All true. But to be required to pay restitution, shouldn't there be proof of something gained in order to pay it back? How do you determine what should be repaid if you can't prove anything was accepted? So you are good with guilty until proven innocent when it comes to an NCAA investigation? You're good with an athlete being ruled ineligible while the NCAA twiddles its thumbs and costing him and the team, instead of retroactively vacating something should evidence prove guilt? Although it was a ridiculously short amount of time, Newton was also ruled ineligible. Only difference between Julio/Ingram and Newton, was the proof that the former did in fact receive an improper benefit.