Started By
Message
Which situation is more stressful for the fans and the program?
Posted on 9/12/13 at 7:44 am
Posted on 9/12/13 at 7:44 am
We have 2 competing "wrongdoing" stories out there in the press.
For starters, I believe the Yahoo report was specifically timed to release right in the middle of thsi big SI report. Yahoo loves to show up its print competitors, and i think it is obvious that the Yahoo story is much more professionally written and researched than the SI report, as Yahoo has released their supporting documents and SI has released nothing.
Having said that, if you are a fan or an official of one of these schools, which of these sets of allegations is more stressful:
1. In the SI report, the information is vague and spread out with much of it happening beyond the normal NCAA Statute of Limitations. Given how so many of the sources have started to recant to a certain level, it is highly unlikely there is anyplace for the NCAA to go with the investigation, but the school is directly implicated in the wrongdoing, however vague and unprovable it is.
2. In the Yahoo report, unless new information comes out that was not in the story, the schools themselves have committed no wrongdoing. Repeat to the idiot class out there: in the Yahoo report, the schools are innocent bystanders in this case. They may have played ineligible players which would lead to forfeits on paper if proven, but as is, the schools are in the clear of additional violations (unless more comes out that these agents were given access by the schools but given the report, that does not seem to be the case). So, while there is little chance that there will be any violations, it is much more likely that given the evidence that forfeits are possible, which in Alabama's case would me 1, maybe 2 forfeited championships on paper. (I say on paper because in my opinion i don't care how much money Fluker took, Alabama will still be the champion.)
So, its unprovable allegations unliekly to result in any penalties where the school is implicated and reputaions are tarnished versus very provable allegations where the school is innocent and repuations are untarnished but penalties in ther form of forfeist are much more possible.
So, which one is worse? I have no idea.
For starters, I believe the Yahoo report was specifically timed to release right in the middle of thsi big SI report. Yahoo loves to show up its print competitors, and i think it is obvious that the Yahoo story is much more professionally written and researched than the SI report, as Yahoo has released their supporting documents and SI has released nothing.
Having said that, if you are a fan or an official of one of these schools, which of these sets of allegations is more stressful:
1. In the SI report, the information is vague and spread out with much of it happening beyond the normal NCAA Statute of Limitations. Given how so many of the sources have started to recant to a certain level, it is highly unlikely there is anyplace for the NCAA to go with the investigation, but the school is directly implicated in the wrongdoing, however vague and unprovable it is.
2. In the Yahoo report, unless new information comes out that was not in the story, the schools themselves have committed no wrongdoing. Repeat to the idiot class out there: in the Yahoo report, the schools are innocent bystanders in this case. They may have played ineligible players which would lead to forfeits on paper if proven, but as is, the schools are in the clear of additional violations (unless more comes out that these agents were given access by the schools but given the report, that does not seem to be the case). So, while there is little chance that there will be any violations, it is much more likely that given the evidence that forfeits are possible, which in Alabama's case would me 1, maybe 2 forfeited championships on paper. (I say on paper because in my opinion i don't care how much money Fluker took, Alabama will still be the champion.)
So, its unprovable allegations unliekly to result in any penalties where the school is implicated and reputaions are tarnished versus very provable allegations where the school is innocent and repuations are untarnished but penalties in ther form of forfeist are much more possible.
So, which one is worse? I have no idea.
4
Posted on 9/12/13 at 7:49 am to sbrian3915
Try to walk on campus and offer a football player money to endorse something. See how fast you get booted. Don't tell me the schools don't know what's going on.
Posted on 9/12/13 at 8:10 am to LSU1NSEC
quote:
Try to walk on campus and offer a football player money to endorse something. See how fast you get booted. Don't tell me the schools don't know what's going on.
Here is what i do know for a fact. When it comes to illegal payments to athtletes, schools either want to be in total control of the money or don't want the payemtns happening at all. The last thing they want is players getting money from agents or out of control boosters because the program can't control any of that. What is being alleged on Yahoo is the kind of thing that drives a coach nuts, because they are going to have to forfeit games and there is nothing they could have done to stop it.
