[More Cowbell]

Now everyone wants to throw out the "Nothing has been proven" argument, which only means he has not been found guilty. Proof and guilty do not always mean the same thing. You can be guilty without being proven so!

The argument is not "nothing has been proven". The argument I make is that Cal is not to blame, which is completely different.

Your point is that since some people say that Cal had something to do with the Camby or Rose situations, then that makes him guilty. Why? I mean, I can throw around baseless accusations at people too, but it doesn't mean there is any substance to them.

Again, look at each situation. What reason is there to think Cal had anything to with either one? In regards to Camby, why does everyone say "Cal's the coach, he should have known" that he took money from an agent? He can't monitor every move of every player the whole time they're in college, it's physically impossible. I can't watch my 6-year-old every hour of the day, so I don't know if he's at school eating glue. I can tell him not to, but in the end I have to just trust that he won't do it when he's out of my sight.

And with Rose, again, how is that situation Cal's fault? How was he supposed to know that Rose didn't take the test, if that's indeed what happened? Unless he personally called the SAT folks and volunteered to proctor the location where Rose was taking the test, there's no way to know. A coach can't follow all his recruits when they go take the SAT, again, it's physically impossible (and probably illegal). If the NCAA clears a player to participate, you play him. How is Cal to blame for dishonesty on Rose's part?