Started By
Message
re: Manziel recommendation from NCAA on Wednesday
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:30 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:30 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
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.
Exactly. See, e.g., Akiem Hicks.
0
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:30 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
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.
Actually, my understanding from over 9000 pages of ATPB is that it is incumbent upon the program to sit or not sit a player. The investigative arm only makes recommendations based on the evidence they have and the enforcement arm doles out the hammer, be it hard or limp.
If I'm wrong, blame Blue Tuna Tiger.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:30 pm to therick711
From Black's Law Dictionary:
Circumstantial Evidence:
Evidence directed to the attending circumstances ; evidence which inferentially proves the principal fact by establishing a condition of surrounding and limiting circumstances, whose existence is a premise from which the existence of the principal fact may be concluded by necessary laws of reasoning. State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S. W. 193; Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433; State v. Evans, 1 Marvel (Del.) 477, 41 Atl. 136; Comm. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 319, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Gardner v. Preston, 2 Day (Conn.) 205. 2 Am. Dec. 91; State v. Miller, 9 Houst. (Del.) 564, 32 Atl. 137.
You're a fricking wannabe law clerk. I got some research for your flunky arse to do. And pick up my dry cleaning, baby lawyer.
Circumstantial Evidence:
Evidence directed to the attending circumstances ; evidence which inferentially proves the principal fact by establishing a condition of surrounding and limiting circumstances, whose existence is a premise from which the existence of the principal fact may be concluded by necessary laws of reasoning. State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S. W. 193; Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433; State v. Evans, 1 Marvel (Del.) 477, 41 Atl. 136; Comm. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 319, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Gardner v. Preston, 2 Day (Conn.) 205. 2 Am. Dec. 91; State v. Miller, 9 Houst. (Del.) 564, 32 Atl. 137.
You're a fricking wannabe law clerk. I got some research for your flunky arse to do. And pick up my dry cleaning, baby lawyer.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:31 pm to KaiserSoze99
Anyone who cites Black's Law Dictionary as the relevant legal standard is a fricking idiot. You know that, though.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:32 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
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.
We understand what you're saying...you just can't grasp the point. though. The NCAA could have enough to suspend him, but doesn't know if it will be 2 games, 6 games, or the rest of his career. They may have enough to strip his eligibility, but there may also be a way he can get it back. They could easily advise aTm to sit him until the case is closed, because, for example, if the penalty is two games but that decision isn't made for another three weeks, and aTm plays him anyway, then aTm vacates those games also and possibly suffers further penalties for playing an ineligible player.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:34 pm to therick711
quote:
Anyone who cites Black's Law Dictionary as the relevant legal standard is a fricking idiot. You know that, though.
Go get me some research then, dick muncher. And I want a 20 page memo by EOB. Otherwise, STFU and accept Black's as good enough for The Rant, not the SCOTUS.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:34 pm to therick711
quote:
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 secondary violations in that situation. You continue upon a false premise. Hicks' situation is a prime example of how wrong you are
Additional evidence of Hicks guilt was revealed after the recommendations were made. Had LSU ignored them and nothing else came out, nothing would have come of it.
Like a guy on ESPN said this morning, the NCAA doesn't recommend when it can require.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:35 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
Go get me some research then, dick muncher. And I want a 20 page memo by EOB. Otherwise, STFU and accept Black's as good enough for The Rant, not the SCOTUS.
Ha. The funny thing is, the Black's definition didn't even support your definition.
If you are an attorney, you must lose an awful lot. In any event, no need to get angry about being wrong. We all make mistakes.Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:36 pm to therick711
...and did you miss this part:
Don't come on here with your nutria-eating, swamp-footed Napoleonic Code BS either. I am trying to cover general American Jurisprudence.
quote:
State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S. W. 193; Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433; State v. Evans, 1 Marvel (Del.) 477, 41 Atl. 136; Comm. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 319, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Gardner v. Preston, 2 Day (Conn.) 205. 2 Am. Dec. 91; State v. Miller, 9 Houst. (Del.) 564, 32 Atl. 137.
Don't come on here with your nutria-eating, swamp-footed Napoleonic Code BS either. I am trying to cover general American Jurisprudence.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:37 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Additional evidence of Hicks guilt was revealed after the recommendations were made. Had LSU ignored them and nothing else came out, nothing would have come of it.
Like a guy on ESPN said this morning, the NCAA doesn't recommend when it can require.
What are you talking about? You couldn't be more wrong on Hicks' specific situation. LSU suspended him for the year after the NCAA's recommendation. LSU then dismissed him and Coach McCarthy from the program without any new evidence.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The investigation probably wont end tomorrow, but making recommendations screams "please let us save face because we have nothing".
