Inside HOKIE SPORTS | Vol. 9 No. 1 | August 2016

14 / 48

12 Inside Hokie Sports
Q: Whatever happened to the Pac-
12’s proposal that would let athletes
profit off of their names and images
to promote non-athletic business
ventures? That seemed like a sensible
idea. Regards, April in Beckley, .
TP: “Some people were confused by
this, but the proposal would have allowed
student-athletes to make money off their
names, provided they actually owned the
business and the business wasn’t considered
‘athletically related.’ Many fans viewed the
proposal as student-athletes simply being
able to sign endorsement deals and profit
from them, but that wasn’t the case.
“In this proposal, the student-athlete
could make money off his/her likeness,
name, etc., provided that the athlete owned
more than 50 percent of the business and the
university couldn’t be involved in promoting
the athlete’s business. Keep in mind that a
student-athlete already can do this provided
he or she gets a waiver through the NCAA. For
example, last year, a Georgia football player
The compliance corner answers questions concerning the governance of
intercollegiate athletics and its impact on our athletics department. Have
a question? Please send it to and we’ll answer
it in upcoming issues. Now, here are some questions that we’ve received
from Tech alums and fans over the past few months, with responses
from Tim Parker, Senior Associate AD for Compliance & Governance:
wrote a children’s book and a waiver was
granted that allowed him to get it published
and to profit from the sales.
“The Pac-12 ultimately tabled its proposal
after it was agreed that NCAA waivers would
be expeditiously processed and granted
in a manner consistent with the rationale
behind the proposal. The Pac-12’s proposal
may not have been adopted, but it definitely
warranted the additional discussion and
attention it received.”
Q: Did you see where Alabama got
dinged for an “impermissible recruiting
decoration” when the Tide coaches
placed a replica trophy in an area where
recruits would be passing through on
official visits. Hard-hitting stuff there
from the NCAA. Thanks, Cherie, from
Eggleston, Va.
TP: “I sense some cynicism in your voice,
Cherie. All kidding aside, I’ve got to say that
the fact that that violation became public
did cause a few laughs in the compliance
Keeping up with Compliance
by
Jimmy
Robertson
world. Not that other schools wouldn’t have
reported it—we absolutely would have
reported it, too, if it had happened here. But
that specific violation is only a small part of
the heavily governed world of recruiting that
unfortunately all of us in Division I have to
live in.
“NCAA Bylaw 13.6.7.9 states that
institutions may not arrange miscellaneous,
personalized recruiting aides, including,
but not limited to, personalized jerseys
and personalized audio/video scoreboard
presentations. The rule also includes the use
of decorative items and special additions to
any location the prospective student-athlete
will visit. The trophy, which had been moved
specifically for the recruits, was far from its
normal location, and that comprised the
actual violation.
“Alabama self-reported the violation
and provided additional rules education for
staff members, a corrective action that was
accepted by the NCAA Enforcement staff. No
punitive actions were taken.”