Started By
Message
3
Posted on 4/23/13 at 9:11 am to TreyAnastasio
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:07 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
Blazer, all I know is that Miss. St. offered his daddy money and that made him ineligible at any school. scam not knowing doesn't matter. Check the rules, any parent or guardian soliciting money = ineligible. It doesn't say unless the student athlete didn't know.
You are referring an SEC bylaw that was in place at the time. Slive refused to enforce it, and kicked the can down the road to the NCAA, mainly I think because at that point (after Georgia game fall 2010) Auburn was the only team left standing in the SEC that could make it to the BSCCG and earn the SEC big $$$$$$.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:09 am to troywew
quote:
You are referring an SEC bylaw that was in place at the time. Slive refused to enforce it, and kicked the can down the road to the NCAA, mainly I think because at that point (after Georgia game fall 2010) Auburn was the only team left standing in the SEC that could make it to the BSCCG and earn the SEC big $$$$$$.
Thank you.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:11 am to troywew
quote:
You are referring an SEC bylaw that was in place at the time.
No he is refering points of a bylaw that were amended after Cam
quote:
Slive refused to enforce it,
Which is status quo, otherwise there would be a lot less titles in the SEC recently. Heaven forbid they retroactivly abide by the rule. UGA is going to have to vacate some wins. Sorry AJ
quote:
kicked the can down the road to the NCAA, mainly I think because at that point (after Georgia game fall 2010) Auburn was the only team left standing in the SEC that could make it to the BSCCG and earn the SEC big $$$$$$.
or.... get this. He was just doing as they have always done with that particular bylaw(The one that was amended to include the qualifiers above) not enforcing it
This post was edited on 4/23/13 at 11:16 am
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:12 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
Thank you.
For what? furthering your conspiracy theories that are filled with fallacies that you use to prove your point
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:15 am to TreyAnastasio
quote:
Why is this thread still going?
Because we said so.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:15 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
quote:Thank you. For what? furthering your conspiracy theories that are filled with fallacies that you use to prove your point
No, that was the rule in place at the time, not the amendment. No conspiracy or fallacy.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:17 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
No, that was the rule in place at the time,
Yes, but the qualifiers(parent and solicitation) you spoke of were not. I find it funny you continue to hang your hat on this topic quote:
No conspiracy or fallacy
So, Bama is going to vacate a few of their titles and put themselves back on probation? You want this rule enforced dont you?
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:20 am to NYCAuburn
the parent/buardian thing was in place, and BAMA is in the clear either way.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:21 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
BIG DADDY 73
I thought you said you looked this shite up.
quote:
The association's Division I legislative council endorsed a measure Wednesday expanding its definition of an agent to encompass third-party influences - including family members - who directly or indirectly market an athlete for profit
quote:
Among the specific targets: anyone who "seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete's enrollment at an educational institution or a from a student-athlete's potential earnings as a professional athlete."
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:21 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
BIG DADDY 73
are you a big journey fan?
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:23 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
the parent/buardian thing was in place
See above
quote:
BAMA is in the clear either way.
Per the rule you want enforced so much, Bama played Ingram and Julio even though they would be ineligible per this rule you want enforced so bad.
I am starting to agree with you now. Strip bama's titles
This post was edited on 4/23/13 at 11:26 am
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:25 am to piggidyphish
Look up the old rule, and post it.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:29 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
Look up the old rule, and post it.
quote:
"If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career
So where is the parent/solicitation portion? Why would you want Bama to vacate their titles and go back on probation? you are not a very good fan are you
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:33 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
any member of his/her family
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:33 am to NYCAuburn
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:34 am to BIG DADDY 73
RT @TasteofTownTodd One thing I've learned over the past 18 mos:responsible reporting no longer top priority for the media. Demand facts!
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:35 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
any member of his/her family
Doesn't say anything about solicitation though. Thus the loophole.
Posted on 4/23/13 at 11:35 am to BIG DADDY 73
quote:
BIG DADDY 73
I see reading comprehension is a hard trait for you. Please point out in the original SEC bylaw where is speaks of solicitation and parents. I am waiting. I have some popkern leftover from last night.
And again why would you want you beloved Tide to give back their titles, since you want this bylaw enforced so bad
This post was edited on 4/23/13 at 11:37 am
Page 13 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News