Doesn’t look good for OU’s Balogun
The evidence seems to be against OU linebacker Mike Balogun, who is fighting to retain his eligibility and has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA.
Balogun is in NCAA limbo while a probe is conducted to determine whether he played semi-pro football after his 21st birthday. Various internet sites show Balogun playing in 2005; he turned 21 in September 2004. And an ex-assistant coach with the Maryland Marauders said he remembers Balogun playing in 2005.
Other North American Football League officials say Balogun did not play during the year in question.
But human testimony is not as reliable as documents. Investigators will wonder why Balogun is listed as a member of the 2005 NAFL all-star game. And why Balogun is mentioned, with statistics, on a report about the 2005 NAFL title game.
Balogun appears to be asking the courts for reinstatement and asking for relief from NCAA penalty. In other words, if a court allows him to play, and that ruling later is overturned, Balogun is asking that OU be exempt from punishment.
But the NCAA will fight that, because that in effect strips it of enforcement power. Local courts often are friendly to universities and their personnel. Delaying enforcement would cripple rules.
The NCAA’s rule — that anyone who plays semi-pro after the age of 21 be docked a year of NCAA eligibility — seems reasonable. This case should be about nothing more than whether Balogun played semi-pro football in 2005 or 2006.
-------------Berry Tramel can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including AM-640 and FM-98.1. You can e-mail him here and follow him on Twitter @BerryTramel. Visit Berry's website here.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Why in the world did the NCAA not check the internet before? I imagine they did and the websites were all in agreement with Balogun… Probably what happened is that the information changed AFTER they did their investigation.
one of the main people of that league has said that the reports made on the teams are often not accurate. Since they certified him before and he disclosed it, they should let him play. again, being that he disclosed it and they must have had some sort of check on what he said and certified him, they should let him play.
I’m sure they asked if he played after he was 21 and he said no and the information available at that time corroborated that. Now there’s new information that indicates he did play after 21, so the NCAA is reinvestigating. Balogun’s initial eligibility was based on the information they had then. New information requires a new investigation with his eligibility in doubt until the new investigation is concluded. Seems all logical to me.
I went into the NAFL website yesterday to look into the realities of what was being reported and found some interesting comments and entries. #1 in the championship game that all were alluding to in 2005, the box score and recap was provided by an outside source not affiliated with the web site administrators. #2 this page must not have been in place during the original NCAA investigation and review that determined that Balogun was elgible. I don’t think that there is currently enough truly documented evidence to support either side. I would think they might want to look at the edit history on the website to determine who, when, and what changes have been made to the information that now makes it appear that the player should be inelgible. I have registered with the website and received tentative membership approval, hopefully within the next day or so I will receive the authorization to interact with the site. Let’ get the facts!
Why was this not uncovered when the NCAA investigated his history in semi-pro ball, then gave him permission to play last year?