1000% true. Read the damn congressional testimony where they explain this fact in detail

It's inadmissiable in a court of law. Last time I checked, the NCAA isn't a court of law.

This.

All the idiots in the media talking about what the NCAA can "prove" are talking out of their asses.

There is no burden of proof. There are no rules of evidence.

The NCAA will review whatever they can gather, and make whatever determination they want.

If they're convinced he accepted cash, he's done. Plain and simple.

They don't have to "prove" anything.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by WDE1980

Alabama

Member since Sep 2010

911 posts

Posted on 8/7/13 at 10:28 pm to TutHillTiger

quote:
If they're convinced he accepted cash, he's done. Plain and simple. They don't have to "prove" anything.

Wrong! They would be sued out the arse if they didn't have proof and deemed him ineligible. Which coloring book did you read this in?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by tmc94

Member since Sep 2012

11559 posts

Posted on 8/7/13 at 10:36 pm to TutHillTiger

the NCAA suspended an OSU Pitcher for contact with an agent while in high school but lacked sufficient evidence. The Pitcher appealed and had it overturned but only after missing part of the season. He later sued the NCAA for defamation of character and the NCAA settled for $750k. A college pitcher. You probably never even heard that story.

This one is all over the press. So what's the reigning Heisman winner worth? 100X that? The publicity may be a million times more. Neither the NCAA nor Texas A&M is going to punish anyone without sufficient evidence no matter how much you want them to.

3 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board