Too Lazy....

[madillsoonerfan5353]

to look it up, any news on Balogun?? :pop:

[AzianSooner]

Dude still runs slow with his big belly and smaller head.

[Blitzkrieg]

He's toast. Just my opinion of how the ncaa will handle this. They would open pardoras box with this.

Hopefully BYU will give F$U the royal treatment in provo for us this weekend.

[CrimsonJim]

I haven't heard anything in quite a while now. They'll probably get around to it by next February.

[CK Sooner]

No news.

[madillsoonerfan5353]

Thanks for the info!

[rainiersooner]

By the way...just to say what everyone else is thinking. The NCAA sucks. What??? They can't get around to it?? Too many resources dedicated to the Reggie Bush case? We're talking about a hard working kid who just wants to play football. Balogun needs a tea party or something. This sucks. I actually no longer care about the OU angle. I just cannot believe that the NCAA thinks they are doing good work with this. It's pathetic.

[Leroy Lizard]

If I am the NCAA, this is easy.

1. On one hand, we can take away the eligibility of a player who is, in fact, eligible.

2. Or we can grant eligibility to a player who is, in fact, ineligible.

I am not sure of either. So which decision is going to cause us the least grief?

No one (except the typical UT fan) is going to complain about the second option. After all, the rule was designed to prevent certain evils that don't even pertain in this case. (Balogun was not paid to play, and the amount of game experience he gained was negligible. The university did not benefit from having a semi-pro farm league at its service.)

We can be sued for the first option, and it would be embarrassing to deny a player a year of eligibility that truly deserved it. Therefore, I only want to choose the first option if I know that there is essentially zero chance of being wrong.

That isn't the case here. So I choose the second option.

I issue a statement that says "After thorough research (a lie), we have uncovered evidence that throws into serious doubt our earlier decision not to certify the player. Since we care greatly about the welfare of our players (another lie), we have decided to recertify Mike Balogun. This decision does not mean that Mike Balogun has never violated NCAA rules on eligibility, but only that we lack sufficient evidence to deny him the privileges we grant other athletes. To be fair to the team in question, this decision is final and cannot be later overturned."

Problem solved. Mike gets his eligibility. The NCAA doesn't get sued and still looks "tough on crime."

But such thinking is too logical for the NCAA. Instead, they will end up spending a ton of money on a legal staff to fight the inevitable legal battle, soaking up resources that can be better used to fight other wars.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I am amazed. I agree completely with that post.

Good job Leroy. Spek.

[StoopTroup]

If I am the NCAA, this is easy.

1. On one hand, we can take away the eligibility of a player who is, in fact, eligible.

2. Or we can grant eligibility to a player who is, in fact, ineligible.

I am not sure of either. So which decision is going to cause us the least grief?

No one (except the typical UT fan) is going to complain about the second option. After all, the rule was designed to prevent certain evils that don't even pertain in this case. (Balogun was not paid to play, and the amount of game experience he gained was negligible. The university did not benefit from having a semi-pro farm league at its service.)

We can be sued for the first option, and it would be embarrassing to deny a player a year of eligibility that truly deserved it. Therefore, I only want to choose the first option if I know that there is essentially zero chance of being wrong.

That isn't the case here. So I choose the second option.

I issue a statement that says "After thorough research (a lie), we have uncovered evidence that throws into serious doubt our earlier decision not to certify the player. Since we care greatly about the welfare of our players (another lie), we have decided to recertify Mike Balogun. This decision does not mean that Mike Balogun has never violated NCAA rules on eligibility, but only that we lack sufficient evidence to deny him the privileges we grant other athletes. To be fair to the team in question, this decision is final and cannot be later overturned."

Problem solved. Mike gets his eligibility. The NCAA doesn't get sued and still looks "tough on crime."

But such thinking is too logical for the NCAA. Instead, they will end up spending a ton of money on a legal staff to fight the inevitable legal battle, soaking up resources that can be better used to fight other wars.

That's a lot of words for something so easy.

[AlbqSooner]

That's a lot of words for something so easy.

Kinda how the NCAA works. Lwyerly types don't say in two words what they can craft into a paragraph. ;)

[SoonerPr8r]

If I am the NCAA, this is easy.

1. On one hand, we can take away the eligibility of a player who is, in fact, eligible.

2. Or we can grant eligibility to a player who is, in fact, ineligible.

I am not sure of either. So which decision is going to cause us the least grief?

No one (except the typical UT fan) is going to complain about the second option. After all, the rule was designed to prevent certain evils that don't even pertain in this case. (Balogun was not paid to play, and the amount of game experience he gained was negligible. The university did not benefit from having a semi-pro farm league at its service.)

We can be sued for the first option, and it would be embarrassing to deny a player a year of eligibility that truly deserved it. Therefore, I only want to choose the first option if I know that there is essentially zero chance of being wrong.

That isn't the case here. So I choose the second option.

I issue a statement that says "After thorough research (a lie), we have uncovered evidence that throws into serious doubt our earlier decision not to certify the player. Since we care greatly about the welfare of our players (another lie), we have decided to recertify Mike Balogun. This decision does not mean that Mike Balogun has never violated NCAA rules on eligibility, but only that we lack sufficient evidence to deny him the privileges we grant other athletes. To be fair to the team in question, this decision is final and cannot be later overturned."

Problem solved. Mike gets his eligibility. The NCAA doesn't get sued and still looks "tough on crime."

But such thinking is too logical for the NCAA. Instead, they will end up spending a ton of money on a legal staff to fight the inevitable legal battle, soaking up resources that can be better used to fight other wars.

So all they need is undeniable video evidence to overturn the call?:pop: