Shabazz Muhammad Eligibility

[MCFinARL]

According to ESPN, the NCAA has ruled Muhammad ineligible, with no number of games specified--apparently for the entire season. http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncb/story/_/id/8612665/shabazz-muhammad-ruled-ineligible-ucla-bruins

[rotogod00]

Says that he accepted travel and lodging during 3 unofficial visits to 2 schools, but didn't name the schools. Has that information come out elsewhere?

[dukedoc]

I'm confused as to whether he's ineligible (period) or ineligible with the length of time TBD. To me it would make sense that someone is eligible or not, but some articles are stating that the length of time he's ineligible will be determined subsequently. How does that make any sense? Isn't he either an amateur or not without any middle ground in between?

[Tim1515]

Says that he accepted travel and lodging during 3 unofficial visits to 2 schools, but didn't name the schools. Has that information come out elsewhere?

the schools were Duke and UNC

[kingboozer]

the schools were Duke and UNC
According to that ESPN article,

"Those visits were to Duke and North Carolina and were paid for by a family friend, a source unauthorized to speak publicly on the matter said. The friend, a financial advisor, is the brother of an assistant coach of Muhammad's high school team in Las Vegas."

Glad we dodged that bullet!

[Edouble]

A small protest:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/red-hot-chili-peppers-bassist-flea-spearheads-free-170005043--ncaab.html

[tommy]

Just as an FYI, there are lots of folks on the UCLA boards and others out here who are fairly well connected with UCLA who believe that it was Coach K that turned Shabazz in after either the commitment to UCLA or perhaps even earlier than that when he learned that Shabazz would not be coming to Duke. I haven't seen a shred of evidence of it, and I won't believe it until I do, and I haven't researched what the timing of various events were, but those types of rumors are swirling.

[CameronBlue]

Just as an FYI, there are lots of folks on the UCLA boards and others out here who are fairly well connected with UCLA who believe that it was Coach K that turned Shabazz in after either the commitment to UCLA or perhaps even earlier than that when he learned that Shabazz would not be coming to Duke. I haven't seen a shred of evidence of it, and I won't believe it until I do, and I haven't researched what the timing of various events were, but those types of rumors are swirling.

Swirling rumors, love em. Coach K snitches on Shabazz in exchange for leniency in the Lance Thomas case. Seems like Roy would want a piece of that action all things considered. Maybe Roy and K are co-conspirators? Maybe Cal, Roy AND K are in on it? Not to take a shot at you Tommy but "fairly well connected" is my favorite board phrase usually tantamount to "doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about."

[MCFinARL]

Swirling rumors, love em. Coach K snitches on Shabazz in exchange for leniency in the Lance Thomas case. Seems like Roy would want a piece of that action all things considered. Maybe Roy and K are co-conspirators? Maybe Cal, Roy AND K are in on it? Not to take a shot at you Tommy but "fairly well connected" is my favorite board phrase usually tantamount to "doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about."

Airowe linked this article from CBS Sports in the Shabazz recruiting thread in February, well before Muhammad committed to UCLA. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/17511404/ncaa-warns-schools-to-be-wary-over-top-recruit-muhammads-eligibility This is the same stuff that ultimately led to the ineligibility ruling.

While it's hard to know for sure when Coach K knew that Shabazz Muhammad would not come to Duke, IIRC he was still recruiting him pretty heavily in February. So I'm not thinking Coach K is likely the source here. And there has never been the slightest indication that either Duke or UNC knew anything about the involvement of this financial advisor in the financing of Muhammad's early unofficial visits to both schools.

[CameronBlue]

Airowe linked this article from CBS Sports in the Shabazz recruiting thread in February, well before Muhammad committed to UCLA. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/17511404/ncaa-warns-schools-to-be-wary-over-top-recruit-muhammads-eligibility This is the same stuff that ultimately led to the ineligibility ruling.

While it's hard to know for sure when Coach K knew that Shabazz Muhammad would not come to Duke, IIRC he was still recruiting him pretty heavily in February. So I'm not thinking Coach K is likely the source here. And there has never been the slightest indication that either Duke or UNC knew anything about the involvement of this financial advisor in the financing of Muhammad's early unofficial visits to both schools.

