Started By
Message
re: Emmert on Bruce Pearl and Cam Newton in USAToday
Posted on 12/16/10 at 10:30 am to memphisplaya
Posted on 12/16/10 at 10:30 am to memphisplaya
quote:
Point is people are ready to thrash the NCAA , but if they give a ruling based on little sufficient evidence
Isn't this the SAME organization that will rule a recruit INELIGIBLE if his GPA or ACT score goes up more than a preset number of points?
Aren't they, in those cases, presupposing that shenanigans occurred without any evidence of the fact? They, in effect, are saying "you did too well on your ACT retake. There may have been some cheating....so you may NOT enroll and practice at your school of choice."
No factual evidence. Just a preponderance of evidence. I call hypocrisy.
1
Posted on 12/16/10 at 10:41 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
I think that there are 2 things at play... first is if something is written as a rule on the books, and the leeway they use in attaching evidence to the rule. Typically, there hasn't been much pushback in these instances, due in part to the fact that the NCAA isn't a rule of law.
The second is if there is evidence, but it doesn't fit a rule already on the books. With Masoli, they tried to get around this by saying the rule in place was not meant to allow players to circumnavigate punishment at other schools. This was not written specifically in the books, and was thus overturned. Cam was going to fall in this category.
The second is if there is evidence, but it doesn't fit a rule already on the books. With Masoli, they tried to get around this by saying the rule in place was not meant to allow players to circumnavigate punishment at other schools. This was not written specifically in the books, and was thus overturned. Cam was going to fall in this category.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News