Started By
Message
Honest question re: Clinton-Dix
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:30 pm
This has probably been brought up but I didn't see it.
Full disclosure I'm an Auburn fan and I was too young to really know exactly what happened with the Eric Ramsey situation and too disillusioned to really care about the details of the latest cheating controversy at bama, the SEC, or CFB in general.
My elementary understanding is that an Auburn coach was recorded giving Ramsey money to feed his wife and child as Ramsey was basically crying to him begging for the help.
At bama a S&C coach was placed on administrative leave for giving Clinton-Dix money or some other sort of "impermissible benefits".
AU was placed on probation and 2 years of no television or bowl game.
Clinton Dix was suspended for 2 meaningless games and is now playing again.
So what are the main differences in the two situations that justify the two extreme (on the opposite end of the spectrum) "punishments"?
Full disclosure I'm an Auburn fan and I was too young to really know exactly what happened with the Eric Ramsey situation and too disillusioned to really care about the details of the latest cheating controversy at bama, the SEC, or CFB in general.
My elementary understanding is that an Auburn coach was recorded giving Ramsey money to feed his wife and child as Ramsey was basically crying to him begging for the help.
At bama a S&C coach was placed on administrative leave for giving Clinton-Dix money or some other sort of "impermissible benefits".
AU was placed on probation and 2 years of no television or bowl game.
Clinton Dix was suspended for 2 meaningless games and is now playing again.
So what are the main differences in the two situations that justify the two extreme (on the opposite end of the spectrum) "punishments"?
This post was edited on 10/21/13 at 1:31 pm
21
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:31 pm to RandySavage
Why not just call him by his full name
Ha'Sean HaHa Clinton-Dix
Ha'Sean HaHa Clinton-Dix
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:32 pm to RandySavage
HaHa didn't know.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:32 pm to RandySavage
Clinton-Dix got $300 which he repaid. I have no idea why it's a big deal. It's certainly not cheating.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:32 pm to RandySavage
quote:
So what are the main differences in the two situations that justify the two extreme (on the opposite end of the spectrum) "punishments"?
Different day and time, as well as the amount
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:32 pm to RandySavage
We're Bama. We get special treatment. 'Preciate your interest in HaHa. 
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:33 pm to RandySavage
Clintons-Dick always gets away with it.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:33 pm to RandySavage
Auburn had a payroll system set up for star players. And they had it for years. From top to bottom at Auburn it was known and the most powerful men at AU had their hands in it.
Clinton-Dix borrowed $300 from a weight training coach and paid it back. Big difference.
Clinton-Dix borrowed $300 from a weight training coach and paid it back. Big difference.
This post was edited on 10/21/13 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:34 pm to Rebel Land Shark
quote:
Why not just call him by his full name
Ha'Sean HaHa Clinton-Dix
Because I refuse to acknowledge such a terrible name.
So are these answers serious?
It's ok to give out money to players as long as they supposedly pay it back? It's cheating in 1992 but not in 2013?
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:35 pm to Hater Bait
quote:
Auburn had a payroll system set up for star players. And they had it for years.
Like this is the first thing that has come out at bama the last few years.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:35 pm to RandySavage
quote:
AU was placed on probation and 2 years of no television or bowl game.
Clinton Dix was suspended for 2 meaningless games and is now playing again.
You are comparing the player punishment to the program punishment. They aren't the same.
Just because HaHa only got 2 games does not mean UA is in the clear. That sucks to say as a Bama fan, but it's the truth. The NCAA could still have something coming for the program for all we know.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:35 pm to RandySavage
Fine in 2010 too.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:36 pm to RandySavage
Ramsey solicited money for play and all denied and hid it.
Dix repaid the amount he took, accepted responsibility and went through the NCAA to get reinstated.
Dix repaid the amount he took, accepted responsibility and went through the NCAA to get reinstated.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:36 pm to attheua
quote:
he NCAA could still have something coming for the program for all we know.
They dont
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:36 pm to RandySavage
If I remember the Ramsey situation correctly, it wasn't simply some Dickensian fairy tale of some coach giving him money to feed his starving family. It was a series of payments over a long term and benefits over a long term, to the tune of considerably more than 500 dollars. Other factors include the fact that the money wasn't repaid and the violation wasn't self-reported. That last, especially, is a huge deal. That's why schools regularly issue annual reports of violations without any prompting whatsoever.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:36 pm to alabamabuckeye
quote:
Clinton-Dix got $300
So it's not cheating cause he repaid?
The cheating was taking it in the first place..
quote:
Bama Fan
Oh never mind..
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:36 pm to RandySavage
For starters Bama self reported , Auburn didn't.
Secondly , Auburn was paying players to make plays.
There isn't any comparisons.
Secondly , Auburn was paying players to make plays.
There isn't any comparisons.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:37 pm to attheua
quote:
The NCAA could still have something coming for the program for all we know.
And we could still win the west
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:37 pm to RandySavage
quote:
It's ok to give out money to players as long as they supposedly pay it back? It's cheating in 1992 but not in 2013?
Did Ramsey pay it back? Did the University self report it? The amount, the current NCAA landscape and the answer to the two questions above are your reasons.
Posted on 10/21/13 at 1:37 pm to TreyAnastasio
quote:
They dont
Nobody would know. The textbook abusers were reinstated after a few games too. And then the news broke a year or so later that UA was going back on probation.
**I'm not trying to say the severity of those 2 cases are the same, bc they certainly aren't, but just because the player is cleared doesn't mean the program is too. I hope that's all we hear from the NCAA but I have deep mistrust of them
This post was edited on 10/21/13 at 1:44 pm
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News