To me, and only 20% because I'm an Auburn fan, I think it looks a bit like lack of institutional control to have a business man give one player a laptop and take two other players for a free fishing trip.
So in one case, the kid who took the laptop had to sit for 6 games.
In the other case, the kids who took the trip had to pay some money to a charity.
And the Alabama football program was effected how exactly? I just find it interesting that nothing at all came of those events. Some (new) Auburn coaches show up at Toomers Corner with recruits present....a secondary recruiting violation, and Auburn has to cut all communication with those recruits that were present (for months), and the staff losses some official visits. That's pretty strict for some secondary violations. Especially compared to laptops and fishing trips.
Don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm not one of those "the NCAA hates Auburn and favors Alabama" conspiracy theorists. I gave the Auburn example because I'm familiar with it and that's all. It's not a "we got this and you only got that" argument.
It's a consistency argument. If secondary recruiting violations (by anyone) result in those type penalties, then surely laptops and fishing trips is worthy of some actual penalty to the program (?).
68 Replies
10551 Views