Arizona State recruiting scandal: Sun Devils have reason for optimism after NCAA rules on Tennessee
The Pac-12’s pursuit of a media rights contract is not, in fact, the conference’s longest unresolved saga. Remember those allegations of recruiting violations levied against Arizona State back in the summer of 2021? The NCAA still hasn’t ruled on the matter.
Granted, the media deal will impact the collective, not a single member, and frame the future of the conference. But the outcome remains a first-class mystery.
Meanwhile, the endgame for ASU’s football program seemingly gained clarity thanks to the NCAA’s ruling in a different scandal.
Tennessee dodged a bowl ban despite an unprecedented series of recruiting violations, indicating the NCAA might go relatively easy on the Sun Devils, as well.
We’ll address ASU momentarily, but let’s summarize Tennessee’s situation for those who have not followed closely:
Simply put, it was one of the most egregious cases in NCAA history. The Volunteers were guilty of more than 200 infractions and a whopping 18 Level I violations (the most severe type). Per the NCAA, the transgressions involved “recruiting rules violations and direct payments to prospects, current student-athletes and their families.”
Here’s more:
“The scheme involved 29 prospects, 39 members of those prospects’ families, 10 then-enrolled student-athletes, three family members of then-enrolled student-athletes, nine individuals associated with a prospect (e.g., a high school coach or non-scholastic coach), and three boosters.
“The scheme also involved at least a dozen members of the football staff, and the resulting violations included at least 110 impermissible hotel room nights, 180 impermissible meals, 72 instances of providing impermissible entertainment or other benefits, 41 impermissible recruiting contacts, 37 instances of providing impermissible game day parking, and 14 times in which gear was impermissibly provided to prospects.”
And guess what? The Volunteers did not get hit with a postseason ban.
The penalties included a $9 million fine, but the NCAA declined to target their bowl eligibility, which seems highly relevant to ASU’s case.
We don’t know the full extent of the infractions committed by the Sun Devils under former coach Herm Edwards. But in 2020, the staff reportedly treated the NCAA’s pandemic-related recruiting rules with all the seriousness of high school detention. According to Yahoo, recruits visited campus and met with coaches, including Edwards, during a dead period.
Did ASU top Tennessee’s infractions tally? How many Level I violations were committed in Tempe? Is there proof Edwards was complicit? Who else in the athletic department was involved?
Those details should enter the public realm when the NCAA issues its ruling later this year (or sometime this decade). But based on the Tennessee case, the Sun Devils might — and probably should — avoid a bowl ban.
The NCAA issued a 127-page report that details the transgressions in Knoxville and resulting penalties. But the key section, as it relates to ASU, is on the third page:
“Ordinarily, a case of this magnitude would warrant and require a postseason competition ban. But these are not ordinary times in college athletics. The landscape has evolved in many ways and continues to do so. As it relates to the infractions program, the membership has communicated its intent to shift away from penalties that impact student-athletes who were not involved in violations.
“This principle is enshrined in the new NCAA Constitution.
“The Constitution did not specifically address its effect on the postseason competition ban penalty. However, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors recently endorsed a set of principles emphasizing that the infractions process should incentivize and reward institutions that demonstrate exemplary cooperation and should reserve the postseason competition ban for Level I infractions cases that lack exemplary cooperation.”
We don’t know the extent of ASU’s cooperation with NCAA investigators, but there’s no indication the university took the same stonewall approach, for instance, that defined USC’s strategy in the Reggie Bush case in the 2000s.
If the Sun Devils played nice, the framework used in Tennessee’s case should apply: “The membership has communicated its intent to shift away from penalties that impact student-athletes who were not involved in violations.”
In other words, shift away from bowl bans.
Since the alleged violations were committed, ASU has overhauled its player roster and coaching staff. Assistant coach Antonio Pierce, the scandal’s purported ringleader, resigned 18 months ago. Other assistants were placed on administrative leave, then cut loose. And Edwards stepped down early last season.
Slapping the program with a bowl ban would impact athletes who played no role in the transgressions.
If the NCAA’s investigation proves foul play, it should consider imposing a hefty fine, just as it did in the Tennessee case.
Exactly how ASU covers the fine — whether it’s $1 million or $10 million — would be a decision for president Michael Crow and athletic director Ray Anderson, the braintrust behind the ill-fated Edwards hire.
(Hopefully, their payment plan wouldn’t involve using cash earmarked for Olympic sports budgets.)
Guessing along with the NCAA is the riskiest of risky propositions. But the infractions committee just created a framework that would serve two aims, both punishing the school and accounting for the current situation in Tempe, where innocent players will play for a new head coach.
For all the energy and sense of rebirth Kenny Dillingham has generated over the past seven months, the best news ASU has received in eons comes courtesy of the very organization that will determine the program’s fate.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline
*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.