Started By
Message
re: ScAUbinsky: Past Time for Bond and Bell to put up or shut up
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:45 pm to Tds & Beer
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:45 pm to Tds & Beer
quote:It's not irrelevant if they heard the tapes before the decision was made.
Either way, that investigation is irrelevant.
1
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:45 pm to WDE24
quote:
Then why did the NCAA president say they did their own investigation and got to the facts as best they could
Perhaps because he, along with Slive were getting crucified by the National media in how fast it was done and the appearance that Auburn's investigation was, did ya do it, nope. Ok. We're clear. Ncaa=ok.
quote:
their reinstatement decision was not made in a vacuum of information only supplied by Auburn.
Again, less than 24 hrs. No other school has ever declared someone ineligible and had them cleared in this time frame. It took Julio the week of the Va Tech game last year, nearly as long for Dareus this year. If you don't think there was something stinking in Denmark, then I need to buy you a mirror so you can see the blinders you have on.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:47 pm to CoonassBulldog
quote:And then the NCAA changed their mind and said they didn't have any evidence to suggest AU or Cam did anything improper? Use a little logic and reasoning. The NCAA is likely continuing their investigation and may find something, but to believe that they had enough evidence before the reinstatement decision and ignored it, is assanine.
The NCAA did suggest that Auburn sit Cam based on preliminary findings, and Auburn chose to ignore this
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:48 pm to Tds & Beer
quote:
When are you barners gonna realize that the whole mid season reinstatement had absolutely nothing to do with this ncaa investigation. That is going on right now. Why do you keep bringing up that irrelevant garbage.
When are you Mullen heads going to realize there is a reason Rogers went to Bond who went to Bell! Can you figure that one out? Gezz You guys are in so deep you can't see what your doing !
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:48 pm to WDE24
quote:
but to believe that they had enough evidence before the reinstatement decision and ignored it, is assanine.
Yet, knowing there was possibly more out there and ignoring it, they reinstated him. What other players have been reinstated while an investigation continued into their situation?
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:49 pm to Alahunter
quote:Again, you are inferring something that I didn't say. Clearly AU and the NCAA had some communication with regard to the reinstatement and its timing. All I am saying is that the NCAA didn't solely make their decision based on what AU told them. The NCAA had been investigating the incident for at least a couple of months at that time. Just use some common sense and read what I write, not what you think I mean because you identify me as an AU fan.
Again, less than 24 hrs. No other school has ever declared someone ineligible and had them cleared in this time frame. It took Julio the week of the Va Tech game last year, nearly as long for Dareus this year. If you don't think there was something stinking in Denmark, then I need to buy you a mirror so you can see the blinders you have on.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:50 pm to WDE24
quote:
And then the NCAA changed their mind and said they didn't have any evidence to suggest AU or Cam did anything improper?
Correct. At that time, with very little information, and a short investigation,they did not have any solid evidence to indicate that Cam should be ineligible. Why are we still talking about that? It does not mean shite.
This post was edited on 2/28/11 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:51 pm to Tds & Beer
quote:It may or may not. Again, it means shite if the NCAA listened to the alleged tapes before making their decision. It means that the NCAA didn't believe that the tapes proved Cam's knowledge. That is the only point I am making.
It does not mean shite.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:52 pm to WDE24
quote:
Clearly AU and the NCAA had some communication with regard to the reinstatement and its timing. All I am saying is that the NCAA didn't solely make their decision based on what AU told them
You don't know this, and they have never said they did an investigation of their own prior to this. Given the ineligible decision was made and reinstatement was made in one day, it would lead one to logically believe that they did, in fact, base it on Auburn's information.
quote:
The NCAA had been investigating the incident for at least a couple of months at that time. Just use some common sense and read what I write
I have. And try to understand how reinstatement cases have worked for every single player in the history of having these cases, versus what happened with Cam and his situation.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:54 pm to Alahunter
quote:Yes they have. Emmert said it in discussing the decision.
and they have never said they did an investigation of their own prior to this.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:54 pm to WDE24
quote:
It may or may not. Again, it means shite if the NCAA listened to the alleged tapes before making their decision. It means that the NCAA didn't believe that the tapes proved Cam's knowledge. That is the only point I am making
yeah I feel you man. We don't know when they heard the tapes though, if they did. My point is just that every single time this case comes up, Auburn fans bring this up, and it's just really not that important, at least not as much as it is made out to be on here. It could be, but it's just not right now.
