Alabama Athletics: Over 200 Involved in Textbook Scandal
Okay, I'm confused. When the initial report came out about the "textbook scandal," the Alabama officials said it was around 20 student-athletes involved. Today, Al.com reported that over 200 athletes, in various sports, were taking part in the free for all at the local bookstore.
Those of you that have followed this know how the university likes to brush situations like this under the rug. Hello? Freedom of information act, please. Mal Moore is the culprit, with "tiny Nicky" right behind him. How tall is that guy anyway? Ok, nevermind, back to the story at hand.
There was a story out not to long ago that accused "the nicktator" of holding out information about the NCAA sending a letter of inquiry. Which later said that Bama had to go in front of the infractions committee. Now, that letter was sent in December, but "slick Nick" did not say a word about that until signing day was over. Hmmmm.
Needless to say, Alabama had the No. 1 recruiting class in the nation. So I guess I could see why he didn'y say anything. I mean if it's only a few athletes involved, why bother. Which brings me to my point of this story. It wasn't a "few" athletes involved, try 200. Ranging all over Alabama athletics.
Why would "suitcase Saban" hide this information? From a long-time fan of this rivalry, I could only tell you it's the "Bama way." When Bama is winning, they're cheating. Which seems kind of odd considering their glorified history in college football. Well, if you count laundry mats handing out national titles, then it's a historic program.
It's only a matter of days before bama gets the punishment it deserves. Saban knows it. You can tell by the way he's frantically getting verbal commits for the 2010 class. I've said before, the guy is relentless.
Bottom line, the NCAA needs to clean up this kind of manipulative garbage that'sgoing on at some of these schools. It's time to do things the right way, Bama. Which, of course, means that Bama will fall back to being irrelevant in the SEC again.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?