Scene: At the house of a former college football player from a BCS school. A current player from that same school  fidgets nervously with his phone before dialing a number from a card he has just taken from his wallet.

Player(dialing): Now they said to call this number if we had any questions so let’s see if they can help.

Rings–click

Automated Voice: Thank you for call the NCAA’s Compliance and Eligibility Hotline. Calls may be monitored to ensure we can make a case against you at a later date. If you think you might be  in the presence of an agent or someone who could be an agent, please hang up the phone, barricade yourself in the nearest closet and call your school compliance office immediately. We are currently busy assisting other student-athletes. Please hold and one of our trained compliance representatives will be with your shortly.

Player: What? I am on hold. How many other guys could be calling them at this hour?

Automated Voice: Thank you for waiting. You eligibility is very important to us. One of our representatives will be with you short–

Rings–click

Compliance Representative: Thank you for calling the NCAA Compliance and Eligibility Hotline, my name is Karen, how may I assist you?

Player: Hey, yeah, my name is Jason and I play football for Big State University. I am have some questions about a trip I am taking right now.

Compliance Representative: Okay, I will be glad to help. First of all, let me ask if you are presently in contact with an agent or have been in contact with an agent recently.

Player: No, ma’am. No agents.

Compliance Representative: Okay, super. So please tell me the nature of the problem.

Player: Okay, right. So a few months back I met up with a former player from my school. We became friends and he invited me down to his house in Orlando. So I came, you know and I thought I knew all the rules so I paid for my plane ticket, brought some money for food but when I got here we decided to go to Sea World and hit a few places to eat. Anyway, I ran out of money and realized I forgot my checkbook so this dude has been picking up my expenses.

Compliance Representative: Okay

Player: Now I know I he can’t provide me stuff like this so I want to pay him back but I can’t do it right now. I guess what I need to know is whether I can just do it later?

Compliance Representative: Okay, I can certainly help you out. First of all, what kind of items has this individual been paying for?

Player: Well, he paid for my ticket to Sea World, a meal at Outback, a couple of fast food joints.

Compliance Representative: Can you put a dollar amount on the items?

Player: Yeah, we figured it up and I think it came to like $350 total.

Compliance Representative: Okay, and you cannot pay him back for that right now?

Player: No ma’am. I don’t have money with me but I would be able to pay him once I got back to campus.

Compliance Representative: Okay. I am sure that will be fine. I just need to collect a little more information. Where are you staying at while you are visiting this friend?

Player: At his house.

Compliance Representative: How many nights are you staying there?

Player: Four nights.

Compliance Representative: What kind of house is it?

Player: Um…what do you mean?

Compliance Representative: Is it a ranch, two story, palatial estate, condo or apartment?

Player: It is a two story house.

Compliance Representative: Okay, how many bedrooms does it have?

Player: I think it has four bedrooms.

Compliance Representative: Baths?

Player: Two or three, I think.

Compliance Representative: Is there a bonus room, formal dining and living room?

Player: I am not sure.

Compliance Representative: Do you know how many square feet the house is?

Player: Not really(covers mouth piece) Hey, Jimmy, how big is your house…NCAA wants to know…3200 square feet? Okay, thanks. Ma’am? Yeah, its 3200 square feet.

Compliance Representative: Have they cooked any meals for you?

Player: Two or three.

Compliance Representative: Have you used any towels, soap, toothpaste, toilet paper.

Player: I used their towels and their toilet paper.

Compliance Representative: Okay. How long have your showers been?

Player: Um…I am not really sure…maybe 10 minutes?

Compliance Representative: Okay. Hold one moment please.

The jazzy tones of Kenny G playing One Shining Moment can be heard.

Compliance Representative: Okay. Here is what you need to do. For all the items the former player has paid for, you will need to pay him back as soon as possible. Once you do that we will also need you to call your compliance office and let them know the same information you have told me. Also be sure to tell them is imperative they self report these violations right away so that can be considered as a mitigating factor.

