Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="reedny, post: 2570544, member: 1423"] Whether a federal crime has been committed or not is case dependent. We've already seen indictments so clearly US attorneys have determined that, in some cases, there is sufficient evidence of a federal crime by athletic assistants and/or apparel executives. Another source of criminal liability could be the NLI. I'm not sure what's contained in the letter currently. There may be financial aid disclosures and warnings. If not, I would add a provision by which any student applying for financial aid has to aver that he or she remains an amateur in that sport and has not (personally or through the SA's family) received any compensation from any source conditioned on a promise to attend a specific school. I would also add a disclosure acknowledging that the student understands that the U receives federal financial aid, that some of the financial aid being offered to the student consists of aid from the federal government, and as such, the student swears that false information in the form could be a federal crime. Boom. Done. At the college level (which is just as important), apparel company pay-offs should be getting far more NCAA enforcement attention than they're getting. Sanctioning SU for paying kids to ref Y games, and giving $100,000 payoffs to recruits at other schools a free pass, is inconsistent and improper. I have a hard time believing that NCAA member schools would allow this double standard to exist for too long. Even Emmert admits that the NCAA has a terrible public image and integrity problem. There's an easy way to address that: bring enforcement actions against these schools and re-establish amateurism standards in college athletics. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?