Started By
Message
re: Manziel recommendation from NCAA on Wednesday
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:13 pm to therick711
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:13 pm to therick711
quote:
Honest question, do you know that they don't have "tangible" evidence?
If they did, they wouldn't be making recommendations tomorrow. They'd be dropping the hammer.
If they had a money trail, actual video, photographs or audio of him receiving money, etc. they wouldn't waste time recommending a punishment. That is how I know.
3
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:14 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If they did, they wouldn't be making recommendations tomorrow. They'd be dropping the hammer.
So you are speculating. The NCAA had all kinds of evidence on Miami and they let that one slip through their fingers. I wouldn't be so quick to say they have no "tangible" evidence, which is a ridiculous standard.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:15 pm to therick711
quote:
No I said what counts as enough evidence. Three people doesn't count because it has to be "tangible."
You clearly said you believe that verbal accusations was "tangible". You are now backtracking like a motherfricker, but I love you anyway.
Even IF we change the definition of tangible and allow for your original argument, the NCAA has never received a statement from anyone if you believe ESPN. Every single accusers said they will not cooperate.
So, very literally, the NCAA has nothing. Their actions reinforce this.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:17 pm to therick711
quote:
my point is twofold, do you know they don't have anything
From what I've seen, A&M fans' confidence stems from the fact that A&M hasn't come out and made a point-blank statement that Manziel isn't playing.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of inference and tea leaf-reading, just like it would be if anyone else's team was under the microscope.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:17 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
You clearly said you believe that verbal accusations was "tangible". You are now backtracking like a motherfricker, but I love you anyway.
I admitted that I made a mistake and have edited. I know it is rare on this forum for people to admit to a mistake, but when I am mistaken, I'll own up to it. The point remains that you made up a standard. No one has that standard, even the NCAA. Further, you are making a baseless claim that they can't meet your standard.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:17 pm to therick711
quote:
So you are speculating.
I'm using simple reasoning skills we all learned in grade school
If the NCAA had real evidence that showed Manziel took money, they'd suspend him. Period.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:18 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If they did, they wouldn't be making recommendations tomorrow. They'd be dropping the hammer.
No. With the exception of PSU, there is a process that the NCAA has to follow. There is an official notice and the player and school have to appear at a meeting and then months go by before the committee makes a ruling and then there is an appeals process. This stuff is never quick.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:19 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If the NCAA had real evidence that showed Manziel took money, they'd suspend him. Period.
No you are using logical fallacies. You are saying if they had some evidence they would suspend him on Wednesday. That's not true. Your premise is flawed.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:20 pm to Roger Klarvin
This is the dumb way of not realizing that if JFF plays whilst property with his signature is being sold , HE IS AT THAT POINT GUILTY OF BREAKING THE NCAA BY-LAW......
Hello sanctions , as John Wayne would say , you Texicans are a hard headed bunch.
Hello sanctions , as John Wayne would say , you Texicans are a hard headed bunch.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:22 pm to therick711
quote:
Aggy created the tangible evidence standard. Unheard of to any legal system in the world. You have to have "tangible" evidence. A lack of which they use interchangeably with no evidence.
I think what everyone means is there is no witness testimony and no other evidence that money changed hands. Only innuendo that money MAY HAVE changed hands in a similar circumstance, so it must have occurred in this one. In other words, no tangible evidence. This is not just an "aggy" thing either.
quote:
This is like the OJ case where wannabe legal eagles kept saying the case is circumstantial, like that has any meaning. Anything other than eye witness testimony is circumstantial. DNA evidence, which is considered incredibly reliable by the public, is circumstantial. A label does not weaken the case. At some point the NCAA will weigh what it has. To criticize it for not having what it is incapable of compelling people to give them is stupid.
I am no wannabe, sir. Circumstantial evidence can be used if it is credible and leads one to believe that only one conclusion could be reached based on the information available. Example, if the grass is wet and it hasn't rained in a week, the wet grass is circumstantial evidence that somebody ran the sprinklers. If a turtle is on top of a fencepost, after expert testimony from an expert in turtle behavior stating that turtles can't jump or climb a fence post, the mere fact that the turtle is on the fence is circumstantial evidence that someone put the turtle on the fence.