Judging from this quotation "When we went on the visits, we filled out the NCAA compliance forms and fully disclosed that our family friend, Benjamin Lincoln, had paid for the trips" it appears that the "source" was Holmes himself particularly if those forms must be submitted to the NCAA.
.

[MCFinARL]

Judging from this quotation "When we went on the visits, we filled out the NCAA compliance forms and fully disclosed that our family friend, Benjamin Lincoln, had paid for the trips" it appears that the "source" was Holmes himself particularly if those forms must be submitted to the NCAA.
.

Yes, good point. From what I remember reading about this before, the family was upfront about all this and believed what they were doing was within the rules. The fact that the family friend was a financial advisor, and thus presumably someone who might have some future financial interest in Shabazz Muhammad's career, seemed to be what made the NCAA see things differently.

[miramar]

As far as I know, recruits can take unofficial visits whenever they want, but I wonder if Duke (or any other school) monitors the corresponding financial arrangements. It wouldn't be a problem if a family is driving up from Atlanta or down from NJ, but if someone is flying cross country as Muhammad was, then everything gets more complicated. It's a good thing, as the article notes, that he was looking for an Adidas school and that Duke doesn't have to deal with this.

[sagegrouse]

As far as I know, recruits can take unofficial visits whenever they want, but I wonder if Duke (or any other school) monitors the corresponding financial arrangements. It wouldn't be a problem if a family is driving up from Atlanta or down from NJ, but if someone is flying cross country as Muhammad was, then everything gets more complicated. It's a good thing, as the article notes, that he was looking for an Adidas school and that Duke doesn't have to deal with this.

WRT Duke being the source of the complaint to the NCAA: As far as I know, the NCAA doesn't disclose sources. Therefore, any news on the subject would have to come from the person who made the report or be pure supposition -- or worse. Can we conclude that K DID NOT call Ben Howland to tell him he reported Shabazz? Therefore, like most rumors, they are self-serving and worthless.

Moreover, Duke deals with the NCAA enforcers through a compliance officer (or perhaps through the University Counsel, who might speak to the NCAA in-house lawyer). No coach would ever contact the NCAA directly on such a matter -- it would be a serious breakdown in procedure.

sagegrouse

[BD80]

... No coach would ever contact the NCAA directly on such a matter -- it would be a serious breakdown in procedure.

sagegrouse

I believe Jerry Tarkanian regularly contacted NCAA officials regarding its investigation of such matters. Every chance he could. Usually in a form of non-verbal communication, but in no instance was it suitable for publication.

[skopi]

This may have already done the rounds and I apologize if it has, but I saw yesterday that Shabazz was declared ineligible because of he "accepted travel and lodging during three unofficial visits to Duke and North Carolina"

What's the deal?
Was something done wrong by the institutions during these trips or was Shabazz supposed to reimburse afterwards and didn't do so?

[Cameron]

This may have already done the rounds and I apologize if it has, but I saw yesterday that Shabazz was declared ineligible because of he "accepted travel and lodging during three unofficial visits to Duke and North Carolina"

What's the deal?
Was something done wrong by the institutions during these trips or was Shabazz supposed to reimburse afterwards and didn't do so?

From my understanding, the payments had zero to do with Duke or North Carolina. So nothing awry there. Shabazz was given the travel money by a friend of his family, who just so happens to be the brother of Shabazz's AAU coach, and that is in violation of NCAA rules. Actually pretty ridiculous if you ask me, but the way it is.

Now, it's entirely possible that Duke or UNC discovered what was going on and alerted the NCAA in order to clear their names of any wrongdoing. But who knows.

[CameronBornAndBred]

There is already a thread up on this so I'm assuming these posts will be moved. But as to the story itself, since Duke and UNC are only the places he visited and didn't pay for them, it doesn't matter. What is more interesting is the reports now about Muhammad's case handling by the NCAA.


A conversation overheard on an Aug. 7 commuter flight from Chicago to Memphis, Tenn., has prompted attorneys representing UCLA basketball player Shabazz Muhammad to call for the NCAA (http://www.latimes.com/topic/sports/college-sports/national-collegiate-athletic-association-ORSPT000122.topic) to drop its investigation and declare him eligible.


http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-1115-ucla-shabazz-ncaa-20121115,0,1557715.story

[Jderf]

There is already a thread up on this so I'm assuming these posts will be moved. But as to the story itself, since Duke and UNC are only the places he visited and didn't pay for them, it doesn't matter. What is more interesting is the reports now about Muhammad's case handling by the NCAA.


http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-1115-ucla-shabazz-ncaa-20121115,0,1557715.story

WHOA. This has the potential to implode big-time, no?