Go back to the SMU case. Why did Ron Meyer leave? Under Meyer, the SMU coaches had full control over the illegal benefits system. They controlled who got what and who distributed the money and who was in the know, and they kept the inner circle very small. When the SMU boosters started paying players outside that little system that Meyer had set up, he got out of dodge because he lost control of the payments.
Posted on 9/12/13 at 8:15 am to sbrian3915
nothing serious is gonna happen to anybody. ncaa is a clown show right now.
Posted on 9/12/13 at 8:27 am to LSU1NSEC
quote:
Try to walk on campus and offer a football player money to endorse something. See how fast you get booted. Don't tell me the schools don't know what's going on.
Get real. So Bama knew what was going on with Andre Smith and suspended him before the Sugar Bowl, but yet also knew what was going on with Fluker and did nothing? Ok. Sure thing. Makes total sense.
Posted on 9/12/13 at 8:37 am to sbrian3915
AUBURN, Ala. - Former Auburn coach Terry Bowden said on tape two years ago that boosters were funneling thousands of dollars to football players when he became coach in 1993, a time when the Tigers already were on NCAA probation.
"They were paying players cash, $12,000, $15,000 to sign," Bowden said on a recording reviewed by The Associated Press. "All I was told to do was shake hands and say, 'Thank you. I appreciate how much you love Auburn."'
Bowden did not make clear whether he reported the payment scheme to the NCAA, but said on the tape: "When I came here, I put an end to it."
Bowden's comments were reported Sunday by the Opelika-Auburn News. A columnist taped the comments in a meeting about two years ago, and a copy of the tape was made available to AP.
Bowden did not return a phone call by the AP to his home in Orlando, Fla. He is a sports commentator for ABC Sports, where spokesman Adam Freifield said Bowden contended the remarks were off the record and had no further comment.
A statement issued by Auburn questioned why remarks made by Bowden in 2001 are only now being reported. The columnist who taped the comments, Paul Davis, said Tuesday there had been concern that Bowden's remarks were "off the record" and not for publication. Davis said Bowden has sent him an e-mail encouraging their publication.
The school's statement also said Bowden repeatedly had certified to the NCAA from 1993 through 1998 that "he was unaware of any unreported violations of NCAA rules by anyone involved with the Auburn football program."
Even though there is a four-year statute of limitations for NCAA violations, there is an exception if the infraction is considered "blatant." NCAA spokeswoman Kay Hawes wouldn't comment on the specifics of the allegations.
William Muse, who was president of Auburn during Bowden's term as coach, also said in newly released transcripts that he had heard rumors of a pay-for-play scheme but that it was never verified during the NCAA investigation. His comments were transcribed by Auburn history professor Wayne Flynt for a book and were made public recently by university archives.
Mitch Sneed, who became managing editor of the newspaper in February, said Tuesday he decided to publish Bowden's taped remarks after the recent release of the Flynt transcripts, which included Muse saying Bowden told him much the same things that were on the tape.
Muse said he heard there was "a network of alums who each had agreed to provide X number of dollars per year for a particular player and that there was a book that listed all of these individuals and the amounts that they paid."
"There was even a rumor that, at one time, (an assistant coach) was the keeper of the book," Muse said. "In fact, after he left Auburn, Terry even told me that. But that has never been verified. In the NCAA investigation, there didn't turn out to be any evidence of that."
Auburn came under NCAA scrutiny when Pat Dye was head coach. Tapes secretly recorded by football player Eric Ramsey disclosed financial and other help being given to Ramsey in violation of NCAA rules.
Dye stepped down after the 1992 season and the NCAA hit Auburn with penalties that included scholarship reductions, two years of probation and a one-year ban on television appearances.
Dye, a fund-raiser for Auburn, did not immediately return a telephone message left at his office Tuesday.
Bowden resigned as coach during the 1998 season as his relations with a powerful trustee, Robert Lowder, became strained.
