Started By
Message
re: As the jar cracks - Johnny Manziel's downfall is upon us
Posted on 8/13/13 at 3:08 am to utisdabomb12
Posted on 8/13/13 at 3:08 am to utisdabomb12
what if no physical proof exist of him taking money? that is what the investigation is looking for. is there anything that proves that he accepted money for his signatures. the video that schad saw had no proof of this, none of the photos have proof of this, none of the sources that have talked with ESPN have proof of this. thats what the investigation is going to be looking for
2
Posted on 8/13/13 at 3:10 am to WestCoastAg
You really need to watch the video I posted of Finebaum. Listen to the people he interviewed. The NCAA is not a court of law. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence right now, which in the past has been sufficient for the NCAA. Again, if that's a risk A&M wants to take that's fine (I just don't think they are going to take that risk if the investigation is ongoing).
I'll be back to respond.
I'll be back to respond.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 3:20 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 3:13 am to utisdabomb12
quote:
My point is that the internal investigation will find something that is incriminating
First of all, you don't know that.
Second of all, the issue isn't whether incriminating evidence exists, it's whether it can be proven by an entity by the NCAA and thus stick to Manziel and make him ineligible. THAT is was the internal investigation is determining.
quote:
How is an internal investigation going to deny all these sources? How is an internal investigation going to deny the thousands of autographs that were authenticated? How is the investigation going to deny the video that Schad saw?
Again, not the point of the investigation at all.
quote:
My point is that there's still going to be some type of evidence against Manziel, with A&M investigating, so they will have no choice but not to play him.
Incorrect statement.
quote:
Your assumption is that A&M will find nothing that incriminates Manziel
Again, I'm not assuming anything. I already said there's a risk either way. Don't put words in my mouth.
quote:
Any type of circumstantial evidence against Manziel will almost force A&M's hand since the potential of NCAA infractions is so substantial.
If A&M's hand were that forced, they'd have said they were suspending Manziel already. You don't know how this works.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 3:15 am to utisdabomb12
quote:
The NCAA is not a court of law. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence right now, which in the past has been sufficient for the NCAA.
The NCAA also must tread lightly, however. That's part of what's making this case somewhat fascinating. The minute they declare Manziel ineligible, they have to be expecting a pushback from A&M, and that is concerning to them.
quote:
Again, if that's a risk A&M wants to take then fine (I just don't think they are going to take that risk if the investigation is ongoing).
Both A&M and the NCAA are weighing huge potential risks here. Nothing is certain, of that I am certain.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 3:16 am to utisdabomb12
and then that will create an even bigger monster towards the NCAA than there is right now. the NCAA will not suspend manziel without any legit evidence when all that will do is create an even larger shite storm towards them. and this isnt even considering a&m fighting the decision. and once again, i understand there is a risk of him playing, but i have faith in the schools decision in the process. if they find something that they feel will be sufficient enough in him not playing, he wont. if they look into it and feel like nothing will happen, then he will play. of course there are risks, but being afraid of something in which all there is is circumstantial evidence is stupid. if the NCAA suspends manziel without any concrete evidence, it will just create a whole other monster that they are already having to deal with because of this situation
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 3:18 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 5:26 am to WestCoastAg
his career is over
Posted on 8/13/13 at 5:43 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
what if no physical proof exist of him taking money?
If the NCAA finds enough circumstantial evidence, that's it. They are not a court of law and if they think you are guilty, you're fricked.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 5:59 am to JakeMongoose
Jake just explained what I've been repeatedly saying. If there's enough circumstantial evidence, the NCAA is going to get you. Everyone keeps asking for "hard evidence", when the NCAA has a substantially lower threshold in terms of a burden in proving guilt.
To ask what the NCAA has can't be answered, because they are doing their own investigation. I can tell you that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence mounting based off ESPN reports.
I'm standing by my original argument. A&M will not be playing Manziel if the investigation is ongoing.
To ask what the NCAA has can't be answered, because they are doing their own investigation. I can tell you that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence mounting based off ESPN reports.
I'm standing by my original argument. A&M will not be playing Manziel if the investigation is ongoing.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 6:02 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 6:00 am to WestCoastAg
The NCAA wording is this:
"Represent or attempt to represent a prospective or current student-athlete in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain".
