Started By
Message
re: Manziel recommendation from NCAA on Wednesday
Posted on 8/27/13 at 3:26 pm to cyde
Posted on 8/27/13 at 3:26 pm to cyde
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To blatantly ignoring the recommendation? Sanctions. Probation. Bowl bans. Scholarship losses.
Ignoring the recommendations means nothing if the NCAA doesn't have some new information fall into their lap. Ignoring the recommendation is essentially calling their powerless bluff and hoping there is nothing else out there.
The very fact that the NCAA is making recommendations reveals how little they have. If they had solid evidence, it wouldn't be a "recommendation". This is a case of the NCAA, and everyone else, knowing he likely did something wrong. They have no tangible evidence though and thus are going to probably say "Hey, sit him for a game or two and this all goes away. Play him and we'll hold out hoping to find something else and then bury him." Calling their bluff will depend entirely on what the internal investigation turned up. If A&M truly believes nothing else is out there, he'll play and there isn't a GD thing the NCAA will do about it.
3
Posted on 8/27/13 at 3:38 pm to Big12fan
It's a dream-come-true scenario for you jealous t-sips, ain't it? Y'all haven't had the use of the NCAA as your personal Geheime Staatspolizei since Charles Allen Wright died. Poor sips. Reduced to praying for NCAA intervention, instead of dictating it.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 3:55 pm to KaiserSoze99
As was said several days ago. Manziel IS the starting QB. Case closed.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 3:59 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
The rules are not right, but they are still the rules. NCAA has been pretty weak ever since the Penn State deal though.
That's like saying the NCAA has been pretty weak since they took a sledge hammer to State College and killed their football program under a "good of the game" precatory part of the rule book. That was a nuke they dropped on PSU.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:01 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
They have no tangible evidence though
I don't care about John Football, but you take it over the top every time.
If three people saying he took money isn't (EDITED) enough evidence, what do you think qualifies? Or do you think that the NCAA has to have bank records and checks which they couldn't get even if they exist because they can't subpoena.
This post was edited on 8/27/13 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:02 pm to ChemE in the OP
My guess is all NCAA personnel got signed merchandise in return for allowing Manziel to suit up.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:03 pm to therick711
quote:
If three people saying he took money isn't tangible evidence, what do you think qualifies?
Hopefully three people never accuse you of rape
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:04 pm to therick711
quote:
If three people saying he took money isn't tangible evidence, what do you think qualifies? Or do you think that the NCAA has to have bank records and checks which they couldn't get even if they exist because they can't subpoena.
That's just it. Which 3 people? Who are they? JFF and A&M have a right to know who accused him. Who are you referring to?
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:04 pm to therick711
quote:
If three people saying he took money isn't tangible evidence, what do you think qualifies?
In all seriousness though, this:
quote:
If three people saying he took money isn't tangible evidence, what do you think qualifies?
Is one of the most idiotic things I've seen posted about the Manziel saga.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:05 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Hopefully three people never accuse you of rape
I'm not making a credibility determination. But you equating the NCAA not having what they are incapable of getting with there being no evidence is silly. There is considerable evidence. At some point a credibility call will be made. That is the difference to those that are objective and you, for instance. We see there is evidence and are awaiting the weighing of said evidence.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:05 pm to therick711
No paper trail you say?
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Ignoring the recommendations means nothing if the NCAA doesn't have some new information fall into their lap. Ignoring the recommendation is essentially calling their powerless bluff and hoping there is nothing else out there.
I'm not claiming anything other than how the NCAA might view the flaunting of a theoretical recommendation.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:07 pm to therick711
quote:
I'm not making a credibility determination. But you equating the NCAA not having what they are incapable of getting with there being no evidence is silly. There is considerable evidence. At some point a credibility call will be made. That is the difference to those that are objective and you, for instance. We see there is evidence and are awaiting the weighing of said evidence.
This is the long way of saying you don't know what "tangible" means.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:08 pm to Dr RC
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.
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.
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.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:09 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
That's just it. Which 3 people? Who are they? JFF and A&M have a right to know who accused him
You're confusing the NCAA with the US Justice system. There are no such rights.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:10 pm to therick711
No, you clearly said that you believe verbal accusations count as tangible evidence:
This isn't about A&M setting up a standard and you arguing a different one, you just didn't know what tangible meant. It's ok dude.
quote:
If three people saying he took money isn't tangible evidence, what do you think qualifies?
This isn't about A&M setting up a standard and you arguing a different one, you just didn't know what tangible meant. It's ok dude.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:11 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
knowing he likely did something wrong.
We actually went on probabtion for that once - failure to cooperate.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:11 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Roger Klarvin
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 4:11 pm to Roger Klarvin
No I said what counts as enough evidence. Three people doesn't count because it has to be "tangible."
ETA: I see that I put tangible in there. My bad. With the understanding that it isn't tangible, my point is twofold, do you know they don't have anything and that isn't the standard.
ETA: I see that I put tangible in there. My bad. With the understanding that it isn't tangible, my point is twofold, do you know they don't have anything and that isn't the standard.
This post was edited on 8/27/13 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:12 pm to geauxjo
quote:
There are no such rights.
People from Louisiana understand this.
Page 14 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News