This post was edited on 2/28/11 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:56 pm to WDE24
quote:
Yes they have. Emmert said it in discussing the decision
When a school discovers an NCAA rules violation has occurred, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible and may request the student-athlete's eligibility be reinstated. Reinstatement decisions are made by the NCAA national office staff and can include conditions such as withholding from competition and repayment of extra benefits. Newton was reinstated without any conditions.
According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete's father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton's commitment to attend college and play football. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship.
In conjunction with the case, Auburn University has limited the access Newton's father has to the athletics program and Mississippi State has disassociated the involved individual.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:58 pm to Tds & Beer
quote:But that's what this post is about. I try to point to some facts and logic and people then move from the one point being discussed into the larger issue. I was making one small point about Coonass' belief that the reinstatement decision was essentially made only relying on AUs info. Also, I pointed out that either the NCAA did not hear the tapes before the reinstatement decision or the NCAA did not find credible info on the tapes indicating Cam's knowledge.
yeah I feel you man. We don't know when they heard the tapes though, if they did. My point is just that every single time this case comes up, Auburn fans bring this up, and it's just really not that important, at least not as much as it is made out to be on here. It could be, if they heard the tapes but we don't know.
Or, if you believe Coonass, the NCAA heard the tapes, knew they existed, but ignored them, ruled Cam eligible, said the ruling was based on no evidence of Cam's knowledge and then just crossed their fingers that Bond and Bell would never tell anyone about the tapes.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:59 pm to WDE24
Now, show me where the reinstatement staff was able to make a determination in one single day. While they may have been looking at Cam before, then reinstated him, and are still looking into the situation. Tell me, just one instance in the history of NCAA existence, that they ruled a player eligible within 24 hrs, but still continued to investigate.
This post was edited on 2/28/11 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 2/28/11 at 1:59 pm to Alahunter
quote:What is your point?
Alahunter
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:00 pm to WDE24
quote:
It's not irrelevant if they heard the tapes before the decision was made.
Unless these are new tapes, doubtful, the NCAA has already heard it. The only tape I'm aware of is one where Rogers left a VM talking about money. I'll be honest I haven't kept up with this crap in a while as it was pointless.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:01 pm to WDE24
My point is that the NCAA clearly didn't do a proper investigation before and relied heavily on Auburn's assumption of innocence. That they reinstated a player, that was still under investigation is contrary to every decision they've ever made concerning eligibility.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:02 pm to Alahunter
quote:
My point is that the NCAA clearly didn't do a proper investigation before and relied heavily on Auburn's assumption of innocence. That they reinstated a player, that was still under investigation is contrary to every decision they've ever made concerning eligibility.
I'm sorry, but do you work for the NCAA? Lots of "inside" bama guys on this board. It smells like the BOL.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:02 pm to Alahunter
quote:That has nothing to do with anything I have posted.
My point is that the NCAA clearly didn't do a proper investigation before and relied heavily on Auburn's assumption of innocence. That they reinstated a player, that was still under investigation is contrary to every decision they've ever made concerning eligibility.
All I have said is they didn't rely exclusively on info provided by AU. Also, I have stated that the reinstatement shows that, if the NCAA in fact heard the types prior to the decision (as is claimed), then the tapes obviously aren't as conclusive regarding Cam's knowledge as they are being portrayed.
Nothing more, nothing less.
ETA: FIY, Emmert in interview with ESPN_
quote:
I was very pleased with how that whole issue was handled. Our staff and enforcement did a great investigation, did it quickly and got to the facts as best we could find them…The fact of the matter is, as we got to the facts that we could uncover, they led to the right conclusion and it was that there is no evidence there was anything inappropriate with this young man and with that institution had occurred…The burden of proof for the NCAA is a little deeper than the burden of proof for a blogger.
This post was edited on 2/28/11 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:03 pm to FrontRow25
AE is missing you.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News