Pay to play: NCAA lets ‘Bama duo off the hook

Heading into their huge season opener against No. 7 Virginia Tech, No. 5 Alabama will have two of their starters thanks to a favorable ruling by the NCAA.

According to a press release issued by the NCAA, the organization ruled that wide receiver Julio Jones and running back Mark Ingram will have their eligibility reinstated and the duo will be allowed to play provided they reimburse to a charity an amount of money equal to the impermissible benefits they received from Curtis Anderson -- an Athens businessman and friend of Jones prior to his coming to Alabama.

The investigation stemmed from a fishing trip earlier this year paid for by Anderson.

Alabama conducted it’s own internal investigation, and turned over the findings to the SEC. In turn, the conference released the findings to the NCAA.

The focal point of the Tide’s findings was that Anderson was not a booster of the program, nor had any association with the university other than his friendship with Jones.

Below is the NCAA’s release on their decision:

The NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff has reinstated the eligibility of University of Alabama football student-athletes Julio Jones and Mark Ingram based on a condition of repayment.

According to the facts of the case submitted by Alabama, the student-athletes received impermissible food, lodging, transportation and entertainment from an individual with whom one of the student-athletes had become acquainted prior to enrolling in college.

Consistent with NCAA membership requirements, the institution reported the violation and declared the student-athletes ineligible. As part of the reinstatement request, the institution required the student-athletes to make repayment of the value of the impermissible benefits to charity.

During the reinstatement process, the NCAA staff considers a number of factors including guidelines established by the NCAA Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, relevant case precedent, the student-athlete’s responsibility for the violation, as well as any mitigating factors presented by the institution.