Questions surround the NCAA's stance on Florida State center Diego Romero.
By BRIAN LANDMAN
Published December 27, 2003
As touted yet ineligible Florida State center Diego Romero continues to practice for an appearance that may never come, the most perplexing questions remain:
Why did the NCAA buck its tradition of applying old standards when he was already in the collegiate pipeline at Lon Morris (Texas) Junior College? And why did it not hand down an eight-game suspension instead of enforcing the recent simpler, but stricter penalties?
That is the central theme in hundreds of pages of documents obtained Friday by the Times regarding Romero's case.
"The purpose of "grandfather' clauses is an attempt to provide reasonableness and fairness to the student-athlete already in the U.S. academic system," FSU compliance director Bob Minnix wrote in his letter to the NCAA July 16.
Minnix doesn't understand why that wasn't applied. Even ACC commissioner John Swofford wrote to NCAA president Myles Brand Sept. 8:
"It is difficult for me and others to understand how this new change can affect a young man who was already enrolled in the fall semester of a junior college and making plans to attend a four-year institution after graduating the following May."
To him, Romero was the poster child for a "more responsive NCAA" on which Brand himself spoke . In a Sept. 1 column for NCAA News, Brand challenged the reinstatement committee to look "at the mitigating circumstances in each case more than relying simply on a literal reading of the rule or case precedent for a decision. There are cases in which a common-sense approach would lead to a more forgiving decision."
Similar to Minnix, Swofford pointed out that school officials were unclear until late October 2002 - just a couple weeks before Romero signed with FSU - how the NCAA would treat transfers.
But in a letter Sept. 17, Brand answered Swofford by saying all schools had sufficient time to understand how the new directive would be applied.
"It seems that fairness and flexibility are present in this issue," he wrote.
"I actually don't think that is the right word or concept to apply here," NCAA Division I reinstatement committee director Julie Roe said during a telephone interview with the Times.
"It's always been a violation to sign a contract and compete professionally."
According to documents, FSU conceded that Romero twice signed an agreement with a pro club in Argentina, but that was required to protect the club.
Only in 2000, the third year of his agreement, did Romero receive any money, and that was the equivalent of about $2,400 that FSU said he used for public transportation. As such, Romero's case was over.
"As a longtime genuine advocate for putting a premium on student-athlete welfare, the situation involving Diego Romero represents the most blatant disregard for that priority on the part of the NCAA that I have witnessed in my 20 years of involvement in intercollegiate athletics," FSU athletic director Dave Hart said in a statement.
"I remain hopeful that common sense and fairness will prevail. We will continue to assist this young man toward that end.
"He has done the right thing throughout this process. It's time for all parties concerned to do the right thing."
- Times staff writer Deirdre Morrow contributed to this report.
