UOP would appreciate it if ESPN would butt out

So...anyone catch that story on E:60 about Brecht Gijsbertsen being denied eligibility at Oregon State because some teammates on her European club made money? And how UOP's Svenja Engelhardt might possibly be considered ineligible by the same standards because some random Canadian on her club team apparently received money from the club, which makes anyone on that team ineligible by NCAA rules? Well, UOP has reacted.

Naturally they're not really happy, with the A.D. saying that they did their part, executing a "complete vetting of both (Engelhardt's) club and sand volleyball teams."

Now, I don't care if she is eligible, isn't, whatever. But there are some gems in the story and in the aftermath.

The setup for Engelhardt's part of E:60's story happens thusly:

Dave Rubio: There was, in my opinion, not even the same kinds of question marks (with Gijsbertsen) as you have for other players in our conference.

Wonder what players he's talking about...

Dave Rubio: You have this rush of players that want to come over. And so then you have the NCAA trying to figure out which ones are eligible and which ones aren't, so there's going to be some that are going to slip through the cracks.

E:60: Like Svenja Engelhardt.

Ouch.

In reaction to UOP's reaction, ESPN's spokesdude first says:

It wasn't like we were making the assertion that Pacific did anything wrong.

True, true, you only implied that Engelhardt should be declared ineligible. That's all.

Good times.

But the funniest part is when the NCAA dude in charge of the department that checks out all the foreigners -- a TEN PERSON DEPARTMENT overseeing over 10,000 foreign athletes -- claims "...the vast majority of our students domestic or international are meeting our standards." To which the ESPN correspondent, brilliantly, asks "How do you know that? How can 10 people really get to the bottom of whether these people are telling the truth?"

The NCAA dude's response is, "Well, the important thing is..." (the opening you use when you really want to say, "I'm not really going to answer your question, but look at this bright shiny object over here!") "...that we identify those cases that are really most egregious in terms of violation of our amateurism rules."

So it's a sliding scale! How uniquely...arbitrary! I'm sure this clears up everything. Thanks, NCAA!