The ongoing investigation of Georgia running back Todd Gurley is the latest in a series of high-profile cases involving college football players accused of receiving improper benefits.
Previous cases, including one at Georgia and one at Georgia Tech, demonstrate that the NCAA takes such matters seriously and that the consequences can be severe.
The NCAA has guidelines that address the range of penalties to be imposed, starting with a one-game ban for improperly accepting $100 to a four-game ban for taking more than $700. But previous cases show the NCAA can depart from the guidelines, in either direction.
As Georgia awaits a decision on Gurley, here’s a review of how some other cases turned out:
Ohio State: In December 2010, the NCAA suspended quarterback Terrelle Pryor and four other Ohio State players for the first five games of the 2011 season for selling memorabilia and receiving discounts from a Columbus, Ohio, tattoo parlor.
The value of the benefits ranged from $1,000 to $2,500. Although the guidelines called for four-game suspensions, a fifth game was tacked on because the players didn’t come forward upon realizing their actions violated the rules, the NCAA said.
A sixth Ohio State player was suspended for one game for receiving a $150 discount on tattoos.
The case ultimately led to the resignation of Ohio State coach Jim Tressel after it was determined he learned of the violations in April 2010, didn’t report them to school or NCAA officials and allowed the players to continue to participate in games.
Georgia Tech: In July 2011, the NCAA stripped Georgia Tech of its 2009 ACC football championship, placed the school on four years' probation and fined it $100,000 in a case that stemmed from wide receiver Demaryius Thomas receiving $312 worth of clothing in 2009.
The NCAA guidelines would have called for no more than a one-game suspension of Thomas if the matter had been resolved when the NCAA began asking questions late in the 2009 season. But the case snowballed into a 20-month investigation after Tech continued in 2009 to play Thomas and another player who was questioned but later cleared.
The NCAA infractions committee called the case a “cautionary tale” for other schools, maintaining that Tech “failed to cooperate in an apparent effort to avoid potential allegations of rules violations, thereby eliminating the need to withhold two highly talented football student-athletes from end of the season competition.”
Tech disagreed with the NCAA’s characterization, but the stern punishment underscores why schools often are quick to hold players out of competition while eligiblity issues are under investigation.
Georgia: In September 2010, the NCAA declared Georgia wide receiver A.J. Green ineligible for four games for selling the jersey he wore in the previous season's Independence Bowl. The NCAA examined Green's bank records as part of the probe.
The jersey buyer, who paid $1,000, met the NCAA’s definition of an agent.
Some Georgia fans protested the penalty because, a week earlier, the NCAA had suspended Alabama defensive end Marcell Dareus for just two games for accepting almost $1,800 in benefits from an agent. The NCAA attributed Dareus’ shorter ban to “mitigating circumstances.”
Each case is reviewed “on its own merits based on the specific facts,” the NCAA said in a statement at the time of the Green decision. “Staff decisions are made based on a number of factors including … the student-athlete’s responsibility for the violation.”
Texas A&M: After investigating — and failing to prove — highly publicized allegations in the summer of 2013 that Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel signed autographs for money, the NCAA agreed with the school to suspend the 2012 Heisman Trophy winner for the first half of the Aggies' opening game last season.
The NCAA and A&M said there was no evidence of Manziel receiving payments. The brief suspension was attributed to a rule that forbids student-athletes from allowing their names or likenesses to be used for commercial purposes.
“It is important that schools … educate student-athletes about situations in which there is a strong likelihood that the autograph seeker plans to resell the items,” an NCAA official said in a statement at the time.
About the Author
