I'll add this, and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but rather trying to get clarity. Notre Dame has the right not to admit him back into enrollment. But my question is this... On what grounds?
Maybe some legal nerds can clarify, but I asked around, and have found nothing to show that he was in poor academic standing before the Frozen 5. Which means, at the surface, he was academically in good standing until that point. In fact, his early enrollment put him a semester ahead of Russel in terms of earned credits. At best, Russells's summer school put him at the same credit standing as Ishaq.. If they chose to deny his admission, they seemingly would be denying him admittance because of his participation in academic scandal. Which is understandable, but absolutely does not hold water with the argument that he is not eligible per NCAA guidelines. Unless they took away credits earned (hey, that's possible) he will be academically eligible if they admit him for summer classes. If they do not admit Ishaq. Then they will be admitting Russell, for similar offense, in order to allow him to enroll to meet the same level that Ishaq would be at if they let him enroll.
I get it if Ishaq was two semesters behind Russell, but he is not. The fact remains that if Russell and Ishaq both walk into the upcoming summer semester, then they would both be in the same standing in terms of graduating. If the school chooses to do that, then fine... But unless someone can add some color around the situation, then I fail to see how they would deny his admission based off of academics while allowing Russell to enroll.
Somebody post up something that disproves this. If you can, then I will happily eat crow. I want clarity as well, but I have yet to see any actual facts disproving these arguments. I honestly don't see how they admit Russell and then claim that their reasoning is based off of NCAA guidelines or his standing in regards to credits earned. All I have read is innuendo and hearsay.