Player: Wait a minute. Violations…I thought all I had to do is pay him back for the things he paid for and it wouldn’t be a violation.

Compliance Representative: Well, not exactly. You see you have already taken money from him so paying back means we won’t count that against you. Let me total up the benefits here. You said $350 for various items, plus the lodging, use of water, towels, a few meals, toilet paper….let’s see…ah factor in increased HVAC costs for another person being there. One more thing, did you leave his fridge open for longer than 10 seconds while deciding what you wanted to eat?

Player: Yes.

Compliance Representative: Okay. Based on what you have told me and factoring in the other items including the lodging which is equivalent to staying at a Courtyard by Marriott, your impermissible benefits come to $1125.23.

Player: What? Are you serious? I don’t have that much! I understand the other stuff but where did you get that number from?

Compliance Representative: Now please calm down. The amount comes from the value we place on every benefit provided to you that this individual that exceeds what he could have provided to you were he still a student-athlete. Now, there is no need to panic. You did the right thing by calling. This can be self reported which will allow us to launch an investigation quickly.

Player: Well how long is that going to take?

Compliance Representative: I expect the investigation team will move fairly quickly, so shouldn’t be more than 2-3 months.

Player: WHAT?!?!? But the season starts in five weeks! I mean can I still practice and play while you guys figure this out?

Compliance Representative: Well, practicing shouldn’t be a problem but I would not recommend playing unless you want to see any wins vacated after the fact.

Player: So you are saying I am going to be declared ineligible?

Compliance Representative: Oh yes, that much is a given. But it’s okay, the investigation guys will come in, ask some questions of you, maybe some of your teammates just to get a lay of the land. After they gather their information they will report back to the NCAA enforcement division who will recommend a penalty for you…and quite possibly others.

Player: What kind of penalty? What do you mean others?

Compliance Representative: Let’s see given the amount of the benefits you received you are probably looking at 30% of the season or four games and if we find out you talked to an agent or even looked at one that could go to six. Now when I saw others that is not certain but we usually find once we get to a school and start asking questions we find all sorts of violations just bubbling right under the surface. On average we find between 5-7 other players have been taking trips and accepting all kinds of gifts they shouldn’t.

Player: Oh geez…I can’t believe this. I thought you people were supposed to help me but it sounds like all you want to do is screw me and my team over.

Compliance Representative:(to herself while typing)…subject became belligerent and uncooperative….

Player: Wait…what are you typing…what are you talking about? I am being cooperative. I called you guys remember? I am trying to pay this stuff back I just wanted to know if I could do it later. I didn’t mean to cause a big fuss. I just wanted to make sure I was following the rules not open up a freaking inquisition.

Compliance Representative: Hmmm…okay. Well, I’m sorry. You really cannot un-ring the bell now can you? Anyway, that is all I needed for my report. I will forward this to our investigators. Now remember your school has to self report within five days or else we will file a letter of inquiry and nail all your sorry butts to the wall for trying to duck the rules. Is there anything else I can help you with?

Player:(resigned) No, I think that’s it.

Compliance Representative: Great! Thank you for calling the NCAA Compliance and Eligibility Hotline. You have a good evening,

CLICK!

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest a new rule for student-athletes at UNC.

Don’t take anything from anyone. Someone drops a dollar on the street, leave it there. Someone offers you a ride home, walk. Hide your kids, hide your wife because the NCAA is suspending everyone.

I am not sure to what extent taking impermissible benefits was impressed on these players. Since they made an effort to pay off part of the benefit it would seem Deunta Williams and Kendric Burney were aware of their responsibilities. However, they obviously did not do enough. They committed violations and they will pay the price both in currency and games. I don’t have a problem with discipline if the case has been proven. I do have a problem with the illogical and inconsistent meting out of discipline by the NCAA without a hint of transparency. I do not care for having an organization being judge, jury, appeals court and executioner that cannot be held accountable. The NCAA is no different than referees who interpret the rules but are never forced to explain themselves to the media. If you are going to hold all the power of the lives of 18-22 year old kids when they commit violations at least have the guts to stand up and own what you are doing.

