- Dec 22, 2011
Seems like there is very little true due process for these kids and how they are handled is at the arbitrary whim of the NCAA. From my understanding, other than his name appearing on some list made by a wannabe sports agent as a possible target for payments, there is no evidence of an agreement, payments actually being made, or even Dewan having knowledge of the plan to recruit him as a client. Did UM agree to these facts hoping to receive leniency from the NCAA and in effect, screw Dewan in the long run? What is the difference between him and all the other athletes that appeared on that list who continue to play?
UM did not "agree to these facts" for leniency.
Again, there are two components. One is the agreement, and please be aware, it has always been stated that DEWAN never agreed to it. That does not mean there is no evidence of an agreement. Given the statements that were made about an "AAU coach" who screwed over Dewan, there was probably correspondence between the AAU coach and the agent, but no similar evidence that Dewan was in on the agreement (regardless of whether he was or was not, there was no evidence thereof).
The second component is different. It says that benefits were given to Dewan (it does not say those benefits are the same as the purported "contract" called for). If UM does not contest THOSE facts, it seems like everyone is in agreement, particularly because there were intimations that Dewan could "repay" such benefits in an attempt to mitigate the penalties.
Look, I'm not super-mad at the kid, but I do think we have to be honest here, and acknowledge that SOMETHING happened. Maybe this outcome is harsher than what he "should" get, but it is true that these kinds of violations NORMALLY cost a kid his full eligibility.
I hope we can get him back for next season, and give him a chance to showcase his skills.