Originally Posted by bobwallace
Originally Posted by BC
What precedent? Remember when Julio and Mark Ingram went fishing with that guy and were immediately ruled ineligible for several weeks while the investigation was completed and only made eligible after they paid restitution? That precedent.


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.


When a player (or representative) stands accused of receiving or attempting to receive improper benefits, it is standard practice for the NCAA to immediately rule that student athlete ineligible until such time as his name is cleared or they find proof of wrongdoing. In Cam’s case the NCAA had tapes of his dad shopping him to State. That should have been an immediate rule for ineligibility until the NCAA determined if money changed hands. They ruled him ineligible for about 27 minutes and continued to let him play despite a scandal hanging over his head. They did not clear Auburn University of wrongdoing until October 2011, over 10 months after Newton had played his final game and was long gone and untouchable at that point. No other player in America would have gotten that treatment.


Would it have been fair to Auburn? Probably not, but that’s the risk you take signing damaged goods.

"Some men are mere hunters; others are turkey hunters."

-- Archibald Rutledge