Remember when we use to read that the NCAA would not comment on any ongoing investigations?
Remember when they used to hand down a ruling and they would not comment on it after the initial presser?
It would appear that times have changed...
Several media and others recently concluded that very different situations involving student-athlete eligibility should be considered independent of their unique circumstances or interpreted with a "one size fits all" approach.
In particular, they are comparing recent decisions involving The Ohio State University and Auburn University (and others). Some have even suggested the NCAA plays favorites in these types of situations based in part or in whole on financial considerations.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In relation to the decision last week involving rules violations with football student-athletes at Ohio State, several current student-athletes were interviewed as part of our fact-gathering process. They indicated they were not aware there was a violation and learned of the issue based on later rules education, which was confirmed by OSU through interviews and supporting documentation.
Inadequate rules education is often cited in student-athlete reinstatement and other waiver cases (such as inaccurate or misguided academic advising), but it is just one of many factors considered in these types of situations.
That they even have to make a public statement shows just how under the gun they are.
Money is not a motivator?
Of course it is.
In fact the NCAA would love to get it hands on the football proceeds that they get very little of. They make boatloads off the NCAA basketball tourney...Imagine what they would do if they got their hands on the football proceeds.
Also, as I noted the other day...the NCAA scratched the back of tOSU AD Gene Smith and SEC Commish Mike Slive who both served on NCAA committees/boards.
You know...you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
Trust me the s**t is going to hit the fan.