The other issue I have is just how quickly a student-athlete can slide into a violation. It is like these guys are walking on an icy hill. One slip and down they go landing somewhere maybe they never intended to go. I do not want to portray these guys as victims because they are not. They made their bed and now it’s bedtime. However I can also see how easy it is to screw up. Williams and Burney meet Omar Brown who is a former UNC player. Having a former student-athlete who, by all accounts, has a successful career should serve as a nice role model for these guys right? And the NCAA would probably say they have no issue with such a relationship. In fact such a relationship should be encouraged. And so it goes. Williams and Burney becomes good friends with Brown. They take up an offer to visit him in California. During the course of taking these visits the lines gets skewed and the boundaries muddled. Brown picks them up at the airport. Brown pays for a few pizzas. Maybe Brown pays for other things he shouldn’t. Williams and Burney know this and either don’t know it is a violation or apply the same relative morality all of us apply in life. You know when we justify a little white lie here or not telling the cashier they did not charge us enough for something. Burney’s father says his son was careful. Even UNC thought Williams had covered all his expenses. However the lines get hazy sometimes. Not to mention how many of these guys keep receipts. Heck, how many of us actually hold onto receipts for things we buy? We probably do for bigger purchase items. Take for example the trip I took to Korea in February to adopt out fourth child. I can account for money I spent on my credit card but I also spent money using local currency. I am not really sure how much that is because I tossed the receipts. The point is not only do players have to be able to discern what kind of person they are associating with but they apparently also have to keep meticulous track of their expenses. Funny that a student will a full ride to major in music or business does not have to do the same. A regular student can walk into Suttons, make friends with Omar Brown, go to California and Brown can pay for a variety of things, no one cares. A student-athlete does it and it is a problem.

Therein lies the great hypocrisy of it all. The NCAA’s mantra, where student-athletes are concerned, is they must be treated the same as a regular student. Except they are not treated the same. They are subject to rules other students are not subjected to because of the NCAA eligibility. While the NCAA proclaims athletes must be equal with regular students they are not treated the same way. That runs both ways. In one respect they are lauded and revered. They enjoy status and they have a free ride for tuition and lodging. But it comes with a price. It comes with a incredibly complicated and large NCAA rule book which governs aspects of their lives while their fellow student is not subject to the same edicts.

Again, I am not arguing Williams or Burney or the rest should not be punished. They broke the rules and the NCAA found them guilty. My gripe here is the rules themselves. I understand them in some cases. If you are talking about boosters giving players $100 handshakes or agents providing benefits, then there obviously should be some governance of that. A free flow of money and gifts to some athletes but not others would create inequity and I imagine invite corruption into the games themselves. However, in the two cases before us right now you have a former player socializing with two current players and in the course of that benefits were given. Burney and Williams should probably have known better and honestly Brown should have as well considering he was one an athlete at UNC himself. Still, it is easy to see how the rules, which can be draconian at times, cause even the simplest acts to be problematic for the student-athlete in question.

As for Burney’s association with Chris Hawkins, this is what the NCAA rule says about player contact with agents or agent-like creatures:

Example: A student-athlete is befriended by a runner for an agent. The student-athlete is unaware of the connection between the runner and agent. The runner gives the student-athlete long-distance calling cards, pays for meals, articles of clothing and a new car stereo. The student-athlete never asks why the runner is providing him with these items.

The student-athlete’s educational institution becomes aware of the runner’s identity and the provision of benefits to the student-athlete.

The institution must declare the student-athlete ineligible for intercollegiate competition. The institution decides to ask for the reinstatement of the student-athlete’s eligibility and sends a request to the NCAA staff.

At a minimum, the student-athlete will be required to repay the value of the impermissible benefits and will be withheld from a certain number of contests, based on case precedent.

