NickZ4UT
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,476
- Likes
- 844
So here we have an organization that is supposed to govern college athletics and on the surface they make ruling that are intended to make it seem like that's what they are doing. However if you look more closely, things don't quite add up.
Cam Newton:
Everyone knows the story, I'm not going to re-hash it. What the NCAA did was rule that Cam was eligible to play as he had no prior knowledge of his father's misgivings. The issue here is that it sets a dangerous precedent, essentially parents can now shop their sons around to different schools for cash and as long as their son is not aware there are NO consequences whatsoever.
OSU:
Again, we know what happened. You can't possibly give me one good reason why those kids were allowed to play in the bowl game. They were clearly guilty and there was more than enough evidence available immediately to rule them ineligible.
These are the two best examples of what the NCAA does. At best they are incompetent and at worst they are a corrupt organization.
Speaking of corruption, anyone remember the story that ran on ESPN during a bowl game over the holidays about NCAA compliance officers? I distinctly remember this story, they interviewed a former compliance officer and he basically said that occasionally they would report a violation and then the front office would say it was nothing and just ignore it. He went on to say that this practice was common in investigations and that favoritism was also commonplace. I have spent the last ten minutes looking for this interview and can't find it anywhere, so I'm guessing they swept it under the rug rather quickly. Any help finding this would be great.
Cam Newton:
Everyone knows the story, I'm not going to re-hash it. What the NCAA did was rule that Cam was eligible to play as he had no prior knowledge of his father's misgivings. The issue here is that it sets a dangerous precedent, essentially parents can now shop their sons around to different schools for cash and as long as their son is not aware there are NO consequences whatsoever.
OSU:
Again, we know what happened. You can't possibly give me one good reason why those kids were allowed to play in the bowl game. They were clearly guilty and there was more than enough evidence available immediately to rule them ineligible.
These are the two best examples of what the NCAA does. At best they are incompetent and at worst they are a corrupt organization.
Speaking of corruption, anyone remember the story that ran on ESPN during a bowl game over the holidays about NCAA compliance officers? I distinctly remember this story, they interviewed a former compliance officer and he basically said that occasionally they would report a violation and then the front office would say it was nothing and just ignore it. He went on to say that this practice was common in investigations and that favoritism was also commonplace. I have spent the last ten minutes looking for this interview and can't find it anywhere, so I'm guessing they swept it under the rug rather quickly. Any help finding this would be great.
