I suspect somebody’s future is in jeopardy.
The NCAA says South Carolina’s compliance director should not have approved football players living at a local hotel paying reduced rates, calling the university’s initial evaluation of the arrangements at The Whitney Hotel was “flawed.”
The “flaw” being that she blessed a monthly rental payment that was somewhere between a quarter and a third of the regular rate. Instant impermissible benefit!
Get The Picture 
So how many of their players have sat out 4 games and do they have to vacant any wins? Is UGA the only team in college football that plays by the rules and get crapped upon? If SC doesn’t have to vacate the wins then we should have played AJ until he was declared ineligible.
LikeLike
And, in Knoxville, nightclubs regularly comp players past the cover charge to increase traffic.
Sometimes, when you try to do things the right way, you are the only one doing it.
This is Mike Bobo’s fault, too.
LikeLike
USC. $450. $57 / night. $1,710. NCAA determined. Flawed.
Smith’s article would mean something if he had provided more information rather than just a bunch of words and numbers.
For instance the NCAA determined the “fair rental rate” was $XX. The fair rental rate or “comparable rates” in Columbia was $XX. Or the rates used by tax authorities for Columbia was $XX. Or the room(s) discounted extended period occunpancy.
How many players.
Why was South Carolina using this type of housing arrangement for student athletes? Have they done so in the past? Or other students using this type of arrangement.
Sorry Smith, you sound like another journalism student or major wanting to add to a story by not putting all the facts out.
LikeLike
With the UNC crap goin on, how bad would the NCAA slap the poultry with a member of staff giving the o.k. for this to happen???
LikeLike
Why did we let a freshman running back advertise on our backs? Shouldn’t the NCAA find Lattimore guilty of something?
LikeLike