In this case, the fact that JFF signed a bunch of stuff MAY BE circumstantial evidence that he was paid, but it also may be excused because he thought it was for charity, or that he did it out of the goodness of his heart. The amount of signing he did does not lead solely to the conclusion that he was paid, without more evidence. So, yeah, it's circumstantial evidence, but not reliable on it's own. So, Eff you.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:22 pm to cyde
quote:
From what I've seen, A&M fans' confidence stems from the fact that A&M hasn't come out and made a point-blank statement that Manziel isn't playing.
I assumed, but obviously did not know, that the NCAA had little to nothing prior to today because of the fact that they had apparently been dragging their feet since June on this.
Only when it came out today that they will be making a recommendation to A&M about a punishment or lack thereof did we know they don't have much of anything. The NCAA doesn't nicely recommend things when they could just as easily come down on a player/program, especially now when they are scrambling to prove they have some semblance of power left.
Nobody actually believes they would hold off suspending him if they could because they know nobody respects them as it is. How much worse will it look if they recommend a punishment and A&M plays him anyway? If they could punish him by force, they would. They clearly cannot.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:23 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
I am no wannabe, sir. Circumstantial evidence can be used if it is credible and leads one to believe that only one conclusion could be reached based on the information available.
Since that isn't the standard, you are indeed a wannabe.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:24 pm to therick711
quote:No one knows what the NCAA has, except Chancellor Sharp, and he feels real good about this. He doesn't need to even ask JFF if he is innocent or not, he knows without a doubt that JFF didn't do it.
Honest question, do you know that they don't have "tangible" evidence? I most certainly don't know. If there is a link, please link it. If these "agents" or "brokers" gave the NCAA anything, I don't know in all honesty.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:25 pm to bamawriter
quote:
No. With the exception of PSU, there is a process that the NCAA has to follow. There is an official notice and the player and school have to appear at a meeting and then months go by before the committee makes a ruling and then there is an appeals process. This stuff is never quick
In which case they wouldn't bother with a recommendation and either suspend him or clear him at a later date.
The investigation probably wont end tomorrow, but making recommendations screams "please let us save face because we have nothing".
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:26 pm to therick711
quote:
Since that isn't the standard, you are indeed a wannabe.
That is the standard, butt effer. You are the wannabe.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:27 pm to therick711
quote:
No you are using logical fallacies. You are saying if they had some evidence they would suspend him on Wednesday. That's not true. Your premise is flawed.
Good grief. I'm saying that if they had solid evidence, they wouldn't be making any recommendations at all and, at some point, would suspend him. I'm not saying they would suspend him tomorrow. I'm saying that the fact that they ARE going to recommend anything at all shows they have a weak case. If they had something, there would be none of this current business going on.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:28 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The investigation probably wont end tomorrow, but making recommendations screams "please let us save face because we have nothing".
The NCAA "recommended" that LSU suspend Akiem Hicks from all team activities. They never formally suspended him. LSU handled the matter internally. LSU was guilty of a major violation in that situation. You continue upon a false premise. Hicks' situation is a prime example of how wrong you are.
This post was edited on 8/27/13 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:28 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If they did, they wouldn't be making recommendations tomorrow. They'd be dropping the hammer.
Not necessarily at all. They could very easily have enough enough information to tell aTm that he's not going to be eligible, but may not have every loose end tied up yet...for example, how many games would he have to sit, what he would have to do to regain eligibility, if that's even possible, etc.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:29 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
This is the dumb way of not realizing that if JFF plays whilst property with his signature is being sold , HE IS AT THAT POINT GUILTY OF BREAKING THE NCAA BY-LAW......
And the only way this flies is if the NCAA suspends at least a dozen other players, including AJ McCarron.
The NCAA is desperately trying to save face from the selling of player likenesses on their website. They aren't touching this.
This post was edited on 8/27/13 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:29 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
That is the standard, butt effer. You are the wannabe.
No it isn't. Relevant circumstantial evidence doesn't have to lead to only one conclusion. If you think that, I hope you aren't a trial attorney, because you're going to have a malpractice case on your hands. fricking Aggy. Always thinking he is competent.
Page 15 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News