Based on some info I have been told today, I am not currently optimistic about freshman WR Damiere Byrd playing this weekend. If something changes I will let everyone know. That is all I want to offer up at this point.
Update
Chris called and asked me to post this for him. We heard earlier today that Byrd is going to be suspended for four games. It's unclear if he will have to make any sort of financial restitution. We do know that the other player in this case, Florida's Sharrif Floyd, could have had a four-game suspension and the NCAA knocked it back to two games. We believe that Byrd will appeal the decision in hopes of getting the same deal.
If the four-game suspension sticks, Byrd will be able to play on Oct. 1 against Auburn. He has been practicing with the team (the first-team guys, not the scouters) even under suspension so it's doubtful a redshirt consideration might come up, although that's up to the coaches. Even with four games out, there are still at least eight to play.
Obviously, this means that Byrd will not be ruled eligible for Saturday's game at Georgia in any case. He will not be allowed to travel with the team, but if he wants to go on his own accord, as he did last week to Charlotte, he can.
Here's the official statement from USC:
South Carolina freshman wide receiver Damiere Byrd has received a four-game suspension from the NCAA and must repay benefits as a condition of becoming eligible to compete again, it was announced today by the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff.
“While we respect the process, we are very disappointed for Damiere,” athletics director Eric Hyman said. “Damiere is an outstanding individual and has been upfront with us as to what occurred during the recruiting process. He had no idea that being part of the Student Athlete Mentoring Foundation would in any way affect his college eligibility. We continue to support him and will carefully consider appealing this decision.”
The SAM Foundation is a Delaware-based organization that provides underprivileged, inner-city athletes with help in getting scholarship offers and meeting academic eligibility requirements.
Byrd sat out the season-opener against East Carolina, and will also be sidelined for the Georgia, Navy and Vanderbilt games this season.
Here's the statement from the NCAA:
According to the facts submitted by the university, Byrd and his family received approximately $2,700 in recruiting inducements and impermissible benefits. These were provided by a University of South Carolina booster during Byrd’s recruitment at the institution. The impermissible benefits included lodging, transportation and meals during multiple unofficial visits to the University of South Carolina. It also included several parties at the booster’s home and gift cards.
During the student-athlete reinstatement process, the staff considers a number of factors, including guidelines established by the Division I NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for the type of violations and value of benefits, if a significant competitive advantage was gained, the student-athlete’s responsibility for the violations and any mitigating circumstances presented by the school, among other factors.
“Our members have continually made it clear boosters and other third parties do not have a place in recruiting student-athletes,” said Kevin Lennon, vice president of academic and membership affairs. “The reinstatement process is in place to ensure accountability and in this case, multiple benefits were provided to the student-athlete and his family over a significant amount of time.”
When a school discovers an NCAA rules violation has occurred, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible and may request the student-athlete’s eligibility be reinstated. The NCAA staff reviews each student-athlete’s reinstatement request individually based on its own merits and set of specific facts, which are agreed upon by the university and the NCAA enforcement staff.
The university can appeal any student-athlete reinstatement decision to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, an independent panel comprised of representatives from NCAA member colleges, university and athletic conferences who are not directly affiliated with the university. This committee can reduce or remove the condition, but it cannot increase the staff-imposed conditions. If appealed, the student-athlete remains ineligible until the conclusion of the appeals process.
The reinstatement process typically concludes prior to the close of the enforcement investigation, which must determine the university’s responsibility for violations. While it depends on the complexity of the case, most student-athlete reinstatement requests are resolved in about a week after the school has provided a complete request and the reinstatement staff has all the necessary information. In contrast an enforcement investigation, which also varies in length depending on the complexity, must look at the totality of issues and takes an average of 11 months. For this reason, student-athlete reinstatement decisions do not signal that an enforcement investigation is complete.
What this means
Obviously, it's good that the investigation is closed, meaning the NCAA has found nothing more serious. We believe that the reason Byrd is getting two more games than Sharrif Floyd is because the NCAA found a USC booster was responsible for giving Byrd his benefits, while no one associated with Florida gave Floyd his benefits.
USC is supporting Byrd, saying that he has been up-front and honest about the whole thing, and is "carefully considering" appealing the decision. Here's the dilemma -- An athlete is still ineligible while appealing. If Byrd appeals and the battle is over before the two games after Georgia are played, and he wins, OK, he gets a game or two back. If he loses the appeal, he was going to be out four games anyway. But if the appeals process stretches longer than the original four weeks, he would risk being ineligible for more games if he saw it through to the end. That's going to have to be considered.
