Started By
Message
re: ATPB: what were we like?
Posted on 10/23/14 at 8:25 pm to Tigerman97
Posted on 10/23/14 at 8:25 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
Also that Cecil admitted discussing it.
Yes, Cecil discussed it after the "fixer" brought it up. The whole thing was that the "fixer" was gonna make a little money out of it himself.
"Discussing" a price with someone who first brought it up to you is not "soliciting" it. Look it up in Websters.
2
Posted on 10/23/14 at 9:13 pm to beatbammer
I remember I used to get super pissed at one thing in particular..
There was an SEC or NCAA bylaw (forgot which) that was brought up over and over and over. It was one about an athlete asking for money being ineligible or something along those lines. Dumbasses would quote it daily saying Cam was therefore ineligible.
I forget the specifics, but a careful reading of the entire section and particular bylaw quoted gets you to a conclusion that it did not apply. One of the Dipshits covering the story like Evans or Thamel even wrote an article saying Cam was ineligible due to the bylaw.
I explained over and over why it technically could not be applied to Cam no matter how bad people wanted it to be. I would get infuriated when I had to keep explaining it and the dumbshits still didn't get it.
I read, interpret and apply the most asinine fricked up complex laws in existence for a living on almost a daily basis. The damnbylaws are something I can read and accurately interpret 100/100 without difficulty, yet I had halfwits telling me differently on a regular basis.
I erupted a couple of nights and got some stern PMs from the admins the next day a few times and lots of " this post has been marked unreadable".
There was an SEC or NCAA bylaw (forgot which) that was brought up over and over and over. It was one about an athlete asking for money being ineligible or something along those lines. Dumbasses would quote it daily saying Cam was therefore ineligible.
I forget the specifics, but a careful reading of the entire section and particular bylaw quoted gets you to a conclusion that it did not apply. One of the Dipshits covering the story like Evans or Thamel even wrote an article saying Cam was ineligible due to the bylaw.
I explained over and over why it technically could not be applied to Cam no matter how bad people wanted it to be. I would get infuriated when I had to keep explaining it and the dumbshits still didn't get it.
I read, interpret and apply the most asinine fricked up complex laws in existence for a living on almost a daily basis. The damnbylaws are something I can read and accurately interpret 100/100 without difficulty, yet I had halfwits telling me differently on a regular basis.
I erupted a couple of nights and got some stern PMs from the admins the next day a few times and lots of " this post has been marked unreadable".
Posted on 10/23/14 at 9:21 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
I erupted a couple of nights and got some stern PMs from the admins the next day a few times and lots of " this post has been marked unreadable
Yet the admins kept the ATPB thread stickied on the rant and allowed every whacko theory posted. Why? Because it drove traffic to their website. And when the NCAA couldn't find any wrong doing by AU they whacked any thread making fun of ATPB. fricking hypocrites.
Posted on 10/23/14 at 9:23 pm to AUCatfish
Yep. I called them out on it as well. Got pms for that then eventually about a 6 month ban followed by another one for calling them out more.
I didn't GAF.
I didn't GAF.
Posted on 10/23/14 at 9:28 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
I called them out on it as well. Got pms for that then eventually about a 6 month ban followed by another one for calling them out more.
I didn't GAF
It made me really lose interest in being here. Such bullshite. Having an Auburn only board made me come back.
Posted on 10/23/14 at 9:30 pm to AUCatfish
Yeah, know what you mean. 
Posted on 10/24/14 at 5:44 am to beatbammer
quote:
quote:
Also that Cecil admitted discussing it.
Yes, Cecil discussed it after the "fixer" brought it up. The whole thing was that the "fixer" was gonna make a little money out of it himself.
"Discussing" a price with someone who first brought it up to you is not "soliciting" it. Look it up in Websters.
Seems your stuck on the semantics of "Soliciting". I guess what I was trying to infer is that there was evidence Cecil was looking to talk about money. Clearly not "soliciting" but also it wasn't like Cecil was on a normal recruiting visit and accidentally got caught up in a discussion about PFP.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 11:31 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
There was an SEC or NCAA bylaw (forgot which) that was brought up over and over and over. It was one about an athlete asking for money being ineligible or something along those lines. Dumbasses would quote it daily saying Cam was therefore ineligible.
Section 14.01.3.2 of the SEC By-Laws. It states:
quote:
If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.
It was Clay Travis that tried to use that to say that a solicitation was an "agreement to receive".
