "promotional," I mean in the sense that George from Vinyl Solutions would have an autographed poster on the wall behind the counter. Not for sale, but just because he liked it.

 

[RollTide2U]

Compliance asked him to remove the stuff twice before they sent the C&D.

I know some of you like to worry about stuff, but right now you're just falling into the barn trap.

Then that would cover it, according to the rule. You have to make an effort to get the person to stop displaying/selling the stuff. They did that. They handled it according to the rules.

The only other issue is if Trent and others were receiving any extra benefits/discounts for their autographs. UA compliance says they looked into it and found that wasn't the case. I'm sure they did more than say "Hey, did you guys receive anything for your autographs? No? okay thanks." You can be sure it went much deeper than that.

 

[punchdrunkpanic]

What I find disturbing about Clay Travis and his site is that there is zero accountability. His articles are open ended free association. They propose many questions without answering them. That is lazy, for lack of a better word here, journalism. These are things that should be researched and answered prior to publication or at least the parties involved given proper chance to respond to whatever is in the site posts.

It's a fairly savvy device on his part to drive traffic on his brand new site. To open up with a Cam Newton story and then dive into this will take advantage of the insanity of SEC football fans, their message boards and will bring many a curious reader to his web page where he can continue to post innuendo until the cows come home no matter what the context or truth is behind the photos or whatever questions he wants to pose.

He really isn't doing anything that you and I couldn't do via bleacherreport or by creating a blog on wordpress or blogger. Even as entertainment I've found his new site to be rather mediocre, especially from the crop of other writers he has on board.

On a side note, isn't out kicking your coverage a bad thing?

 

[crimsonaudio]

Maybe so. If compliance issued the letter "as soon as they became aware," then how did they ask him to remove it twice before they sent it? Also, if nothing the guy did was wrong and had no bearing on our players' eligibility, why did they tell him to stop (I know you're not saying this, but others are)?

*sigh*

There's no NCAA rule that states you have to send a C&D to stop someone from doing something - UA compliance told them to stop twice, when they didn't, they went legal on them. The initial notification - whether a 'legal document' or not - is sufficient for the NCAA.

The NCAA knows this stuff happens and cannot be stopped (heck, in this thread alone you find even unknown players with autographed stuff for sale), the rule says the university has to attempt to stop the issue, which UA compliance did.

I'm not going to argue with you about it - if you want to believe it's an issue despite the facts presented, go right ahead.

 

[crimsonaudio]

On a side note, isn't out kicking your coverage a bad thing?

Depends - I use that term to describe how I ended up with my wife. She's way better than me in every way, I don't consider this a bad thing...

 

[bamahippie]

This is bad. I was unaware that athletes' signatures being sold by third parties--even though the athlete receives no beneft--was against NCAA bylaws and led to inelgibility of the athlete. According to the article and the bylaw listed, that's the case. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that an athlete makes multiple trips to a store and "doesn't know" the owner is selling items autographed by that athlete or using them for a promotion. From the looks of it, it does not matter whether or not the athletes received clothing or discounts...they would still be ineligible because they knew that their signatures and likenesses were being used for promotional purposes (which, again, I didn't know was impermissible).

It's even money that we won't be seeing some key players at the start of the season, unfortunately.

If this is the case, the NCAA needs to hire an investigator TODAY, and their job is to log onto eBay, and see how many schools have CURRENT players that have signed things, and someone is auctioning it off. With your premise, there would be no NCAA football (or basketball, baseball. etc.) to watch this year. Let's shut 'er down. Are they really going to open up a can of worms on something the student-athlete truly can't help? I mean, why have a fan day, where CURRENT student-athletes sign autograph after autograph? This is a non-story.

Edit: Oops, I went back and read the last couple of pages, you guys covered this quite well already.

 

[DiamondDust]

Depends - I use that term to describe how I ended up with my wife. She's way better than me in every way, I don't consider this a bad thing...

That was the reasoning Travis used it for his site as well.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The way the rule has been interpreted historically is not with "strict liability." IOW, if a kid is unaware of the the rule - and hasn't received any remuneration - and prompt action is taken by his or the institution, there has been imposed no period of ineligibility. In fact, the period of ineligibility is computed by dividing playing quarter into the amount of the remuneration. So I wouldn't worry about it, if what UA found is true - no benefit received by the players. I'm sure they investigated "back-door" remuneration - free or discounted suits, etc...

 

[TideFan in AU]

Compliance asked him to remove the stuff twice before they sent the C&D.

I know some of you like to worry about stuff, but right now you're just falling into the barn trap.

I definitely don't "like" to worry about stuff! I just wish they'd quit giving stuff to worry about! Hopefully you're right, and this is nothing.