Fred Glass doesn’t fault the NCAA’s Enforcement Committee. By failing to treat Indiana Elite coach and A-HOPE founder Mark Adams as a booster when Adams divulged in 2008 that he had donated $185 to the IU Varsity Club from 1986-92, Indiana committed an NCAA secondary violation, he said, and the situation deserved to be treated as such.
“The current people working at the NCAA who are vested in maintaining the integrity of the rules should not be criticized,” Glass said. “We violated that rule. We screwed up. We should get a secondary violation.”
But the reason Indiana will be appealing the NCAA’s decision, however, is that the athletics department believes the nine-game suspensions handed out to freshmen Hanner Mosquera-Perea and Peter Jurkin is too harsh. Mosquera-Perea and Jurkin received benefits such as travel costs, housing, food and clothing from Adams and the A-HOPE program which were considered permissible benefits before it was learned that Adams was still considered a booster. Now that those benefits are considered impermissible, the estimated dollar amounts ($9,007.92 for Mosquera-Perea and $6,003.51 for Jurkin) were the grounds used for the suspension.
“We think this is an unusual case so we’re asking for relief from the nine games,” Glass said. “… My understanding of this is that nine is the presumptive number given the dollars that were at issue. We feel that we should be given less than that based on the nature of the case, that some mitigation is in order. That’s what we’ve argued and that’s what we’ll argue on appeal.”
Glass said he’s uncertain when the NCAA’s committee that hears these appeals will handle Indiana’s case and Jurkin and Mosquera-Perea will not be allowed to play while the case is being appealed. He said it could be anywhere from a few days to several weeks.
Glass does however, believe that the rules on what constitutes a booster should be changed. As it stands, once someone donates money to a school or booster club, he becomes a booster for life in the eyes of the NCAA. This case, he said, provides a basis for an argument for a statute of limitations that would allow someone to shed that status.
“I think the rule should change so that we have some sort of time exception,” Glass said. “… The policy makers need to make a change. I don’t want to criticize the enforcement staff because they did what they had to do. But we ought to carve out some common sense exceptions to this thing.”