Started By
Message
Does anybody actaully believe
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:48 pm
That this situation with the Newtons has never occurred before, as the NCAA/SEC claims? With about 30 five star recruits coming out of high school every year, SOMEBODY at SOME POINT has to have tried this and got caught.
I think the NCAA would just like us to believe it's unique, so they can handle it however works out best for PR reasons.
I'm glad there are a ton of reporters digging around and the FBI joining in. This should keep the NCAA relatively accountable.
I think the NCAA would just like us to believe it's unique, so they can handle it however works out best for PR reasons.
I'm glad there are a ton of reporters digging around and the FBI joining in. This should keep the NCAA relatively accountable.
5
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:49 pm to BayouBlitz
On this scale? Yes. It's never happened before. Unless it was at CheAUters.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:49 pm to BayouBlitz
It's like all the drugs coming in from Mexico...for every one they catch, dozens get through without a hitch.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:51 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
On this scale? Yes. It's never happened before. Unless it was at CheAUters.
SMU in the early 80s disagrees with you.
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:51 pm to samson73103
I think giving players benefits has happened and paying players im sure has to. But at the scale were hearing about Auburn? I doubt its happened that often.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:52 pm to DaleDenton
quote:
SMU in the early 80s disagrees with you.
The key words are "on this scale".
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:54 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
The key words are "on this scale".
Exactly. Scale shouldn't matter. Rules are rules. The NCAA is prefacing all this with "unprecedented" so they can act however they want to.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:55 pm to BayouBlitz
The FBI cares about two things: Rogers and McGregor. If Auburn isn't guilty through McGregor (lets say Pat Dye was personally printing money and delivering it to players with a rickshaw). Their involvement so far is irrelevant to Auburn paying Cam. Its also very relevant to Cam's eligibility.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:57 pm to AuburnTiger08
Yeah, but in terms of eligibility for Cam...that's the NCAA's problem to deal with. The FBI could give a shite.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:57 pm to BayouBlitz
I'll tell what "has never occurred before". A third-rate team, like the Barn in 2009-10, that:
1. After going 8–5 (3–5 SEC), then
2. Inexplicably nets a top 5 recruiting class, which
3. Outranks a team in the same conference - which just won the Heisman and the National Championship...
1. After going 8–5 (3–5 SEC), then
2. Inexplicably nets a top 5 recruiting class, which
3. Outranks a team in the same conference - which just won the Heisman and the National Championship...
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:58 pm to tod
quote:
1. After going 8–5 (3–5 SEC), and then
2. Inexplicably nets a top 5 recruiting class, which
3. Outranks a team in the same conference - which just won the Heisman and the National Championship...
Well, to be fair LSU basically did this in 2003.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:59 pm to BayouBlitz
50% of the teams in the NCAA don't cheat, the other 50% go to bowl games.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:59 pm to tod
quote:
3. Outranks a team in the same conference - which just won the Heisman and the National Championship...
Posted on 11/17/10 at 6:59 pm to LSUtoOmaha
quote:
Well, to be fair LSU basically did this in 2003.
So a team in Louisiana won the Heisman and the NC in 2002-03 just before LSU's good recruiting fortune?
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 7:01 pm to tod
quote:
Outranks a team in the same conference - which just won the Heisman and the National Championship...
Which is also in the same state by the way
Posted on 11/17/10 at 7:06 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
I think he understood you just fine. Do you know what SMU was found guilt of? It was worse than what Auburn has been accused of so far that I have seen. They had a slush fund set up by boosters for use by players, basically an all access "petty cash" fund that at least 14 players used. This fund operated from the mid 70s until 1986-87 even after the university discovered it in 1981. Players were using this money to pay for their rent, car payments, etc. Prior to this SMU had received probation FIVE times from 1974 to 1985, all recruiting related.
The amount of money involved was smaller, but the money involved in athletics was much smaller then as well. Proportionately, it was much worse than what AU is accused of...so far.
The amount of money involved was smaller, but the money involved in athletics was much smaller then as well. Proportionately, it was much worse than what AU is accused of...so far.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 7:26 pm to jdevers
quote:
I think he understood you just fine. Do you know what SMU was found guilt of?
I do not know how you are sure of what his level of understanding was. I also do not see the point of comparing the SMU violation of 20+ years ago, with the Barn violation of this current season. However, since you are obviously clairvoyant, do you see any resemblance to the USC Bush violations?
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 7:28 pm
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:27 am to tod
Well, the original question was has anyone ever done something on this scale. Another poster said SMU, and the guy I replied to said "the key word is scale". This implies that he didn't think that the poster who said SMU understood the actual question, I replied that he most certainly did. The SCALE of SMU's problem was easily equal to what Auburn has done.
Read most, post less.
Read most, post less.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:32 am to tod
quote:
tod
quote:
post less
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:33 am to jdevers
SMU was so far beyond AU it's not even funny. Not only did they pay players, many believe they had a SWC ref in their pocket too.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News