@HighEliteMajor said:
Your position, as I read it, basically, is that if the school taught core classes that were inadequate, then Diallo should be cleared because he was (presumably) ignorant of the deficiencies, correct?
That’s not quite it. What I’m asking is, regardless of whether Diallo knew, should have known, or was completely ignorant and prevented from being able to find out that Our Savior might have a problem in the eyes of the NCAA, what should the goal of the clearinghouse be (setting aside, for the moment, what it appears to be today), and how should that affect him?
If the goal of the clearinghouse is to only admit players who are academically prepared for college, then I think it would take an extraordinary reason beyond what we can say we now know in order to disqualify Diallo. In all respects, again, from the outside looking in, he appears to be ready for that aspect of participating in college athletics. If the goal of the clearinghouse is to weed out institutions that don’t adequately prepare players, then there is the question of whether or not a player who is (or at least appears to be) prepared should be penalized for the institution’s shortcomings, or if that specific player should be given a pass based on their own merit?
I’ll freely admit that Diallo’s situation and that of those who also attended Our Savior for a lesser time isn’t a 1 to 1 situation, but I don’t quite buy it’s apples to oranges. It might be Granny Smith to Braeburn. After all, most of the classes that anyone takes in HS that are in any way college preparatory usually happen in their junior and senior years. Would you find it reasonable to conclude that a person wasn’t ready for the rigors of college based on a puff class they took as a freshman or sophomore provided the classes they took thereafter met the standards?
I understand that there needs to be some sort of rules and some sort of enforcement. I understand that member institutions agree to the rules and enforcement mechanisms are a condition of membership. And even when those things come out to bite us, I don’t have a problem with that. Comparing Diallo to McClemore, however, I can clearly see why the NCAA had doubts about Ben’s potential as a college student (I mean, just listen to him speak. Yikes!), and I can’t really argue that they didn’t make the right choice in that case, even though it potentially cost us a national title. But what is the point of investigating potentially mitigating circumstances if you’re not going to consider what I would hope would be the most important criterion?
I’m also not one to stomp my foot and expect everything to be absolutely fair and equal 100% of the time. You’re right, the reality of the moment is what it is, fair or not. Still, that doesn’t oblige me to censor my opposition to the status quo (should I come to oppose it), nor should I be made to accept it in the face of what I think it ought to become. Hopefully the NCAA will see things my way, and give Diallo the benefit of the doubt based on his own merit, regardless of what they decide to do with Our Savior and future prospects from that school. If they don’t, however, as I stated, it will take a reason beyond what I currently know (or at least think I know) for me to be satisfied with that outcome.