[cato]

WHOA. This has the potential to implode big-time, no?

Certainly for a certain young lawyer's career (and perhaps her boyfriend's relationship):


A lawyer says she heard a man say on Aug. 7 that his girlfriend was an NCAA attorney investigating Shabazz Muhammad and that he said, 'I can guarantee you that he's not going to play.'

[Jim3k]

Certainly there was a loose lip. But the Muhammad family confessed to the source of the money to UCLA and the NCAA. So the violation is clear. Nothing the NCAA lawyer may have thought or said will change that, no matter what the timing of the overheard conversation may be.

[Jderf]

Certainly there was a loose lip. But the Muhammad family confessed to the source of the money to UCLA and the NCAA. So the violation is clear. Nothing the NCAA lawyer may have thought or said will change that, no matter what the timing of the overheard conversation may be.

Confessed seems like a strong word. As I understood the situation, wasn't everything originally reported by the Muhammad family, above board? I could be wrong, but I thought the source of the money was a family friend and that the Muhammads were confident that everything was in order, only to have the NCAA come out and declare it a violation months later. If it turns out that people within the NCAA had been out to get Muhammad all along, I could see things getting very ugly.

Of course, it could also end up being nothing. I have no idea.

[Jim3k]

Confessed seems like a strong word. As I understood the situation, wasn't everything originally reported by the Muhammad family, above board? I could be wrong, but I thought the source of the money was a family friend and that the Muhammads were confident that everything was in order, only to have the NCAA come out and declare it a violation months later. If it turns out that people within the NCAA had been out to get Muhammad all along, I could see things getting very ugly.

Of course, it could also end up being nothing. I have no idea.

OK. Maybe "reported" or "admitted" would be better than "confessed," though there is a not a lot of logical difference here. However characterized, the NCAA knew the source from the get-go. Whether the family thought receiving the travel money was above-board or not, the payment was known and whatever rule that applies to a third party source was applied. It also seems to me that even if the family made an error in accepting the payment, and that seems likely, it should be curable.

Once the family accurately "confessed, admitted, or reported" the source, the NCAA investigator's airplane comment becomes irrelevant insofar as the NCAA's ultimate decision is concerned. Now the NCAA needs to provide an avenue to allow for the player to undo the error.

[Jderf]

OK. Maybe "reported" or "admitted" would be better than "confessed," though there is a not a lot of logical difference here. However characterized, the NCAA knew the source from the get-go. Whether the family thought receiving the travel money was above-board or not, the payment was known and whatever rule that applies to a third party source was applied. It also seems to me that even if the family made an error in accepting the payment, and that seems likely, it should be curable.

Once the family accurately "confessed, admitted, or reported" the source, the NCAA investigator's airplane comment becomes irrelevant insofar as the NCAA's ultimate decision is concerned. Now the NCAA needs to provide an avenue to allow for the player to undo the error.

That's perfectly fair. Sorry for getting a little pedantic right there. For what it's worth, here's Eamonn Brennan's take (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/67210/muhammad-eligibility-keeps-getting-weirder).

[dcdevil2009]

That's perfectly fair. Sorry for getting a little pedantic right there. For what it's worth, here's Eamonn Brennan's take (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/67210/muhammad-eligibility-keeps-getting-weirder).

Initially, I wasn't sure how I felt about this. I agree with Brennan that the NCAA's attorneys shouldn't be commenting about their work in progress to anyone, and in turn, those people should also not be talking about it, but at the same time, if the NCAA had evidence of him getting paid from its 8 days of investigation, he should still be ineligible if there isn't a justification for it. On one hand, there should be transparency and on the other, the NCAA shouldn't make judgments without knowing all of the facts. Imagine if it had been the other way around and she had said that he was innocent and they had no evidence, then the NCAA ruled him ineligible. Should the earlier statement govern or should the results of the full investigation? Personally, I don't think what she said should matter one way or the other. If there is evidence he took money, and more than just airfare etc., which the NCAA has allowed to be returned in the form of charitable contributions, then he should be ineligible. If the only evidence they have is what's being reported, then he should be treated just like other "amateur" athletes who have been found to have violated minor amateurism rules, return the money and/or serve the suspension.

