Both Gary Parrish and Andy Katz are reporting that Renardo Sidney will likely be cleared by the NCAA in time to play in, at least part of, the '09-'10 season.
This is would not be a good thing for the NCAA, which is still reeling from OJ Mayo, Nate Miles, Derrick Rose, Tim Floyd, etc.
Because Renardo Sidney has already been exposed. An LA Times article back in April exposed, among other things, that the Sidney's rented a house worth $4,000-$5,000 a month. The family has yet to prove how they were able to afford that much in rent.
The rumors swirled around Sidney so thick during the recruiting process that both USC and UCLA withdrew scholarship offers.
So what's the issue? Why is there even a debate?
The problem lies in the burden of proof; does the NCAA have to prove that Sidney broke rules in order to make him ineligible or do the Sidney's have to prove that they didn't break any rules to remain eligible.
If they rule Sidney ineligiblen they open themselves up for a lawsuit, which they don't want. The Sidneys clearly have access to high-powered attorneys (that's how they are fighting this legal battle now), and the NCAA does not want that. They also don't want other recruits to see Sidney get off scot-free, because that sends the entirely wrong message to other high-profile recruits.
So what's the answer?
Most believe that Sidney's case will drag on with delay after delay until the NCAA finally clears him sometine during the season, be it November or January. Essentially, Sidney will get a suspension.
Fair or not, morally right or not, that's how these things tend to play out.