Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="pfister1, post: 215554, member: 285"]
I say the consequences are embarrassment and lots of sanctimonious b.s. articles from all of the various news sites, until the next thing comes down the pike to distract them.
 
  I don't see how the NCAA can take away wins?  We played a player that was "ineligible" by our definition (per Yahoo's reading of our drug policy), not the NCAA's definition of ineligible.    Given that it was our definition doesn't the fact that the players played mean we chose not to make them ineligible.   It's not like academic ineligibility where the NCAA has set a standard that must be met that wasn't.        If Duke decided it was going to upgrade is holier than thou image and require all of its players to maintain a 3.0 in order to be eligible and K's favorite player Mason Plumlee pulled a 2.7 would he be ineligible and would it be some sort of violation to play him?   I think not.  How is this different?
 
  And how is this an "infraction"?  An infraction is typically understood to be a violation of NCAA rules.   There are no NCAA rules on this subject.   They don't require you to have a policy and as far as I have heard they don't have rules about what to do with a player that is believed to have taken drugs....until he tests positive under the system of testing that the NCAA imposes on participants in its championships.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?