Looking back, I think I've covered most of what you asked at some point and will address anything left out that I missed.

If winning this contest is your goal then I will concede now as the point is futile understanding that neither one of us can draw a definitive conclusion from the facts at hand.

Your Forbes article and use of the Bama text book example have little to nothing in common with this case as those infractions were admitted and remained within the school at which they occurred. Bravo for posting a link but the relevance is weak and only serves to illustrate that players can be retroactively made ineligible. I don't contest that fact. What you're failing to acknowledge is that the NCAA declared Cam ineligible and immediately reinstated him with 'no conditions'. If you refer to past NCAA cases 'conditions' or 'vacated wins' were issued as a penalty. Its been stated that NCAA investigations typically remain open after eligibility is granted to said player. If this is status quo then why are you hanging your theory on it as if its something unique to the Cam case? Again, I'm following your line of logic above and you seem to have contradicted yourself there. I understand that the NCAA statement states that the enforcement body and reinstatement body act independent of one another but a passive browse of any given NCAA investigation will clearly illustrate that the two bodies are not mutually exclusive. For your benefit, please search Donald Maurice Jackson's NCAA cases and/or recent interviews. His work will illustrate this in vivid detail. I'm not sure why you are so adamant about that point. That may not have been you so my apologies if I paraphrased incorrectly yet again. By suggesting that the two bodies are totally mutually exclusive infers that the enforcement body's ultimate determination trumps the reinstatement process's position with no dialogue taking place prior to the decision. Unlikely in most cases. Highly improbable in this one given the high profile and inherent stakes on the table if they make a mistake.

I'd really like some insight into why you feel the NCAA was forced to act in the time frame the ruling came down as opposed to kicking the can further down the road. Also, what do you believe the NCAA or process gains in stating a ruling if the investigation is in full throttle?

I can do without the pissing contest if you're up for it.

I guess in the end it really doesn't matter what I think but to have thought any different from the outset of this discussion makes one seem mentally small. We're two anonymous posters on a site called Tigerdroppings and its all in good fun. If I wanted to discuss the issue in a non hostile environment then I would go to an Auburn site but what fun would that be?

I know I haven't covered all of the points here that you believe I'm dodging but I will gladly address anything you've got and hopefully you'll provide some perspective on the points I issued to you.

This post was edited on 12/10/10 at 10:27 pm