This post was edited on 9/9 2:05 PM by David Cloninger
Update
Chris called and asked me to post this for him. We heard earlier today that Byrd is going to be suspended for four games. It's unclear if he will have to make any sort of financial restitution. We do know that the other player in this case, Florida's Sharrif Floyd, could have had a four-game suspension and the NCAA knocked it back to two games. We believe that Byrd will appeal the decision in hopes of getting the same deal.
If the four-game suspension sticks, Byrd will be able to play on Oct. 1 against Auburn. He has been practicing with the team (the first-team guys, not the scouters) even under suspension so it's doubtful a redshirt consideration might come up, although that's up to the coaches. Even with four games out, there are still at least eight to play.
Obviously, this means that Byrd will not be ruled eligible for Saturday's game at Georgia in any case. He will not be allowed to travel with the team, but if he wants to go on his own accord, as he did last week to Charlotte, he can.
Here's the official statement from USC:
South Carolina freshman wide receiver Damiere Byrd has received a four-game suspension from the NCAA and must repay benefits as a condition of becoming eligible to compete again, it was announced today by the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff.
“While we respect the process, we are very disappointed for Damiere,” athletics director Eric Hyman said. “Damiere is an outstanding individual and has been upfront with us as to what occurred during the recruiting process. He had no idea that being part of the Student Athlete Mentoring Foundation would in any way affect his college eligibility. We continue to support him and will carefully consider appealing this decision.”
The SAM Foundation is a Delaware-based organization that provides underprivileged, inner-city athletes with help in getting scholarship offers and meeting academic eligibility requirements.
Byrd sat out the season-opener against East Carolina, and will also be sidelined for the Georgia, Navy and Vanderbilt games this season.
Here's the statement from the NCAA:
According to the facts submitted by the university, Byrd and his family received approximately $2,700 in recruiting inducements and impermissible benefits. These were provided by a University of South Carolina booster during Byrd’s recruitment at the institution. The impermissible benefits included lodging, transportation and meals during multiple unofficial visits to the University of South Carolina. It also included several parties at the booster’s home and gift cards.
During the student-athlete reinstatement process, the staff considers a number of factors, including guidelines established by the Division I NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for the type of violations and value of benefits, if a significant competitive advantage was gained, the student-athlete’s responsibility for the violations and any mitigating circumstances presented by the school, among other factors.
“Our members have continually made it clear boosters and other third parties do not have a place in recruiting student-athletes,” said Kevin Lennon, vice president of academic and membership affairs. “The reinstatement process is in place to ensure accountability and in this case, multiple benefits were provided to the student-athlete and his family over a significant amount of time.”
When a school discovers an NCAA rules violation has occurred, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible and may request the student-athlete’s eligibility be reinstated. The NCAA staff reviews each student-athlete’s reinstatement request individually based on its own merits and set of specific facts, which are agreed upon by the university and the NCAA enforcement staff.
The university can appeal any student-athlete reinstatement decision to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, an independent panel comprised of representatives from NCAA member colleges, university and athletic conferences who are not directly affiliated with the university. This committee can reduce or remove the condition, but it cannot increase the staff-imposed conditions. If appealed, the student-athlete remains ineligible until the conclusion of the appeals process.
The reinstatement process typically concludes prior to the close of the enforcement investigation, which must determine the university’s responsibility for violations. While it depends on the complexity of the case, most student-athlete reinstatement requests are resolved in about a week after the school has provided a complete request and the reinstatement staff has all the necessary information. In contrast an enforcement investigation, which also varies in length depending on the complexity, must look at the totality of issues and takes an average of 11 months. For this reason, student-athlete reinstatement decisions do not signal that an enforcement investigation is complete.
What this means
Obviously, it's good that the investigation is closed, meaning the NCAA has found nothing more serious. We believe that the reason Byrd is getting two more games than Sharrif Floyd is because the NCAA found a USC booster was responsible for giving Byrd his benefits, while no one associated with Florida gave Floyd his benefits.
USC is supporting Byrd, saying that he has been up-front and honest about the whole thing, and is "carefully considering" appealing the decision. Here's the dilemma -- An athlete is still ineligible while appealing. If Byrd appeals and the battle is over before the two games after Georgia are played, and he wins, OK, he gets a game or two back. If he loses the appeal, he was going to be out four games anyway. But if the appeals process stretches longer than the original four weeks, he would risk being ineligible for more games if he saw it through to the end. That's going to have to be considered.
This post was edited on 9/9 2:05 PM by David Cloninger
