Started By
Message
re: AU fans, what do you know about Paul Parker?
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:00 pm to lowspark12
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:00 pm to lowspark12
quote:
I'm of the impression that Parker's concertation will be with basketball
Did GT basketball get hit?
quote:
Parker worked with McGlynn at the NCAA
Would you feel more comfortable with new blood being brought in?
0
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:01 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
Do you feel like the fact that the VP of Enforcement informed the AU head coach that the investigation was ongoing helps or hinders in their chances of finding something that would indicate that AU was misguided earlier?
I'm confused by the wording of the question, but either way, I don't think that incident has any effect on anything. He got pissed that she wasn't answering the question, then she got pissed that he kept asking questions after she told him everything she was going to tell him so she decided to be a smartass and put him in his place, which she did.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:01 pm to lowspark12
quote:
I'm of the impression that Parker's concertation will be with basketball
Either way, the impression is now that he mislead the NCAA and is rogue in handling compliance. Now hired at a program that is under investigation, it kinda looks bad.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:02 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Either way, the impression is now that he mislead the NCAA and is rogue in handling compliance.
That would be debatable, it depends on which version of the story you read.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:03 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
she decided to be a smartass
I think most of the nation would say Chiz was the smartass in the situation, moreso than her. It'd be like having a company meeting, and one employee badgering the boss on a specific problem in his department, that had no bearing on the overall meeting that everyone was attending for.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:03 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
That would be debatable, it depends on which version of the story you read.
The NCAA's?
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:04 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
That would be debatable, it depends on which version of the story you read.
How about the NCAA Enforcement Committees findings? Would their language leave it open for debate?
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:05 pm to beatbammer
quote:
The only thing I can think is he must have posted her photoshopped boob picture
FIFY
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:06 pm to Alahunter
OR, you have been trying to get that boss to answer his damn phone for 8 months and he just ignores you so when you get him face to face you start hounding him. Probably not the best idea you have ever had but what the hell, give it a shot.
Disclaimer: Not saying I would have done it and it does seem to have come out with a different result than he was expecting .
Disclaimer: Not saying I would have done it and it does seem to have come out with a different result than he was expecting .
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:09 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
, you have been trying to get that boss to answer his damn phone for 8 months and he just ignores you so when you get him face to face you start hounding him. Probably not the best idea you have ever had but what the hell, give it a shot.
Only a dumbass calls out a boss.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:09 pm to DonAUfan
I have an attorney friend that says "You never ask a question in court (or in this case in a meeting with coaches and AD's) that you dont want to hear or do not know what the answer will be." 
This post was edited on 7/18/11 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:10 pm to NBamaAlum
Well, even in the article you posted it don't name him as the compliance director. Looking at the article from the GT beat writer it says that Parker told the AD like he was instructed by the NCAA and then it never mentions him again.
Since I am a Auburn fan I can spin the shite out of that.
He did what he was told by the NCAA and then the AD and coaches started doing shite they were not supposed to, he said frick you and started looking for another job and didn't have anything else to do with the GT investigation.
Since I am a Auburn fan I can spin the shite out of that.
He did what he was told by the NCAA and then the AD and coaches started doing shite they were not supposed to, he said frick you and started looking for another job and didn't have anything else to do with the GT investigation.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:12 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
How about the NCAA Enforcement Committees findings? Would their language leave it open for debate?
quote:
So, we are saying there was a poor decision by the (compliance director) and the (director of athletics), but the (head football coach), for whatever it is worth, was never told it is an institutional directive from the enforcement staff. So, we are saying there was a poor decision by (the compliance director)
quote:
It is understandable that the institution would not want to lose such a valuable football player for its very important end of the season games. To that end, in a November 24 email from the compliance director to the office of the ACC seeking guidance on whether there was a violation associated with the provision of clothing to student-athlete 1 (Finding B-1), the compliance director provided an incomplete account of the circumstances surrounding the provision of clothing to student athlete 1, and omitted key information and embellished other information, namely:
? The compliance director wrote that student-athlete 1 had an "established" relationship with his cousin's roommate, yet during student-athlete 1's November 19 interview with the NCAA, he could not provide the roommate's name and knew him only by his nickname.
? That student-athlete 1's cousin, by text message, had invited both student-athlete 1 and student-athlete 2 to his home because his (the cousin's) roommate had something for both young men.
? That the agency employee, a former teammate of student-athletes 1 and 2, who was also a friend of the roommate, was present.
? That student-athlete 1 had heard that the former football student-athlete / "agency employee" was working for an agent. Further, that student-athlete 1 speculated the clothing was given to influence student-athlete 1 to use the agency employee in obtaining an agent.
? That student-athlete 1 had the agency owner's name and phone number in his phone. (Note: This was revealed in student-athlete 1's November 19 interview.)
quote:
Based on the information submitted by the compliance director, the ACC office ruled that there was "(insufficient) information to warrant a violation or rendering the student-athlete ineligible at this time
At this time... seems another ruling on eligibility had this wording in it, not too long ago, didn't it?
This post was edited on 7/18/11 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:12 pm to Alahunter
Most of the time your right, but sometimes it works out. I was working a job and got pissed at my boss, flipped him the finger and walked out. He came in to see me later and we talked it out. He said he didn't realize I was that fed up. Some times it works.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:14 pm to DonAUfan
Most of the time it doesn't. Sounds like you have a weak boss.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:14 pm to Alahunter
quote:
At this time... seems another ruling on eligibility had this wording in it, not too long ago, didn't it?
There's another Auburn connection to the Georgia Tech case. Contrast the way Tech handled its dilemma during the 2009 football season with the way Auburn handled the question of Cam Newton's eligibility last season.
Both schools were in the hunt for championships. Both schools no doubt felt pressure to keep important players on the field, if at all possible, for the biggest games at the end of the season.
Auburn, even though it believed neither the school nor Newton himself were guilty of any violations, declared him ineligible and applied for his reinstatement. The NCAA reinstated him, and he didn't miss a game.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:15 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
Well, even in the article you posted it don't name him as the compliance director
Really?
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:16 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
Auburn, even though it believed neither the school nor Newton himself were guilty of any violations, declared him ineligible and applied for his reinstatement. The NCAA reinstated him, and he didn't miss a game
after the season had played out, but for one regular season game. And those rulings are based on information given to them by the University, not on the NCAA's investigation. And again, same compliance people in both situations. GT didn't think their player should have been declared either, and of all coincidences, he was also ruled eligible by GT.
This post was edited on 7/18/11 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:17 pm to NBamaAlum
Yes really.
All it says is "Compliance Director" not "Compliance Director Parker"
I know, its grasping at straws....
All I am saying is that he could have got pissed when he found out that the AD went to the coach after he told him what the NCAA said and told them to deal with it because he was out.
All it says is "Compliance Director" not "Compliance Director Parker"
I know, its grasping at straws....
All I am saying is that he could have got pissed when he found out that the AD went to the coach after he told him what the NCAA said and told them to deal with it because he was out.
Posted on 7/18/11 at 4:18 pm to Alahunter
quote:
And again, same compliance people in both situations.
Wrong, Parker wasn't making the decisions at Auburn.
Page 5 of 8
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News