The attempt to represent part is pretty broad when you think about it. I think if someone attempts to represent an athlete, no money needs to change hands if they can establish proof of a relationship between the wannabe agent and the player.
"Represent or attempt to represent a prospective or current student-athlete in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain".
The attempt to represent part is pretty broad when you think about it. I think if someone attempts to represent an athlete, no money needs to change hands if they can establish proof of a relationship between the wannabe agent and the player.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 6:11 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
if we find anything messed up he wont play. what do you not understand? if we find absolutely nothing incriminating after, and we still bench him for the fear of the NCAA, then i have no respect for our program.
The NCAA has NO standards.
Alabama reinstated players during the textbook issue w/NCAA permission.
Fast forward a few months and BAM! NCAA said we used ineligible players (which they condoned for the duration of the investigation), and then rescinded the Alabama wins.
The NCAA is a capricious bunch of gangsters.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 6:36 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
for the last fricking time, we will do our own investigation. if we find anything messed up he wont play. what do you not understand? if we find absolutely nothing incriminating after, and we still bench him for the fear of the NCAA, then i have no respect for our program. on the other hand, if we do find something and bench him, then we have done the right thing. we can not do anything more idiotic then benching him out of fear
I like the tone of this post. Some idiot on a message board is starting to realize that people aren't listening to him rant about a subject that he obviously has no knowledge of, and he's pissed!
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 6:37 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 6:49 am to thefloydian
For people that "aren't listening", there sure are a lot of responses. Pissed about what....If I was pissed I would be gone by now.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 6:52 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:33 am to utisdabomb12
quote:
If there's enough circumstantial evidence, the NCAA is going to get you.
Typically I think you would be right....however I think Ed O'bannon has the NCAA by the balls and they know it. They are, and have been, treading very lightly the last few years.
I mean the biggest busts have been Penn St for a pedo coach and Miami being Miami (and the NCAA even managed to F this one up)....not big shining lights of achievement for the NCAA.
The NCAA of the 90's and early 2000's would have nailed Auburn and MSU to the wall for Cam Newton....just on circumstantial evidence.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:40 am to LSU316
I can see your point, but I disagree.
1) They are going to be sued, regardless of what they do to Manziel. Until there are major changes within the NCAA, like amateur status, they will be sued. I don't see how punishing a player for breaking the rules, increases pressure on the NCAA. The pressure on the NCAA is going to exist regardless of how they handle the Manziel case.
2) I think they have to punish Manziel (if there's evidence), based off what they did to AJ Green and the Ohio State players. They look incompetent if they don't provide consistent punishment. I can tell you from the online forums alone Ohio State is going to throw a riot if Manziel isn't punished.
3) I think the Newton case is distinct from this case. There was a loophole in the Newton case, where the father was not viewed as an "agent" for Newton. I think the NCAA might have had sufficient evidence against Newton, just their rules prevented them from punishing him. Such loophole no longer exists.
1) They are going to be sued, regardless of what they do to Manziel. Until there are major changes within the NCAA, like amateur status, they will be sued. I don't see how punishing a player for breaking the rules, increases pressure on the NCAA. The pressure on the NCAA is going to exist regardless of how they handle the Manziel case.
2) I think they have to punish Manziel (if there's evidence), based off what they did to AJ Green and the Ohio State players. They look incompetent if they don't provide consistent punishment. I can tell you from the online forums alone Ohio State is going to throw a riot if Manziel isn't punished.
3) I think the Newton case is distinct from this case. There was a loophole in the Newton case, where the father was not viewed as an "agent" for Newton. I think the NCAA might have had sufficient evidence against Newton, just their rules prevented them from punishing him. Such loophole no longer exists.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 7:45 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:45 am to utisdabomb12
quote:
To ask what the NCAA has can't be answered, because they are doing their own investigation. I can tell you that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence mounting based off ESPN reports.
Just rememebr one thing...just because ESPN says something, that does not mean it has any bearing on reality. ESPN's OTL is notorious for half reporting, unsubstantiated allegations, and reporters drawing conclusions to advance an agenda. Go to Syracuse and ask about Bernie Fine. Go to New Orleans and ask about wiretapping. Those are just 2 examples of ESPN's god awful investigative reporting.