Try not to laugh too loudly over that last line about basing a punishment on case precedent. That would mean the NCAA acts consistently from case-to-case and we all know that is not true. The example is interesting. Basically, ignorance of the player regarding the individual’s status as an agent or runner is not a valid defense. Now, I agree with the notion that Burney has to know better when it comes to receiving benefits from anyone. Whether he knew Hawkins’ status or not is moot. Burney needs to be careful. His father claims his son was careful but the NCAA disagreed so here we are. The issue I would take with the above example has to do with whether or not the NCAA informs schools who is an agent or agent-like creature(known henceforth as an ALC, hat tip: Doc) Does the NCAA keep a master list of all ALCs? Do they share than information with the schools? How long has Hawkins been considered an ALC by the NCAA? Did they make that declaration during the A.J. Green case? Was it made two years ago? Four years ago? If Hawkins was labeled an ALC as a part of the the A.J. Green case then pray tell how was Burney supposed to know he was dealing with an ALC? Hawkins was a former player and was at UNC like many former players. Setting aside the fact he was kicked off the team a few years ago and his drug arrest which no one knew about until last week, why would Hawkins’ presence be an issue if the NCAA did not bother to tell anyone he was an ALC? I am not trying to spin this but pose a serious question. Take any former player you like from any program in the country and ask if the NCAA says they are an ALC but did not tell anyone and he shows up at his former school why would anyone question it?

My point is the rules create a precarious perch on which student-athletes sit. For my money, they should simply err on the side of caution by refusing any benefit in any form whether it be five dollars for lunch or a ride to Bojangles. They should talk about any questionable issue with compliance as soon as possible. Then again that is probably easier said than done during the normal flow of life. I joked on an earlier post that UNC players need to have Amy Herman on speed dial and call her up at 2 AM to see if it is okay to ride with someone and gets some pizza. Unfortunately there is some truth to that. Given the complexity of the rules, a player can never really be sure who or what he/she is dealing with in any situation. Hawkins to this day is running around telling anyone who will listen he has done nothing wrong and has the players’ best interest at heart. First of all, Chris, shut your pie hole and go away. Secondly, if Hawkins truly believes he does not understand why the NCAA considers him an ALC and Burney asked him, “Hey Chris, are you one of those ALCs?” and Hawkins says “No, dude” then I can see how Burney might not think Hawkins paying for something is an issue if the two have developed a friendship. Of course with Hawkins it is a double-whammy of sorts since he is also a former player like Brown. So Burney should have known better but at the same time the slippery slope still applies.

The problem for me is not that the players were punished for breaking rules. My problem is I think the rules should be reformed to make it easier for the players to know which end is up. Basically I am making the same argument people who are ague for a flat Federal income tax make. Instead of different levels of taxation, some say just make everyone pay the same rate. Where the NCAA rules are concerned instead of worrying about who is a booster or an ALC simplify it.

• Spell out clearly what benefits are.
• Establish family members as the only people who may give said benefits without limit
• Allow former teammates to provide benefits up to a certain reasonable limit.
• Benefits coming from anyone else are prohibited.
• Establish dollar amounts to determine severity of violations, punishments and follow them to the letter.
• Do not suspend for first time offenses unless the benefits are egregious or multiple in nature. Even then shoot for 10% of the season not 30% to half.

That would be like what, two pages? Heck you could fit the highlights on a card the player could carry in his wallet.

It is entirely possible I am missing something in the bigger picture. Having been a student-athlete I know how it works. Revenue sports athletes have an added element they have to deal with because of the professional leagues not to mention to grotesque amount of money being earned by the NCAA, the conference, school and their own head coach. Still, I just do not think it is all that complicated. I think it would be much easier to have simple, hard rules with some leeway built into them than the pages on pages of legalese not even the compliance office fully understands. To paraphrase Princess Lea, “The more you tighten your grip, the more schools will slip through your fingers.” Severe punishments are meant to be a deterrent but when the punishments are arbitrary and lack transparency they lose their effectiveness. Every parent knows that if you drop the hammer on a child without making a clear explanation as to why the punishment fits the crime, the punishment is not helpful. Also, if the punishment for the same wrong varies from one day to the next then it confuses the child further. If the NCAA wants to be the parent then do what good parents do: Make it simple, consistent and merciful.

