No harm in appealing, but don’t look for victory, either

By Ken Rogers

Published: June 18, 2009

I can’t see any harm in Alabama appealing last week’s sanctions for widespread violations it uncovered in its textbook distribution program.

Of course, I also can’t see Alabama winning on appeal, either.

The appeals process is a swing-for-the-fences deal. There are no repercussions if you lose. The NCAA can’t add to the punishment—which consisted of public reprimand, a $43,900 fine, three years of probation and the loss of 21 football victories in the 2005 through 2007 seasons and an NCAA tournament tennis victory. More importantly, it did NOT include scholarship reductions, a bowl ban or restrictions of television appearances.

So if you’re willing to pay some lawyers for their time and talent—and Alabama isn’t lacking in that category—why not try it?

Of course, I’d bet on Northview beating Florida in the Swamp before predicting an Alabama win in this case.

Why? First, Alabama is guilty. University president Robert Witt admitted that last Thursday. Alabama turned itself in, launched its own thorough investigation into the matter and as far back as it could find—which was only three years due to a change in software that reliably logged such data—discovered widespread problems.

Witt’s statement Wednesday announcing Alabama’s intention to appeal gave an indication of how Alabama will proceed.

“We appreciate that the Committee recognized the isolated nature of this violation as well as UA’s immediate and aggressive actions to correct the situation as soon as we discovered the problem,“ Witt’s statement read.

“Isolated nature?“ Sixteen sports and 201 athletes received “impermissible benefits,“ the investigation showed. Yes, most of those were inadvertent mistakes, some even clerical errors. The report duly noted those as “unintentional violators.“ It also found 22 “intentional violators,“ seven of whom were football players.

“... We are disappointed with the excessiveness of the sanctions in view of the facts of this case and the penalties in other textbook infractions cases,“ Witt said in the statement released by the university. “There is no evidence or allegations of other NCAA violations; no coaches or administrators were involved; no players obtained books and sold them for cash, and all the books were returned or charged to the student’s account as required by the UA textbook policy in effect at that time.“

Well, at least the school monitored some part of its textbook policy. But it doesn’t change the facts.

And the timing of these violations came during the window in which Alabama was considered a “repeat violator.“ That alone subjected Alabama to more severe sanctions from the Committee on Infractions. To its credit, the committee looked at the facts of the case, decided they didn’t warrant anything more drastic and tried to punish the players or teams that played these “intentional violators.“

It could have imposed stiffer penalties. The good news was that nothing has hampered Alabama in moving forward in football or any other sport. No scholarship reductions, no bowl bans, nothing.

So, a repeat offender turns itself in, essentially asks for leniency, gets it, but still wants to appeal the sentence?

Good luck winning that one, Perry Mason.

“We are in the process of preparing our Notice of Appeal and will file it prior to the 15-day deadline (June 26).  The University of Alabama remains committed to doing things the right way, and we will continue to work with the NCAA and the SEC as we focus on strict compliance with all NCAA regulations.”