I remember Colin Cowherd recently talking about conspiracies. He said that you should always consider to factors when deciding if a conspiracy claim is legitimate:
1. Who benefits?
I concede that the NCAA benefits from schools like
OSU, scUM and PSU going to bowl games and doing well. That being said, this guy shoots himself in the foot when he then compares the Big Ten to the SEC. Why would the NCAA want to sanction their best football conference? It doesn't make sense.
According to his logic, anyone who hasn't been caught is just getting a favor from the NCAA. I think it's hypocritical and extremely naive to think that, if this existed, Texas wouldn't be getting the same treatment. Austin hasn't exactly been crawling with investigators and NO ONE can convince me that a big time college program is squeaky clean. A school that big can't moniter everything, just as
OSU can't.
The NCAA gets nothing out of sanctioning the SEC and letting the Big Ten off.
2. Who would have to be involved?
Everyone in the NCAA offices, investigators, informants, school officials, coaches, OTHER schools administrators on boards, conference officials, players...should I go on?
One person decides to come forward with information and they'll make a ton pf money, get publicity and be a household name. You're suggestion that no one in the last 15 years has been bitter enough to try to bring this down?
Even if the NCAA paid off everyone, they'd be in debt so much that the motive to do it suddenly goes out the window because they are losing cash instead of making it.
The next article by this guy will discuss how the moon landing was a hoax.