Posted on 10/24/14 at 11:40 am to dukkbill
The best sec by-law, that they still continue to say, is once ineligible always ineligible. Despite the fact that its never been enforced and if it were, there would be a lot of unhappy folks from every fanbase.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 12:24 pm to NYCAuburn
Totally different... The bottom line is the BS that was on the ATPB, random callers taken as FACT on Fbaum, and how it was reported by national media (as fact).
My personal favorite was that Cam got his suit from the Locker room in Montgomery and it was a violation. That lead to Ttowns menswear and all the pictures including Ingram's suit. That seemed like a turning point and was ironic as hell.
My personal favorite was that Cam got his suit from the Locker room in Montgomery and it was a violation. That lead to Ttowns menswear and all the pictures including Ingram's suit. That seemed like a turning point and was ironic as hell.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 12:58 pm to dukkbill
Bingo. That's it, thanks.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 1:03 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Yep. I called them out on it as well. Got pms for that then eventually about a 6 month ban followed by another one for calling them out more. I didn't GAF
IDGAF either. I continually call them pussies hypocrites. Anything other than bashing LSU is fair game on this site because its an LSU site. Just the way it is. But Ill call those fricks out for it. I remember once we were cleared in Oct 2011 and they anchored our thread about it. They wouldnt let us have our fun laughing at those dumbasses that thought we were going down. The LSU admins thought we were going down too.
IDIOTSThis post was edited on 10/24/14 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 10/24/14 at 1:20 pm to Tigerman97
quote:
Seems your (sic) stuck on the semantics
Yes, semantics, i.e. meaning and definition. That's the part of the English language (along with proper grammar and punctuation) that convey the point you are trying to make to the reader/listener.
If you didn't mean "solicit" don't blame me for your poor choice of words.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 1:42 pm to beatbammer
quote:
quote:
Seems your (sic) stuck on the semantics
Yes, semantics, i.e. meaning and definition. That's the part of the English language (along with proper grammar and punctuation) that convey the point you are trying to make to the reader/listener.
If you didn't mean "solicit" don't blame me for your poor choice of words.
Oh, I think the links I provided paint a picture of someone who was soliciting money. Thankfully there was a loophole since Cam didn't know about it. The loophole is gone though.
LINK
I wonder what action by a parent or person acting on behalf of a player caused the NCAA to act so swiftly on that subject. You know solicits or anyone who "seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete's enrollment at an educational institution or a from a student-athlete's potential earnings as a professional athlete.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 3:22 pm to Tigerman97
The two situations are completely different, but there was a little bit of an Us vs. Them mentality.
When that asinine excuse for a thread popped up, I couldn't believe the mods would leave that fallacy up, much less sticky the damn thing.
Before that, I was a lurker with a log in. I created an account years ago to say grats to LSU fans after we played them one year. Other than that, I was content with just reading posts.
I tried to log in to clarify some of the blatant misinformation in that thread. I couldn't remember my old password, so I had to create a new account. Nov 2010 was the only reply I ever received to anything I posted.
I only posted in it 2 or 3 times before I realized it was nothing more than an epic butt hurt troll thread. I couldn't believe the mods handcuffed our posters and wouldn't let us gloat when he was cleared. :stillmad:
TL;DR: frick ATPB
When that asinine excuse for a thread popped up, I couldn't believe the mods would leave that fallacy up, much less sticky the damn thing.
Before that, I was a lurker with a log in. I created an account years ago to say grats to LSU fans after we played them one year. Other than that, I was content with just reading posts.
I tried to log in to clarify some of the blatant misinformation in that thread. I couldn't remember my old password, so I had to create a new account. Nov 2010 was the only reply I ever received to anything I posted.
I only posted in it 2 or 3 times before I realized it was nothing more than an epic butt hurt troll thread. I couldn't believe the mods handcuffed our posters and wouldn't let us gloat when he was cleared. :stillmad:
TL;DR: frick ATPB
Posted on 10/24/14 at 4:35 pm to Blake R
I was only a lurker than. I can say it was unbearable as an AU fan for 3 months straight.
Posted on 10/24/14 at 4:54 pm to Blake R
quote:He was defended by AU fans to various degrees. Some reasonable and some not so reasonable. It isn't a completely dissimilar comparison imo.
I don't remember anyone really defending Cam
Non FSU fans are more willing to accept Winston being guilty without all of the evidence because he is unlikable and plays for a top team.
Page 3 of 3
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News