On the tape, Bowden said 25 to 30 boosters would meet in Birmingham and 15 to 20 would meet in Rome, Ga., and that they would give $5,000 each. He said that when he arrived at Auburn, an assistant coach collected the money.
On the tape, Bowden said he took a stand against the practice. "I'm going to finish that deal. That's over with," he said he told one of those involved.
Muse, amid his own difficulties with some trustees, left Auburn two years ago to become chancellor of East Carolina. He resigned that post Friday, taking a tenured faculty position, in the wake of two critical internal audits.
"They were paying players cash, $12,000, $15,000 to sign," Bowden said on a recording reviewed by The Associated Press. "All I was told to do was shake hands and say, 'Thank you. I appreciate how much you love Auburn."'
Bowden did not make clear whether he reported the payment scheme to the NCAA, but said on the tape: "When I came here, I put an end to it."
Bowden's comments were reported Sunday by the Opelika-Auburn News. A columnist taped the comments in a meeting about two years ago, and a copy of the tape was made available to AP.
Bowden did not return a phone call by the AP to his home in Orlando, Fla. He is a sports commentator for ABC Sports, where spokesman Adam Freifield said Bowden contended the remarks were off the record and had no further comment.
A statement issued by Auburn questioned why remarks made by Bowden in 2001 are only now being reported. The columnist who taped the comments, Paul Davis, said Tuesday there had been concern that Bowden's remarks were "off the record" and not for publication. Davis said Bowden has sent him an e-mail encouraging their publication.
The school's statement also said Bowden repeatedly had certified to the NCAA from 1993 through 1998 that "he was unaware of any unreported violations of NCAA rules by anyone involved with the Auburn football program."
Even though there is a four-year statute of limitations for NCAA violations, there is an exception if the infraction is considered "blatant." NCAA spokeswoman Kay Hawes wouldn't comment on the specifics of the allegations.
William Muse, who was president of Auburn during Bowden's term as coach, also said in newly released transcripts that he had heard rumors of a pay-for-play scheme but that it was never verified during the NCAA investigation. His comments were transcribed by Auburn history professor Wayne Flynt for a book and were made public recently by university archives.
Mitch Sneed, who became managing editor of the newspaper in February, said Tuesday he decided to publish Bowden's taped remarks after the recent release of the Flynt transcripts, which included Muse saying Bowden told him much the same things that were on the tape.
Muse said he heard there was "a network of alums who each had agreed to provide X number of dollars per year for a particular player and that there was a book that listed all of these individuals and the amounts that they paid."
"There was even a rumor that, at one time, (an assistant coach) was the keeper of the book," Muse said. "In fact, after he left Auburn, Terry even told me that. But that has never been verified. In the NCAA investigation, there didn't turn out to be any evidence of that."
Auburn came under NCAA scrutiny when Pat Dye was head coach. Tapes secretly recorded by football player Eric Ramsey disclosed financial and other help being given to Ramsey in violation of NCAA rules.
Dye stepped down after the 1992 season and the NCAA hit Auburn with penalties that included scholarship reductions, two years of probation and a one-year ban on television appearances.
Dye, a fund-raiser for Auburn, did not immediately return a telephone message left at his office Tuesday.
Bowden resigned as coach during the 1998 season as his relations with a powerful trustee, Robert Lowder, became strained.
On the tape, Bowden said 25 to 30 boosters would meet in Birmingham and 15 to 20 would meet in Rome, Ga., and that they would give $5,000 each. He said that when he arrived at Auburn, an assistant coach collected the money.
On the tape, Bowden said he took a stand against the practice. "I'm going to finish that deal. That's over with," he said he told one of those involved.
Muse, amid his own difficulties with some trustees, left Auburn two years ago to become chancellor of East Carolina. He resigned that post Friday, taking a tenured faculty position, in the wake of two critical internal audits.
Posted on 9/12/13 at 8:54 am to sbrian3915
I can see Bama getting slapped with a "Failure to Monitor" violation, a la Ohio State. May lead to a similar bowl ban/probation, but no reductions in scholarships, recruiting, etc...
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News