Posted on: August 16, 2011 8:51 pm
Edited on: August 16, 2011 11:40 pm
Posted by Tom Fornelli
If you're anything like me, you're still trying to wrap your brain around the latest Yahoo! Sports bomb to be detonated, this time at Miami. Unfortunately for plenty of schools around the country, the allegations made against the Miami football program aren't confined to Coral Gables. They even stretch as far as Manhattan, Kansas and the Kansas State football program.
Current Kansas State linebacker and former Miami linebacker Arthur Brown is one of the many players that former Miami booster Nevin Shapiro claims he provided with a variety of benefits while they attended the school. To make matters worse for Kansas State, Brown's brother Bryce Brown -- Kansas State's running back -- was present when his brother received some of these benefits.
Here's a list of the benefits allegedly received by Arthur Brown.
- A dinner at Benihana and a trip to a strip club called The Cheetah in which Shapiro paid for all of Brown's food, drinks and private entertainment at the club.
- Lunch for Brown at Smith and Wollensky's with Brown, his parents, brother Bryce Brown and adviser Brian Butler which totaled $532. A bill paid for by Shapiro.
- Two rooms at the Continental Oceanfront Hotel for Brown, his family and adviser totaling $1,110.19. Paid for by Shapiro.
- Food, drinks and entertainment at Lucky Strike Lanes on at least one occasion.
- Food, drinks and entertainment during pool tournaments at Shapiro's mansion.
- Transportation from Miami staffer Sean Allen at the direction of Shapiro.
At the time of Bryce Brown's visits he was being recruited by Miami.
“[Arthur] also wanted me to meet his brother," Shapiro told Yahoo."Who was going to be the No. 1 recruited player coming out of high school that following year named Bryce Brown. I set up a trip for his mom, dad and spiritual adviser – which is another name for an agent – Brian Butler. They all came in from Kansas. I put them up at a hotel on Miami Beach.”
This is not good news at all for Kansas State, as the team was counting on both the Brown brothers to be major contributors to the team this season. At this point, if Bill Snyder and the Kansas State staff chooses to let them play they run the risk of playing ineligible players which could lead to vacated wins and violations at Kansas State.
So, as you can see, this story is not just Miami's problem.
Posted on: July 26, 2011 5:31 pm
Edited on: July 26, 2011 5:34 pm
Posted by Jerry Hinnen
Aside from Auburn's fans and coaches, there didn't seem to be many people happy with the NCAA's decision last fall to rule Cam Newton eligible after his father Cecil Newton admitted he'd asked Mississippi State boosters for $180,000. That even goes for people who agreed with the NCAA's ruling, like president Mark Emmert, who stated plainly (as Gene Chizik will tell you) that the NCAA had no evidence to rule that Cam knew of his father's request or that the family had received benefits from anyone ... but also affirmed that "I think it's absolutely a fundamentally wrong for a father to try to sell the services of his son or daughter to the highest bidder."
And in the interests of protecting that stance, Emmerts's organization has moved towards making requests like Cecil's an eligibility-breaker in the future. An official release from the NCAA Tuesday details a proposal for an "expanded definition of agents," one that would "include third-party influences, including family members, who market student-athletes’ athletics ability or reputation for personal financial gain."
The statement reads:
Under the new definition, Cecil would have been acting as Cam's "agent" and -- one would assume -- having an agent operating on his behalf (even without his consent) would have resulted in Cam's having been declared ineligible. The definition might also be broad enough to include the likes of "advisors" like Bryce Brown mentor Brian Butler (or, if certain allegations involving Oregon stick, Will Lyles.)
The proposal will be reviewed at the NCAA's 2011-2012 legislative session and could be put into effect as soon as April of next year.
If we play devil's advocate for a moment, we have to wonder if it's entirely fair to prospective athletes to pay the price in elgibility for others' actions they may have no control over. (Consider a scenario similar to the famous Albert Means case: if a high school coach goes behind a recruit's back and asks a school for money in order to push the recruit towards that school, how is that the player's fault? Would their college football career be ruined all the same?)
But all the same, Emmert is right that the attempted sales of athletes' services (whether that sale is completed or not) is "fundamentally wrong." If the NCAA believes the proposed legislation might help stamp out some of those sales pitches, it's legislation they must consider.