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

And Speaking Of T-Town Menswear…

SportsByBrooks.com isn’t letting go of the T-Town Menswear story just yet.  The site has dug up a television spot for the store in which owner Tom Al-Betar states that Alabama players “wear their uniform at the game and they wear my uniform after the game.”

Whether Al-Betar paid Bama players — in cash or merchandise — is still a matter of great debate.  There’s been no evidence yet that Tide players received payment for signing merchandise for his store.  The school has said its players were not paid.

So let’s give Alabama the benefit of the doubt on that front.  That still doesn’t mean UA is in the clear.

If the NCAA decides that Alabama players or their likenesses were used in advertisements for Al-Betar’s store, it could rule those players to have been in violation of Bylaw 12.5.2.1.  That rule states:


“After becoming a student-athlete, an individual shall not be eligible for participation in intercollegiate athletics if the individual accepts any remuneration for or permits the use of his or here name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind.”


Attorneys can parse that language in a lot of ways, but the bottom line is this: If the NCAA feels that multiple Bama players were being used to advertise T-Town Menswear then it’s possible those players could be retroactively deemed ineligible and Alabama could have victories — and possible the 2009 BCS title — vacated.

It’s possible

Just depends on how the NCAA views the case.  If the NCAA decides to even investigate the situation.

 


7 comments
anonymous
anonymous

well as far as i know, every time bylaw 12.5.2.1 or whatever was violated, it was deemed a secondary violation and those usually arent enough to vacate a natl championship, so thats a non-issue. and i think things would have already started to surface if they did get paid, just sayin

alex
alex

except for the fact that UA is currently on probation, just reported 44 secondary violations, and NOW this one. They are already 'repeat offender' status, it seems very logical that this explicit disregard for the rules could land them in death penalty waters...

Brian
Brian

The bylaw is easy to prove that the players had knowledge. Ingram for instance, his trademark Nike gloves that he put in a frame, was hung up in the store while he was there (all pictures to show and prove) then photos of him at the store after it was hanged and advertised as "Come see the gloves of Heisman winner Mark Ingram"

There is a point where you can't say "I didn't know" or claim ignorance if dozens of pictures prove otherwise, then you've committed perjury and ask Dez Bryant or Bruce Pearl how the NCAA feels about people lying to them.

Interested Observer
Interested Observer

And just like you need proof that there was "remuneration" or payment for signing merchandise...which admittedly is difficult to prove.

How is it any easier to prove players "permiting" their likenesses for advertisement? That seems even more difficult to prove. That seems to be trying to get into the players' mind as to if they knew those signatures or pictures were going to be used for ads.

How can you prove what was in someone's mind at a given point in time?

They can just say, "I was signing autographs and taking pictures with a fan, I didn't know he was going to use it for an ad," and it would be difficult to prove otherwise.

If that were the case, players would have to stop taking pictures with fans...otherwise, fans will start taking pictures with players of their rivals and start using them in ads and say, "violation! violation!"

alex
alex

there are multiple YouTube commercials, TV spots and videos with the players in person with Al-Betar. If being there, in person, videotaped during a commercial isn't 'permitting' them to use your likeness, I don't know what is...

Brooks Facebook
Brooks Facebook

From Brooks on his Facebook page:

"If a media member is telling you that this will result in nothing, I can promise you they are 1,000 percent wrong and have absolutely no idea what is actually happening behind the scenes. There's a very good reason the SEC hasn't commented on this yet. All I can say at this time."

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

Brooks Facebook...

And if Brooks were 1,000 percent correct in all his previous reportings, such a ridiculous over-the-top claim would mean something. But he hasn't been, so it doesn't.

We'll continue to wait for the NCAA's view on the topic. Besides, we seem to remember SportsByBrooks claiming Auburn's house was caving in, too. To date, that hasn't happened.

There's no way to predict how the NCAA will handle what we in the media perceive to be violations. Brooks should know that by now.

John

Trackbacks

  1. Valuable Links…

    [...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]…

  2. Homepage says:

    … [Trackback]

    [...] Informations on that Topic: mrsec.com/2011/08/and-speaking-of-t-town-menswear/ [...]

  3. כתובת says:

    … [Trackback]

    [...] Read More here: mrsec.com/2011/08/and-speaking-of-t-town-menswear/ [...]

  4. … [Trackback]

    [...] Informations on that Topic: mrsec.com/2011/08/and-speaking-of-t-town-menswear/ [...]

  5. … [Trackback]

    [...] Read More Infos here: mrsec.com/2011/08/and-speaking-of-t-town-menswear/ [...]

  6. … [Trackback]

    [...] Informations on that Topic: mrsec.com/2011/08/and-speaking-of-t-town-menswear/ [...]

  7. … [Trackback]

    [...] Informations on that Topic: mrsec.com/2011/08/and-speaking-of-t-town-menswear/ [...]



Follow Us On:
Mobile MrSEC