Did Alabama owe recruits full disclosure on NCAA's textbook investigation?

[AUChizad]

http://blog.al.com/kevin-scarbinsky/2009/03/some_good_news_for_alabama.html

Some good news for Alabama: Silence is not an NCAA violation.
Take the communication between member institutions and prospective student-athletes.

The rules tell schools when they can talk to recruits, not what they're obligated to say to them.

So Alabama officials crossed a different kind of line on the long road to their latest sit-down with the NCAA's Supreme Court.

 
They kept their recruits in the dark.

They let young men make the most important decision of their young lives without sharing a rather important piece of information with them.

They let the members of their 2009 recruiting class sign a national letter-of-intent on Feb. 4 without telling them that the school would be appearing in front of the Infractions Committee on Feb. 20.

Put aside legal obligations and the public's right to know for a moment.

What about a moral obligation?

Didn't recruits and their families have a right to know?

"If it was my son being recruited," Corner High School coach Brent Smith said, "I would want to know about it."

Smith didn't have a son sign with Alabama in February, but he did have a player join the Crimson Tide. Before his recent return to Corner, Smith coached at Clay-Chalkville, where he coached Alabama signee Quinton Dial. Smith said no Alabama coaches told him - or, as far as he knows, Dial - of the impending Infractions Committee appearance.

Did the coaches have a choice?

It appears that university officials aren't allowed to comment publicly on the case, so head football coach Nick Saban was not made available for an interview Monday.

Saban could argue that the decision to keep the case quiet wasn't his but was made higher up on the university's formal organizational chart.

Practically speaking, Saban is so influential in Tuscaloosa, you have to wonder how President Robert Witt and AD Mal Moore would've responded had he urged them to go public much earlier in the process.

And Alabama had plenty of time to go public.

The NCAA sent Alabama a letter of preliminary inquiry dated Nov. 20, 2007. The NCAA sent Alabama a notice of allegations dated May 19, 2008.

In that May letter, the NCAA said that Alabama had agreed to file its response to the allegations by Aug. 19, 2008, and that the Infractions Committee expected to hear the case at its October or December meeting.

"It should be noted," the May 19, 2008, NCAA letter said, "that a delay in responding (to the allegations) could postpone the hearing date."

Alabama's hearing date was postponed. Until Feb. 20, 2009.

After the 12-0 regular season. After the SEC Championship Game. After the Sugar Bowl.

And 16 days after signing day.

That doesn't change the fact that Alabama knew in May of 2008 that it was headed toward an Infractions Committee hearing.

Forget the lawyers and officials who chose to keep that hearing quiet until after the fact. Consider the players who signed with Alabama in February. Isn't it possible that the Infractions Committee's ruling could have an impact on them at some point in their college careers?

It's not likely that Alabama will lose TV appearances in this case, but the NCAA enforcement staff, in its notice of allegations, asked the school to provide "a review of the institution's obligations (contractual or otherwise) concerning live telecasts of contests during the next three seasons."

If the NCAA takes away scholarships, no February signee would lose his free ride for the first year, but what about the years after that? What if the NCAA limits Alabama to less than the full allotment of 85 scholarships?

"I want my kids to have all the facts before they make a decision," Smith said.

All high school coaches should, and that's the problem here.

Alabama's newest signees didn't have all the facts, and the fact is, no one knows what the Infractions Committee will do.

But look on the bright side. The committee does not have the power to vacate the recruiting national championship.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

But look on the bright side. The committee does not have the power to vacate the recruiting national championship.

 

[Saniflush]

Legal to do but not the right thing to do in my book. 

[Snaggletiger]

In all fairness....oh the hell with fairness.

Anyway, I wonder how much of this the coaches around the league knew.  I doubt very much because it would seem logical they'd be hammering recruits with it.  I would if I were a coach.  But, you never heard any recruit change his tune because of possible NCAA problems.  They simply weren't told by Alabama coaches nor any opposing coaches.  This has been held tightly under wraps.

[The Prowler]

If remember correctly, Lance Thompson was supposedly telling recruits and the bammer nation roasted him for it.  And, that was one of the reasons why Coach midget didn't want a couple of His recruit$ to go up there.  As for, should the recruits been made aware of what was going on?  Yes, to a certain extent, especially if they asked about it.

[wesfau2]

especially if they asked about it.

This is an important distinction.  If the kids asked and the UAT coaches lied, then you've got some fraud. 

[Kaos]

This is an important distinction.  If the kids asked and the UAT coaches lied, then you've got some fraud. 

Nothing actionable.

[wesfau2]

Nothing actionable.

How do you figure?

If:

1) the kid asked point blank about any pending NCAA investigations/probations and the coaches told him that there were none; and

2) the coaches knew of the NCAA letters/investigation; and

3) if the kid would have chosen another school had he known the truth.

That is a classic fraud in the inducement case.  Damages may be speculative and difficult to prove, but it is a prima facie case.