Jarrett Has to Apply to NCAA for Reinstatement

[Coffeeman]

LA Times reports today that Dwayne Jarrett, WR at USC, has to apply for reinstatement from the NCAA for violation of the "extra benefits" rule for living in an expensive downtown apartment subsidized by Bob Leinart, father of Matt Leinart. NCAA spokesman Erik Christianson said the information submitted by USC shows a clear violation, although Bob Leinart said, "I don't think we did anything wrong - they both paid the same rent."

 

Matt and Jarrett both paid $650/month, but the apartment had a $3,866/mo. lease. While parents are of course allowed to help pay rent for their son, they are not allowed to extend the same benefit to another player. The NCAA's response to Jarrett's appeal can take any of the following forms: 1) he could be denied, costing him the season; 2) regain his eligibility with strings attached, such as repaying up to $10,000 asap to the Leinarts and/or losing a # of games; or 3) be reinstated with no conditions. Christianson says the NCAA will handle the request "in a timely manner" either way.

 

Obviously, USC coaches, players and fans - like yours truly - hope for scenario #3 above, while everyone else hopes for #1 - haters. Meanwhile, if I was a betting man, I'd put money on #2. Stay tuned...

[Sgt. Ryan]

Personally I could care less. SC has a rapist, on its campus, though charges are going to be dropped, imagine that in LA. SC had a player Reggie Bush whose parents lived in a house for free, and now this with Jarrett. Something tells me nothing will come out of any of these circumstances, and while Sc should forfeit games last yr, as these instances happened last yr. But something tells me that wont happen either.

 

 

And for those who though Jarrett did nothing wrong, looks like the NCAA disagrees with you. There is a huge difference with yoru father paying your rent, and someone elses father on the team paying your rent.

[Coffeeman]

And for those who though Jarrett did nothing wrong, looks like the NCAA disagrees with you. There is a huge difference with yoru father paying your rent, and someone elses father on the team paying your rent.

 

 

I agree with you - rules were broken. That's why I think he should have to repay the 10g. If I was a bank loan officer, I'd loan it to him with no interest due til he signs his first NFL contract. Fairly confident he'll make plenty then. Too bad they didn't think to handle it that way in the first place - could've avoided all this hassle....

 

Edit: Hmm, maybe a business model was just hatched here, catering to potential future pro athletes. Would win some and lose some with injury risks, etc., but it could work. Students don't have to repay until 6 mo. after they graduate - athletes should be just the same. Except certain stars could pay it off in one year instead of 10-20 yrs. Am I missing something? Anyone see any NCAA issues with this? Hmm...

Edited June 17, 2006 by Coffeeman

[Ramhock]

Personally I could care less. SC has a rapist, on its campus, though charges are going to be dropped, imagine that in LA. SC had a player Reggie Bush whose parents lived in a house for free, and now this with Jarrett. Something tells me nothing will come out of any of these circumstances, and while Sc should forfeit games last yr, as these instances happened last yr. But something tells me that wont happen either.

And for those who though Jarrett did nothing wrong, looks like the NCAA disagrees with you. There is a huge difference with yoru father paying your rent, and someone elses father on the team paying your rent.

 

 

The NCAA is a joke. Like when ABC showed Jamel Holloway on the sideline wearing a full-length mink coat.

[Sgt. Ryan]

The NCAA is a joke. Like when ABC showed Jamel Holloway on the sideline wearing a full-length mink coat.

 

 

Trust me, I didnt see anything right about that either.

[Sgt. Ryan]

I agree with you - rules were broken. That's why I think he should have to repay the 10g. If I was a bank loan officer, I'd loan it to him with no interest due til he signs his first NFL contract. Fairly confident he'll make plenty then. Too bad they didn't think to handle it that way in the first place - could've avoided all this hassle....

 

Edit: Hmm, maybe a business model was just hatched here, catering to potential future pro athletes. Would win some and lose some with injury risks, etc., but it could work. Students don't have to repay until 6 mo. after they graduate - athletes should be just the same. Except certain stars could pay it off in one year instead of 10-20 yrs. Am I missing something? Anyone see any NCAA issues with this? Hmm...

 

 

Yes, catering to any athlete is wrong. The reason, because this door will lead to people trying to open another door, then another door, then we have SMU all over again.

[Gonkis]

Would it be viewed differently if Leinhart had to pay $1300 a month to his old man and he brought in Jarrett to help cover that? I think so.

 

In other words, Jarrett is paying 1/2 of Matt's rent, not 20% of the lease payment to the Old Man.

[Perchoutofwater]

Jarrett broke the rules, and if Bode Miller gets screwed by the NCAA, then Jarrett should as well. That being said, the NCAA and it's rules are a joke. I doubt if an in depth investigation was done at every university, that more than 1/3 would pass true scrutiny. As much money as the colleges and the NCAA make, it is time that they give something back to the average student athlete. Unlike other college students, few really have time to get part time jobs. The NCAA should give them a stipen.

[Coffeeman]

Yes, catering to any athlete is wrong. The reason, because this door will lead to people trying to open another door, then another door, then we have SMU all over again.

 

 

Not sure I follow. If a regular student - on partial or full academic scholarship or not - can get loans to cover other living expenses while in school - other than tuition & books - than why can't an athletic scholarship kid receive the same? The only potential difference I see is that the more affluent parents of certain students might more easily qualify as co-signers than those with poor parents. If I'm a loan officer, I simply place more emphasis on the kid's future earning ability than the parents current status - whether he's a gifted scientist, musician or athlete. You just have to have a big enough national database to weigh the risks for each loan applicant. So I'm talking about a nationwide system, not unique to one school - since that could be considered a recruiting violation.

