I'll read BLP for you. "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"  The original report of the allegation cites "anonymous sources" who were afraid to lose their scholarship. Hell look at the title of the article itself.  I wonder if ncaafootball.fanhouse.com passes the test for being a reliable source? 
I appreciate that I've gotten under your skin enough for you to wikistalk me over to this article, but know when to quit.  Seriously.