Couple that with his hatred for everything the NCAA does and you have a conspiracy theory post.

Except when they grossly overstepped their bounds and invented a punishment for PSU in order to capitalize on public sentiment in the hopes of repairing their shit reputation. He loved that.

I remmeber the talk of Ohio State signing Lebron. Then his mom got a new hummer his senior year in high school….

that the one she got the DUI in?

Am I insane or was there a shit ton of talk that this kid would be ineligible long before he even signed his LOI?

I remmeber the talk of Ohio State signing Lebron. Then his mom got a new hummer his senior year in high school….

Your not. TBL loves this kid and is just sad that he won’t be able to see him play in college. Couple that with his hatred for everything the NCAA does and you have a conspiracy theory post. The NCAA was warning schools months ago about this kid (he has accepted money or something similar) not being eligible. This isn’t some shocking new thing. This is an old story and hopefully will go away soon with him signing overseas.

Actually, Southwestern Louisiana. And UL-Monroe was Northeast Louisiana.

All I know is never bet on the white guy.

Am I insane or was there a shit ton of talk that this kid would be ineligible long before he even signed his LOI? Isn’t that part of how he got to UCLA in the first place, because other buyers were scared that they were throwing good money after bad?

You’re not insane and yes this was absolutely the case. He was seen as a walking recruiting violation.

And at the time, It was University of Southern Louisiana

Actually, Southwestern Louisiana. And UL-Monroe was Northeast Louisiana.

This letter is not the smoking gun. It is the grain of truth around which a conspiracy theory can be built.

Seems like you still need to take some leaps for this to have an effect on his eligibility.

Love seeing these posts on a site that spent months advocating that Penn State — a school that committed no NCAA violations — be shut down

would love to see this site address this.

A misconception of the death penalty and SMU is that that was the sole reason SMU did (and continues) to struggle. Yes it was quite damaging, but the university did something immediately after the DP to ensure that we would remain irrelevant for years to come. When Kenneth Pye, the new university president, was installed in 1987 he immediately forced through a new rule which prevented the Athletic Department from recruiting players who the university’s Admissions Committee did not think could graduate within 4 years. This took the university’s athletic admissions standards way above and beyond NCAA requirements and automatically disqualified most of the best recruits in the country. This university rule wasn’t relaxed until 2008 in June Jones’ first year. So the DP is responsible for some of the damage, but much of it since then was self-inflicted.

I don’t disagree, but isn’t there a higher standard to pay attention to? If the NCAA is in truth going to do anything but pay lip service to gilded idea that amateur athletics is about the game and not the money, then shouldn’t they put aside financial considerations when making these decisions?

The NCAA has said they are very reluctant to use the death penalty after they saw how much it ruined SMU. It has to be something that is so far reaching and out of control for them to even think about it. They had a ton of internal discussions about what to do with Baylor basketball (probably the biggest case to use the death penalty the last 15 years) and a lot of people didn’t want to go death penalty because it would cripple the program for decades. I would be shocked if we see the death penalty in Division 1 sports again.

A lawyer says she heard a man say on Aug. 7 that his girlfriend was an NCAA attorney investigating Shabazz Muhammad and that he said, ‘I can guarantee you that he’s not going to play.’

Hi, welcome to law school, today we’ll be learning about hearsay.

NCAA isn’t subject to to same rules of evidence or procedure that a court is. I would bet that the vast majority of what the NCAA relies upon in making its seemingly arbitrary decisions wouldn’t hold up in a real court. They don’t care. At this point, those douches are the ultimate arbiters of who can play in NCAA sanctioned events.

Larger point is that this is what a handful of people unrelated to any investigation were saying at the same time. If the NCAA can support his ineligibility decision, do these statements or this investigator’s apparent predisposition against his eligibility mean that they have to make him eligible? I think not.

I don’t disagree, but isn’t there a higher standard to pay attention to? If the NCAA is in truth going to do anything but pay lip service to gilded idea that amateur athletics is about the game and not the money, then shouldn’t they put aside financial considerations when making these decisions?

It’s perhaps naive to even ask such a question, but there it is.