Albama Arkansas Auburn Florida Georgia Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Ole-Miss USC Tennessee Texas A&M Vanderbilt
Latest News

Scarbinsky Openly Mocks SportsByBrooks.com – In Writing

A few days ago the website SportsByBrooks.com posted a hit job on Auburn regarding Gene Chizik’s contract.  We looked over the post, felt the writer’s two plus two equaled five and didn’t reference it or post a link to it on MrSEC.com.

As AU fans know — Lord knows we hear from them — many times we have posted links to SportsByBrooks.com when their postings a) featured more factual information than supposition and/or b) elicited solid responses from other media members.  In the case of a) we feel our readers need to know about it because it appears to be an accusation grounded — at least — in logic.  In the case of b) we feel you need to know about it because the post is starting to spread across the internet which by default — right or wrong — makes it a water cooler talking point.

But the post we ignored has been tackled by Kevin Scarbinsky of The Birmingham News.  As a writer who continues to correctly remind readers that no one has found any real evidence of wrongdoing at Auburn in recent months, he’s become a “pro-Auburn” guy in the eyes of many Alabama fans.  His response to SportsByBrooks.com’s Auburn accusations — which are always accepted and digested by hopeful Tide fans — won’t change many Bama backers’ views about him:


“Stop me if you’ve heard this one: Gene Chizik’s new contract is a shameless attempt to absolve him of responsibility from impeachable offenses under the law.

That would be shocking and shameless and headline news, if it were true.

It’s not.

The web site SportsByBrooks.com tried to make that case, one of its many against the Tigers, with a post titled, ‘Auburn Openly Mocks NCAA President — In Writing.”  The premise is that Mark Emmert wants to increase the risk for coaches who break the rules but that Auburn has decreased the risk for Chizik to cheat by taking out the original Paragraph 13 (d) from his new contract.”


Paragraph 13 (d) took away the school’s right to suspend all but Chizik’s $500,000 base salary if the school, the SEC or the NCAA began an investigation into him or his program.

So what’s wrong with what SportsByBrooks posted?  Scarbinsky suggests the site’s writers should have looked at the very next paragraph of Chizik’s deal… a paragraph that was not removed:


“Paragraph 13 (e) says, ‘Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 11.2.1, it is agreed that Coach may be suspended for a period of time without pay, or his employment may be terminated, if University, the SEC or the NCAA concludes or has reasonable basis to believe, after providing Coach notice (including being made aware of the allegations at issue) and an opportunity to be heard, that he or any person under his supervision or subject to his control or authority is involved in significant or repetitive violations of NCAA regulations.”


In other words, the school can still suspend the coach and withhold his pay if he’s under investigation.  It just can’t presume guilt and, as Scarbinsky puts it, “penalize him before the facts are in and a conclusion is drawn from those facts.”

Well played.

And since we didn’t link to this the first time around, here’s the original post from SportsByBrooks.com.

 


0 comments


Follow Us On:
Mobile MrSEC