Q: What is the NCAA rule that Georgia running back Todd Gurley is accused of violating?
A: Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6 prohibits student-athletes from receiving benefits because of their "athletics reputation or skill" other than the benefits specifically authorized by NCAA legislation. Receiving money for autographs or memorabilia would be a clear violation.
Q: What is the penalty under NCAA rules for receiving an impermissible benefit?
A: It depends on the details of a case, but an important factor is how much money is received. NCAA guidelines call for a suspension of 10 percent of an athlete's season for receiving $100 to $400, 20 percent for receiving $400 to $700 and 30 percent for receiving more than $700. Those guidelines indicate a suspension range of one to four games in football. However, the NCAA can increase or decrease the punishment from the guidelines depending on any aggravating or mitigating factors of a particular case. Before returning to NCAA competition, an athlete also is required to pay back the money by making a donation to charity in the same amount.
Q: Why did Georgia suspend Gurley from competition before the NCAA rules on the case?
A: College athletics programs generally hold an athlete out of competition while he or she is under NCAA investigation to avoid risking harsher sanctions for playing an ineligible athlete. Not only might a team have to forfeit victories in which an ineligible player participated, but a school faces probation, a fine and possibly other penalties from the NCAA if found to have knowingly used an ineligible player or to have failed to cooperate with an investigation.
Q: If Gurley is proved to have violated NCAA rules, is Georgia at risk of having to forfeit or vacate games in which he already has played?
A: This is unclear, but it's possible. It may hinge on exactly when Georgia learned of questions about Gurley's eligibility. Ohio State vacated all of its victories in a 2010 season in which players participated despite having received impermissible benefits, but that case was compounded by revelations that then-coach Jim Tressel played the players after learning of their violations. In another case, the NCAA vacated Georgia Tech's win in the 2009 ACC Championship game for playing wide receiver Demaryius Thomas after questions were raised about him receiving $312 worth of free clothing. But the NCAA did not vacate other Tech wins in which Thomas played between the time he allegedly received the clothing (October 2009) and when Tech learned of the matter (Nov. 24, 2009).
Q: Does the recent ruling in the antitrust lawsuit brought by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon have any bearing on NCAA rules against selling autographs and memorabilia?
A: No. A federal judge ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon case, finding that college football and basketball players are legally entitled to earn money from the use of their names and images in television broadcasts. However, while clearing the way for universities to increase the value of scholarships and to put money in trust funds for athletes who enroll after July 1, 2016, the judge didn't strike down NCAA rules banning athletes from selling commercial endorsements, memorabilia or autographs.
About the Author