Possibly. It could also mean "please don't play him and make us vacate your wins."
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:38 pm to therick711
quote:
Ha. The funny thing is, the Black's definition didn't even support your definition. If you are an attorney, you must lose an awful lot. In any event, no need to get angry about being wrong. We all make mistakes.
You are too dumb to insult. Read it again, counselor. You are probably the type that thinks he is right all the time, only to get his arse handed to him. You go ahead and make the argument that the definition I just provided is not EXACTLY the same thing that I typed earlier. This ought to be fun.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:39 pm to Roger Klarvin
Wrong jackleg , the NCAA doesn't have to be equal , believe my we at Bama know this.
The NCAA has a right to judge simple cases with a few items being sold to be different than a case of THOUSANDS BEING SOLD.
Who would want this POS on their team anyway , quit making excuses for a dumbazz.
You know he sold his signature , at anytime one of these dealers can “ write a book ”and talk to the NCAA , but you go ahead and play this selfish punk , I hope you get drubbed by the NCAA.
The NCAA has a right to judge simple cases with a few items being sold to be different than a case of THOUSANDS BEING SOLD.
Who would want this POS on their team anyway , quit making excuses for a dumbazz.
You know he sold his signature , at anytime one of these dealers can “ write a book ”and talk to the NCAA , but you go ahead and play this selfish punk , I hope you get drubbed by the NCAA.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:39 pm to KaiserSoze99
Again, using a general standard, you know that evidence, even circumstantial evidence, is admissible if it passes the 401/403 test. It's weight is determined by the factfinder. Its admissibility is NOT premissed on whether it leads to "only one conclusion."
That is nowhere to be found in any material you cited.
This is false. Parties argue all the time about what conclusion a factfinder should draw from circumstantial evidence. That being said, no one cares about this except me and you. I'm willing to let it go, friend.
That is nowhere to be found in any material you cited.
quote:
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.
This is false. Parties argue all the time about what conclusion a factfinder should draw from circumstantial evidence. That being said, no one cares about this except me and you. I'm willing to let it go, friend.
This post was edited on 8/27/13 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:41 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
The NCAA could have enough to suspend him, but doesn't know if it will be 2 games, 6 games, or the rest of his career. They may have enough to strip his eligibility, but there may also be a way he can get it back. They could easily advise aTm to sit him until the case is closed, because, for example, if the penalty is two games but that decision isn't made for another three weeks, and aTm plays him anyway, then aTm vacates those games also and possibly suffers further penalties for playing an ineligible player.
You are operating under the belief that the NCAA would make recommendations if it were in such a position. That belief is wrong. The NCAA has the ability, and has done so in the past, to suspend a player indefinitely and then at a later date finalize the number of games, sanctions, etc.
Under your scenario, Manziel would be suspended indefinitely at a given time and then when it's all sorted out they would give him the number of games. They wouldn't "recommend" anything to A&M and give them the ability to play him anyway if they knew he did it, for a coupe reasons. First, giving a program the ability to play a player that they have proof of guilt on is unheard of. It has literally never happened. Second, the NCAA would have no grounds to punish A&M after they fact if they gave them that decision. Only if they recommended something, then at a later date found more evidence and A&M played him, could they pursue action against A&M. Saying he's guilty, but you can play him if you want for now just doesn't happen.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:42 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
Wrong jackleg
Solid use of "jackleg." I hadn't seen that term in quite some time.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:43 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.
Exactly he's using a lot of non sequiturs and circular reasoning and none of us have all the facts. At least most of us like me, you, and Cyde admit we are just speculating.
And don't forget CJK5H
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:43 pm to bamawriter
quote:
Possibly. It could also mean "please don't play him and make us vacate your wins."
The NCAA never gives programs that option when proof of guilt is evident beforehand. Goodness...
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:45 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
Wrong jackleg , the NCAA doesn't have to be equal , believe my we at Bama know this.
The NCAA has a right to judge simple cases with a few items being sold to be different than a case of THOUSANDS BEING SOLD.
Who would want this POS on their team anyway , quit making excuses for a dumbazz.
You know he sold his signature , at anytime one of these dealers can “ write a book ”and talk to the NCAA , but you go ahead and play this selfish punk , I hope you get drubbed by the NCAA.
You sho is mad
Posted on 8/27/13 at 4:45 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The NCAA never gives programs that option when proof of guilt is evident beforehand. Goodness...
The Reggie Bush and Ohio State situations come to mind as some notable exceptions to your broad brush. Sometimes these things take time and other times the NCAA just makes up a rule so OSU can embarrass Arky.
Page 16 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News