When it comes to the NCAA enforcement folks, I tend to fall into the camp that views them as sometimes overwhelmed, sometimes incompetent people who inconsistently apply a set of rules that have grown as complicated as the Internal Revenue Code, and not, say, a bunch of evil bastards who ruthlessly pursue certain schools unfairly (an Alabama fan, in other words).
But I’ve got to say that if this rumor has legs, I may think about changing sides.
… This morning, someone (someone I trust) called me to share the same rumor that I then saw in a lot of different places: That those five players would serve two-game suspensions, in the USM and Furman games.
I can say first that I have NOT confirmed that. I’ve asked around, but no one credible is biting on that one. (See: My first point? Or maybe it’s just not accurate?)
Burning question: How would the players get to play in the Georgia game? That concept seems idealistic, to me. If it was negotiated by the university, to have the opener be mandatory and then get to pick the second game, give that person a raise. It’s plausible, I guess. But … it’s a stretch.
If it is true, I’d be somewhat outraged if I were a Georgia fan. That’s some flexible justice. Which is what makes me doubt it, considering it’s coming from the NCAA.
Somewhat outraged? No, that’s how I’d feel if Spurrier were to impose internal discipline on a selected basis. If the NCAA became involved in picking sides like that, I think I’d be feeling something more akin to a five-alarm, where’s-my-damned-shotgun outrage – especially considering how they’ve left Georgia twisting in the wind with regard to A.J. Green.
I doubt this is true, but I’ll sure be paying attention tonight to the pre-game talk.