Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Rocktheworld, post: 2369617, member: 5037"] I must be missing something big because the main thing I still don't get is this: We hear that this case centered around an impermissible benefits case: that the NCAA had to prove that athletes got benefits beyond those granted to normal students. Why was only this side of it the fulcrum of the ruling? Why is it not an issue of fielding players who in hindsight (and we know the NCAA doesn't have a problem retroactive [double jeopardy] punishment) should have been ineligible for sumbitting grades for invalid courses for the sake of remaining eligible? Why didn't testimony that UNC funneled athletes through the department which is at the center of the scandal play a factor? [/QUOTE]