AOL FanHouse’s Clay Travis, an attorney who can also write, makes an arresting case for just how illogical and inconsistent the NCAA has been with its 2010 rulings. The grid-obsessed Travis makes no mention of Enes Kanter, but he does bring up an interesting question about Ohio State football and the word “vacate”, as in vacating a season for playing an ineligible player.
An excerpt:
4. Why isn’t Ohio State’s entire 2009 and 2010 season vacated?
This is the second part of the NCAA ruling, the one no one has questioned. If playing with ineligible players leads to vacated wins, why isn’t Ohio State being forced to vacate its past two football seasons when ineligible players, by its own admission, took the field?
The NCAA says the players didn’t gain a competitive advantage. Okay, gotcha. But did Alabama gain a competitive advantage when its players resold textbooks? Did that make them better at tackling or catching? Of course not. But it was an improper benefit.
So why did Alabama vacate 21 wins in 2005, ‘06 and ‘07 and Ohio State vacates none?
How can you reconcile this?
You can’t.
Think John Calipari might be asking the same question?
John Clay
johnclay.bloginky.com
No comments:
Post a Comment