Darren Rovell was on Mike and Mike this morning. He is the one breaking a lot of these broker stories. I listened to him talk and I thought to myself, "Self, we are throwing JFF under the bus over this guy's reports. He doesn't know a thing about colege athletics"
First he claimed that the broker in the latest story that came out yesterday is the autograph broker for Sugar Ray Robinson, a dead guy. He isn't professional enough in his report to mention the right Sugar Ray.
Then, it was the usual, "JFF's been signing this and that and this and that." Question: "Any evidence, any at all, on money changing hands?" Answer: "None. But it only makes sense that JFF took money for the autographs. Why would he do it otherwise?"
Its the usual: we have no evidence to back up our claims, but since the only logical conclusion is wrongdoing, then JFF must be guilty, and so A&M should sit him because the NCAA will eventualy find the evidence because its the only logical conclusion.
If I were an A&M fan, i'd have broken 2 tv's by now throwing my shoe at it over this.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:45 am to utisdabomb12
quote:
1) They are going to be sued, regardless of what they do to Manziel.
Probably, especially the way things are going.
quote:
I can tell you from the online forums alone Ohio State is going to throw a riot if Manziel isn't punished.
Irrelevant.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:48 am to utisdabomb12
quote:
1) They are going to be sued, regardless of what they do to Manziel. Until there are major changes within the NCAA, like amateur status, they will be sued. I don't see how punishing a player for breaking the rules, increases pressure on the NCAA. The pressure on the NCAA is going to exist regardless of how they handle the Manziel case.
Possibly....I just don't see it that way though.
quote:
They look incompetent if they don't provide consistent punishment
They've looked incompetent for this very reason for the last half of a decade. They looked incompetent for a long time after the SMU debacle for this very reason. Long story short....there is precedent for the NCAA looking incompetent over inconsistent enforcement/punishment.
quote:
3) I think the Newton case is distinct from this case. There was a loophole in the Newton case, where the father was not viewed as an "agent" for Newton. I think the NCAA might have had sufficient evidence against Newton, just their rules prevented them from punishing him. Such loophole no longer exists.
Again the NCAA of the 1990s would have nailed that situation and Auburn and MSU would at very least be on probation and without several scholarships as we speak.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:50 am to TbirdSpur2010
Ohio State was an example, not saying it will have an effect on their decision. The point was that there's a public perception that the NCAA has to meet, or else they won't be viewed as a consistent actor and hence a legit entity. The point was that there's past precedent for punishment on these things, so I would think the NCAA would at least try to be consistent. As for the NCAA being inconsistent in the past, I can agree with that. But as you stated, with all the scrutiny surrounding the NCAA currently I think they are going to do whatever they can to be perceived as somewhat legitimate. They can't control being sued until they make changes within the NCAA, so they have to make sure they do other things correctly (Like acting consistently). But I won't deny that they have been an inconsistent entity in the past.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 7:55 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:50 am to sbrian3915
quote:
Then, it was the usual, "JFF's been signing this and that and this and that." Question: "Any evidence, any at all, on money changing hands?" Answer: "None. But it only makes sense that JFF took money for the autographs. Why would he do it otherwise?"
Its the usual: we have no evidence to back up our claims, but since the only logical conclusion is wrongdoing, then JFF must be guilty, and so A&M should sit him because the NCAA will eventualy find the evidence because its the only logical conclusion.
Well to get everything out there he said he did deny the guy a signing session at the airport and then later on was signing over 400 items for the same dude.....why deny once and then do it?
However, your point is well taken the reporting on this thing has been completely F'd up from the beginning.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 7:51 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:52 am to TbirdSpur2010
It's just a fifty fifty gamble. If you suspend him, and then find out he's cleared, but you had lost the games because he did not play versus him playing and findig out that he's guilty and you had to forfeit the games. Wouldn't you hate not to let him play only to find out that he could have been playing from week one? That's why the timing is so confusing to me. If this happened in January, why did the NCAA wait until a month before the season starts to bring this up, and why with cases like this can't they make a decision in a hurry? Why punish the entire team for something that one player may or may not have done? They did with Cam. They suspended him on the Sunday(after the iron bowl of course) and reinstated him on Monday........always was a little fishy to me.
Page 266 of 340
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News