Inside Carolina has learned that the NCAA investigation surrounding the UNC football program centers on improper benefits provided to the NFL Draft prospects that elected to come back for the 2010 season. The NCAA inquired about benefits that included rent, jewelry and travel.

The investigation includes seniors Marvin Austin, a defensive tackle, and Greg Little, a wide receiver, but is not limited to them. The NFL Draft prospects in question weren’t the only ones interviewed by the NCAA representatives.

Joe Schad also tweeted that Marvin Austin was asked about driving former UNC and current San Francisco 49er Kentwan Balmer’s vehicle and if he stayed in his apartment.

Obviously there is still more to be revealed but if they find players received improper benefits from agents then we are probably looking at suspensions and the players paying back the gifts which it what happened to John Wall at Kentucky.

–

So, does this mean UNC is now a legitimate football program?

Inside Carolina first broke the story that the NCAA was on campus having a heart-to-heart with UNC football players for issues not related to academics. Just in the last hour, ACC Now has narrowed it down to the NCAA talking with two Tar Heels about improper contact with an agent.

The NCAA is investigating two University of North Carolina football players in connection with possible improper involvement with sports agents, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.

UNC athletic director Dick Baddour confirmed Thursday that the NCAA “had been to Chapel Hill to speak with some of our student-athletes” but declined to provide further details.

“We told [the NCAA] we will give them our total cooperation and maintain the confidence of their visit and review,” Baddour said Thursday.

Baddour said he had spoken at length with NCAA representatives about the issue.

“I’m going to do exactly what they ask me to do,” Baddour said. “We work hard in doing things the right way.”

NCAA representatives met with the players on Monday and Tuesday, according to a source.

When the story broke, some sort of issue with an agent was bantered about as the most probably issue being investigated. UNC has several highly touted NFL prospects, some of who flirted with the idea of heading to the NFL before opting to play another season at UNC.

ESPN’s Joe Schad said on Twitter that the purpose of the NCAA’s visit was “to make sure no Reggie Bush stuff is going on.” Schad also indicated that one of the players interviewed was Marvin Austin. Update: According to Schad, the NCAA asked players who was paying their rent. In other words they are wondering if anyone is pulling a “Reggie Bush.”

It is possible this there is nothing to see here and the NCAA is simply looking into a situation will looks ripe for violations involving agents. Hopefully they find nothing and we can move on.  That being said, this is an awfully aggressive move on the part of the NCAA. Obviously dropping the hammer on USC was just the beginning. Apparently the infractions committee has decided to be more preemptive in their approach.

And if you are interested in conspiracy theories you can have a lot of fun with the fact the infractions committee is being headed by former Miami AD Paul Dee. The same Paul Dee who hired Butch Davis at Miami and was subsequently left at the altar when Davis went to Cleveland.

For now, we wait and see and hope everyone is eligible come September.

Nebraska is poised to join the Big Ten.

Colorado has received an offer to join the Pac 10 and accepted it.

As someone pointed out on Twitter, the Pac 10 has eleven teams, the Big Ten has twelve teams and the Big 12 has ten teams. Of course no one expects that to remain the case, especially if this report from a Kansas City TV station is proven correct which has Texas and Texas A&M going to the Big Ten, Oklahoma going to the SEC and Oklahoma St going to the Pac 10. That is on top of another scenario which had six former Big 12 teams heading to the Pac 10 to form a sixteen team league which would not have a title game and demand two BCS automatic bids.

And in Lawrence, Bill Self is in the fetal position under his desk cradling the 2008 NCAA Championship trophy muttering: “There’s no place like home…there’s no place like home….”

