Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="reedny, post: 3384844, member: 1423"]
Well put and good post. As to #'s 2/3, this is the first I've heard of referrals to the IRP (Rice Commission), so I'm very curious (read that "skeptical") as to whether: a) the process is fair; and b) justice (including penalties) will be meted out in a manner commensurate with the seriousness of the violations.

As to the end of #4, the "available to all students" argument is risible. Yes, students in the general population could have taken Afam (gut) courses, or even "majored" in Afam. But what the NCAA should have focused on is the unique advantage it created for [I]student athletes[/I], who used it as a pretext to maintain academic eligibility. This should have vitiated their amateur status and voided all the games in which they participated. Ignoring these improprieties was bad enough. But ruling that such a widespread and long-lasting academic fraud did not violate the "extra benefits" rule created a stunning double standard (see Melo, Fab). To this day it defies logic and impugns the integrity of the NCAA compliance process.

And lastly, I find it especially detestable that an "ethics" professor in the phil. department was the AD's chief operative in the fake FB/BB eligibility scheme. It's the most egregious abuse of the amateur system I have ever seen and remains a black mark on the institution and the NCAA.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?