well as far as i know, every time bylaw 126.96.36.199 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
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 188.8.131.52. 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.
Just depends on how the NCAA views the case. If the NCAA decides to even investigate the situation.