Oh and the NCAA just nailed the USC football program to the freaking wall. The Trojans got a two year bowl ban, lost 30 scholarships and must vacate wins in 2004 and 2005 which includes the 2004 BCS title game vs Oklahoma. Somewhere in Los Angeles, Lane Kiffin is in the fetal position underneath his desk humming “Rocky Top.”

I hope Jim Calhoun and UConn are paying attention because it is readily apparent Dad is upset and their butt is next in line.

Week #1:
Thursday/Friday(traditional start): 1st round(i.e. bottom 64 teams)
Saturday/Sunday: Round of 64(32 1st round winners vs 32 bye teams)

Week #2:
Tuesday/Wednesday: Round of 32
Thursday/Friday: Sweet Sixteen
Saturday/Sunday: Elite Eight

Week #3:
Saturday: Final Four
Monday: National Championship

Everyone assumed that the NCAA would simply play the new 1st round on Tuesday/Wednesday and then have round of 64 start on the Thursday it normally starts.  Not so. The plan is to have teams play three games in five days during the 2nd week. Feinstein’s point, which Shaheen dodged like it was going to hurt him, was that teams advancing to the 2nd week could miss a whole week of class.  Granted that would happen if they did it the first week but when you consider top 32 seed would miss half the first week then potentially all of the 2nd week after having done a conference tournament the previous week then you are basically having players out of class for most of 2-3 weeks. Also, by putting the three games in one week in the middle of the tournament you are ensuring a high seed like UNC(in most seasons) would play Saturday, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday with travel from one site to the next mixed in there somewhere.

The other issue is the simplicity of the bracket and the schedule as it stands now is ruined but none of that matters.  Not to mention the difficulty for fans to be able to follow their team through the tournament seeing they would have to take a week off of work to do so as pointed out by ESPN’s Dana O’Neil. The more I see of this monstrosity, the worse it looks from the diluting of the regular season to an incredibly tough schedule to win a tournament which is already difficult to win in its current form. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of all is the fact a money hungry NCAA is willing to screw with something everyone loves(the NCAA Tournament) while refusing to address the postseason everyone hates(the BCS) all while making the opposite arguments to justify both.

Crossposted in part at Thee Sports Blog

In the meantime, go ahead and chew on this hard hitting piece from Gary Parrish who basically asks why Duke got a free pass over Corey Maggette when Memphis had their season vacated when both were guilty of using an ineligible player.

For those unfamiliar, here’s the deal: A summer basketball coach named Myron Piggie made cash payments to Maggette when the elite recruit was still in high school, and that money came from a revenue pool that included donations from at least two sports agents. Connect the dots, and it’s clear Maggette benefited from money supplied by agents, meaning his amateur status was compromised. Still, none of this was public knowledge at the time. So the NCAA cleared Maggette to play at Duke, and he helped the Blue Devils reach the 1999 Final Four before entering the 1999 NBA Draft.

Less than a year later, a federal grand jury handed down an 11-count indictment of Piggie that details the payments to Maggette. Piggie cut a deal and admitted to making the payments; Maggette admitted to receiving the payments. So none of this falls under the he said/she said umbrella, and the NCAA’s Jane Jankowski was quoted in April 2000 as saying that the NCAA “will have to determine if Duke, in fact, had an ineligible player in the NCAA tournament. And, if so, what monies would have to be returned for use of an ineligible player.”

Fast-forward nine years, and nothing.

Despite promising to do so, the NCAA has never officially determined if Duke, in fact, had an ineligible player in the NCAA tournament. It just sort of went away, disappeared, and that 1999 Final Four still officially belongs to Duke. Yahoo! Sports Dan Wetzel wrote about the case in 2004, reintroduced it to the public consciousness, and the NCAA basically responded by not responding at all. Why? Because the governing body doesn’t typically comment on ongoing investigations … or even ones that have apparently been shoved to the side forever.

