View Single Post
Old 08-17-2013, 07:01 PM   #26
Balla_Status's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,724
Default Re: 2013 College Football Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by Real Men Wear Green
Which just increases the likelihood that he gets punished. They don't have to deal with a statute like "beyond a reasonable doubt," they can act on a level of evidence that satisfies their own thoughts on a particular case. "Read up."

Right. Do you know how much money the NCAA would stand to lose if Manziel is ineligible?

The NCAA requires DIRECT evidence. Not circumstantial evidence.

Statement from the NCAA when Newton was cleared:
"The NCAA enforcement staff is committed to a fair and thorough investigative process," the NCAA said in a statement. "As such, any allegations of major rules violations must meet a burden of proof, which is a higher standard than rampant public speculation online and in the media. The allegations must be based on credible and persuasive information and includes a good-faith belief that the Committee on Infractions could make a finding.

There were former Auburn players who made claims (like the brokers) that there was wrongdoing in the program and players were getting paid. But Auburn was cleared as there wasn't sufficient/direct evidence of the wrongdoing.

So like I said, there is no direct proof currently of Manziel getting paid. READ UP.

Last edited by Balla_Status : 08-17-2013 at 07:05 PM.
Balla_Status is offline   Reply With Quote