[MCFinARL]

Initially, I wasn't sure how I felt about this. I agree with Brennan that the NCAA's attorneys shouldn't be commenting about their work in progress to anyone, and in turn, those people should also not be talking about it, but at the same time, if the NCAA had evidence of him getting paid from its 8 days of investigation, he should still be ineligible if there isn't a justification for it. On one hand, there should be transparency and on the other, the NCAA shouldn't make judgments without knowing all of the facts. Imagine if it had been the other way around and she had said that he was innocent and they had no evidence, then the NCAA ruled him ineligible. Should the earlier statement govern or should the results of the full investigation? Personally, I don't think what she said should matter one way or the other. If there is evidence he took money, and more than just airfare etc., which the NCAA has allowed to be returned in the form of charitable contributions, then he should be ineligible. If the only evidence they have is what's being reported, then he should be treated just like other "amateur" athletes who have been found to have violated minor amateurism rules, return the money and/or serve the suspension.

Well, the eight days piece of things may be a red herring. According to the LA Times story, the plane blab came just 8 days after the NCAA had asked the family for documents and before those documents were provided. But the specified basis for the ruling of ineligibility was the funding of unofficial visits by financial advisor Benjamin Lincoln, identified as a family friend by Mr. Muhammad. And, again according to Mr. Muhammad, as reported last February (see my post and Cameron Blue's earlier in this thread for a link and quotation), they filed appropriate documentation with the NCAA long ago--so the NCAA investigators may already have known, and had proof of, the information supporting the charge--they just needed to give the Muhammads a full opportunity to provide any additional information.

This doesn't excuse the investigator's relaying confidential information to her boyfriend nor his buffoonish bragging about it on an airplane. But it does tend to undercut the implication that the NCAA was determined to find Muhammad ineligible before they had any information.

Here's the piece that interests me, though. The LA Times article notes, "In its ruling against Muhammad, the NCAA said that in addition to other "pending issues," he accepted airfare and lodging for three unofficial recruiting visits. The visits were to Duke and North Carolina and were paid for by financial advisor Benjamin Lincoln." Could this be a situation like pursuing bootleggers for tax evasion, where the NCAA believes or suspects that there is something else going on that they can't prove so they impose a very severe penalty for something relatively small that they have apparently known about for a long time and the athlete made no attempt to hide?

[BD80]

UCLA is appealing the ruling of ineligibility.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/20985597/ucla-files-appeal-of-muhammad-ineligibility

Wonder if Adidas is "footing" the legal bill. Any Cali lawyers that can opine on Shabazz's right to work? He's been (being?) paid to play for an Adidas team, shouldn't he be allowed to provide the services paid for?

The other ucla freshmen wore "Free Shabazz" t-shirts before the most recent game. That might be considered an indecent proposal at Venice Beach.

Kidding aside, from the whispers linking Shabazz's family (or family friend) to Adidas, it would not surprise me if the NCAA fights this one throughout the season, hoping to discourage such close association between sponsors and athletes at this level.

[Atlanta Duke]

Joe Nocera of The New York Times plays the race card

Race and the N.C.A.A.

On Monday night, a U.C.L.A. freshman named Shabazz Muhammad scored 15 points in his highly anticipated college basketball debut, as his Bruins lost to the Georgetown Hoyas, 78-70. ...

Three of the most high-profile eligibility cases this basketball season — Muhammad, Nerlens Noel at Kentucky and Rodney Purvis at North Carolina State — are African-American. Five Ohio State football players who were suspended for trading some of their Ohio State gear for tattoos in 2010 were African-American. Ditto the 14 North Carolina football players who got embroiled in a scandal two years ago. ...

Could it be that the N.C.A.A. rules are inherently discriminatory, or that its investigators are primed to think the worst of talented black football and basketball players, even before an inquiry?

Nah. Must just be a coincidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/opinion/nocera-race-and-the-ncaa.html?hp