Duke benefited from a double standard? Surely you can’t be serious!

See in a week.

When you read Ken Tysiac’s explanation of the rule which has now been approved by the NCAA, it sounds even more ridiculous than I first thought in terms of expecting officials to get it right:

If a help defender has even a part of a foot in that roughly 24-inch area and is involved in contact on a drive, that defender automatically will be called for a defensive foul.

Once more I wonder: How is the official supposed to be able an ascertain whether a player’s foot is in the zone with the arch on the floor? The rule by definition requires the official to know where a player is in relation to the rim/backboard. If that is the case how an official to make that determination without looking up for the position and down to check the feet movement at the same time?

What will happen is the officials are going to do the same thing umpires in baseball do which is determine their own “strike zone” within the basic guidelines.  That also means the charge zone is going to be different based on the referee and quite frankly based on the speed of the play, the number of players in area obstructing the officials’ view so on and so forth.  In the end there will be very little in the way of uniform enforcement of this rule and it sends shivers down my spine to think how much Karl Hess is going to botch this one up.

Remember the proposed rule change in basketball that would create a restricted area under the basket but did not include the arch?

Hack said that because of NCAA rules, it would have taken four years for the arc to go through all the proper channels and committees, before it could be permanently painted on all the floors.

“We were thinking, ‘How can we add something that will be beneficial right away?’” Hack said.

The NBA solved this problem a few years back, adding a four-foot “no-charge” arc to its courts. If a player attempts to force an offensive foul in the restricted area, it’s a defensive foul.

Simple, right?

Not so much for the NCAA’s officials.

The new rule is meant to “prohibit a secondary defender from establishing a guarding position in that area,” according to the news release. Hack said that if a help defender has any part of a foot in the roughly-24-inch area and draws contact, officials automatically are supposed to call a defensive foul.

Without a designated semicircle, however, officials will not only have to make the quick call as to whether a collision is a block or a charge, but also whether the block/charge occurred in the restricted — and unmarked — zone.

Never mind the officials wanted it. Never mind it makes too much freaking sense.  Also never mind the NCAA makes money hand over fist. Yet it cannot get a small arch painted on the courts of its signatory schools in a timely manner. If painting such an arch on the court would stop coaches from text messaging recruits I am fairly certain it would be on there by next month. I do understand you would need some prep time, probably another year, for all of the schools to make it happen because such a move obviously would need to be part of any athletic department’s budget. But four years? And that is to go through the “proper channels and committees.”  How many committees would such a rule have to go through?

The NCAA is worse than the United States Congress in getting things down in a timely, common sense manner and that is setting the bar so low, ants trip over it.

The Memphis Commercial Appeal first reported the story on Wednesday after obtaining a letter detailing the allegations through the Freedom of Information Act.

The allegations include “knowing fraudulence or misconduct” on an SAT exam by a player on the 2007-08 team.

The wording of the letter to Memphis indicates that the player in question only competed during the 2007-08 season and the 2008 NCAA tournament. The player’s name was redacted in the letter due to privacy laws.

Sources told ESPN.com Wednesday night that Derrick Rose was the player in question. He only played one year for Memphis before being selected No. 1 in the 2008 draft by the Chicago Bulls.

You could really go any number of directions with this from “hey this is what happens with the stupid age limit” to “every program John Calipari runs  ends up in trouble.” Granted Calipari is not named in the report which is Big Blue’s spin at the moment but if something happens once it’s a fluke or random. If it happens twice you are looking at a pattern that usually involved one common factor.  In both the case of UMass and Memphis have been left wading through the NCAA enforcement division following Calipari’s tenure. In the case of UMass it cost them their Final Four appearance.  The same thing could happen with Memphis.

Exit question: Since we have a clear pattern of Calipari leaving programs with NCAA troubles can we expect the folks in Indianapolis to cast an ever vigilant eye towards Lexington?

HARRISON BARNES PLEASE COME TO UNC!

I’ll be waiting for my cease and desist letter.