Someone please explain this to me: Kentucky's high profile recruit John Wall excepted $700+ which he then had to repay, here is what the NCAA originally said about it:
"The committee goes on to say that if a student-athlete accepts benefits from an agent greater than $101, the student-athlete will have to repay the money and be subject to a minimum 10 percent withholding condition -- in other words, withheld from 10 percent of a team's regular-season games"
10% just like Clevin's punishment. However, the final verdict was only a 2 game suspension, AND, they allowed him to count the exhibition as one of the two games. Now, even if you want to say that Clevin's crime (or non-crime), is more egregious than John Wall's, and deserves three games as opposed to two, how can you possibly justify letting some players count exhibition games and others not.
The NCAA is so freaking corrupt it’s like they don't even try to cover it up anymore.
"The committee goes on to say that if a student-athlete accepts benefits from an agent greater than $101, the student-athlete will have to repay the money and be subject to a minimum 10 percent withholding condition -- in other words, withheld from 10 percent of a team's regular-season games"
10% just like Clevin's punishment. However, the final verdict was only a 2 game suspension, AND, they allowed him to count the exhibition as one of the two games. Now, even if you want to say that Clevin's crime (or non-crime), is more egregious than John Wall's, and deserves three games as opposed to two, how can you possibly justify letting some players count exhibition games and others not.
The NCAA is so freaking corrupt it’s like they don't even try to cover it up anymore.
Comment