 

I'm not talking about buying Escalades or living in extravagant apartments like the one that Jarrett and Leinart were apparently living in, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be in sub-standard student dorms either. With a bigger loan, based on higher potential future earnings, you could afford a better place. This is what happens in the shadows already, with unscrupulous agents and boosters betting on a kid's future - why not make it above board?

 

All these kids need is the extra money to go out for a nice meal or a weekend getaway with their girlfriend sometime. To feel like you can only afford rice and beans for 4 years because your parents are poor - and anything more could be considered an NCAA violation - sucks for these kids.

 

Its a twisted system now - "let's give the poor kids an education (and make a ton of money for the school if they're really good, like Reggie Bush!) through their athletic ability, but deny them a decent lifestyle during school that many of their teammates get, since their parents can't afford better. Hey, at least its better than the projects housing they grew up in." Boo, that sucks...

 

I'm just saying I'm willing to bet a little more on their future than most current banks do. And this new 'bank' would have to be built on a statisitically solid basis of future earning power, minus injury/dropout risk, parent's ability to help, etc. The kids who bite off more than they can chew - and end up not making it in the pros - just have to get a real job to pay it off. This should help keep them from over-borrowing in the first place. Why should the NCAA even get involved in this?

[Sgt. Ryan]

Not sure I follow. If a regular student - on partial or full academic scholarship or not - can get loans to cover other living expenses while in school - other than tuition & books - than why can't an athletic scholarship kid receive the same? The only potential difference I see is that the more affluent parents of certain students might more easily qualify as co-signers than those with poor parents. If I'm a loan officer, I simply place more emphasis on the kid's future earning ability than the parents current status - whether he's a gifted scientist, musician or athlete. You just have to have a big enough national database to weigh the risks for each loan applicant. So I'm talking about a nationwide system, not unique to one school - since that could be considered a recruiting violation.

 

I'm not talking about buying Escalades or living in extravagant apartments like the one that Jarrett and Leinart were apparently living in, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be in sub-standard student dorms either. With a bigger loan, based on higher potential future earnings, you could afford a better place. This is what happens in the shadows already, with unscrupulous agents and boosters betting on a kid's future - why not make it above board?

 

All these kids need is the extra money to go out for a nice meal or a weekend getaway with their girlfriend sometime. To feel like you can only afford rice and beans for 4 years because your parents are poor - and anything more could be considered an NCAA violation - sucks for these kids.

 

Its a twisted system now - "let's give the poor kids an education (and make a ton of money for the school if they're really good, like Reggie Bush!) through their athletic ability, but deny them a decent lifestyle during school that many of their teammates get, since their parents can't afford better. Hey, at least its better than the projects housing they grew up in." Boo, that sucks...

 

I'm just saying I'm willing to bet a little more on their future than most current banks do. And this new 'bank' would have to be built on a statisitically solid basis of future earning power, minus injury/dropout risk, parent's ability to help, etc. The kids who bite off more than they can chew - and end up not making it in the pros - just have to get a real job to pay it off. This should help keep them from over-borrowing in the first place. Why should the NCAA even get involved in this?

 

 

you give an inch, and they will take a mile. The athletes are already given free room and board, where the normal student does not get that. so in essence the athlete is already at an advantage. You give them living allowance as well, and they will pocket the cash, and buy and escalade with it. So I dont see the parallel. The athletes are already given a scholarship, room and board, and pocket cash. Id say that is plenty. More than I had as a student.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I hate to say it, but sarge is right. Give an inch, take a mile. These kids are pampered, and get away with a ton of crap already. It is quite the joke however that these corporations and the ncaa make billions of dollars off of these college kids. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the kids are pampered enough. Beyond just the dollars, most of them dont understand the fact that they are so privledged. They play a sport they love, and receive a free college education. A lot don't take advantage of that, and it's a shame.

[rbmcdonald]

LA Times reports today that Dwayne Jarrett, WR at USC, has to apply for reinstatement from the NCAA for violation of the "extra benefits" rule for living in an expensive downtown apartment subsidized by Bob Leinart, father of Matt Leinart. NCAA spokesman Erik Christianson said the information submitted by USC shows a clear violation, although Bob Leinart said, "I don't think we did anything wrong - they both paid the same rent."

 

Matt and Jarrett both paid $650/month, but the apartment had a $3,866/mo. lease. While parents are of course allowed to help pay rent for their son, they are not allowed to extend the same benefit to another player. The NCAA's response to Jarrett's appeal can take any of the following forms: 1) he could be denied, costing him the season; 2) regain his eligibility with strings attached, such as repaying up to $10,000 asap to the Leinarts and/or losing a # of games; or 3) be reinstated with no conditions. Christianson says the NCAA will handle the request "in a timely manner" either way.

 

Obviously, USC coaches, players and fans - like yours truly - hope for scenario #3 above, while everyone else hopes for #1 - haters. Meanwhile, if I was a betting man, I'd put money on #2. Stay tuned...

 

 

What I do not undestand is where is the USC coaching staff in all of this? Are you going to tell me that they do not know where thier players are living? That they do not have an idea of what rent costs in certain areas? That they do not have an understanding of a players ability to pay? At some point you have to ask the lack of institutional control question.