Started By
Message
Equal to yours. 
0
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:15 pm to WDE24
Funny,this thread started out as a shot toward Auburns impending doom,now its a graveyard for Bama fans that thought he actually had something... 
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:16 pm to Alahunter
quote:You need to throw in eligibility somewhere.
post a link to NCAA protocol showing that compliance and the investigative portion work together and communicate when determing compliance issues when schools make a report to the compliance dept. Thanks.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:16 pm to WDE24
quote:
Words from the NCAA President's mouth or the link from the NCAA website stating enforcement is involved isn't enough and they are the ones in spin control?
quote:
Q: What’s the difference between the enforcement process and student-athlete reinstatement process?
A: They run independently of each other. The reinstatement process is dealing with the individual student-athlete and his or her eligibility. The enforcement process focuses on institutional involvement or culpability.
It said, at times. A link please, showing where the NCAA said they did in Auburn's case. And not from someone that was getting bashed, but someone in one of those depts.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:17 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Vice president for enforcement, Julie Roe Lach, has stated there was no sharing. No communication. No contact.
oops
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:17 pm to Alahunter
quote:Well, I said that he needed to let Emmert know. You asked for a link saying where Emmert had said such a thing and I provided it. You have now moved the goal post, but that answer has already been provided in this thread as well. Sorry it doesn't fit the narrative you want to believe.
Just because he said something,
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:18 pm to TT9
quote:
Funny,this thread started out as a shot toward Auburns impending doom,now its a graveyard for Bama fans that thought he actually had something...
Agreed
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:18 pm to WDE24
You failed to read the first three sentences in the NCAA guidelines. And showed nothing where compliance, or enforcement actually worked together in Cam's reinstatement.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:18 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
Sheridan has always struck me as a guy that parses his words very carefully to provide an out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:18 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
ce president for enforcement, Julie Roe Lach, has stated there was no sharing. No communication. No contact.
Care to show where she said this in relation to cam.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:20 pm to WDE24
CBSSports.com: Although you’re not directly responsible, what’s been the reaction from the membership on the Ohio State and Cam Newton cases?
Roe Lach: The cases you mentioned were decided by our Student-Athlete Reinstatement department, which is actually housed in the Academic and Membership Affairs branch. That group decides all athlete eligibility issues. I work in the enforcement side and we investigate and deal with institutional responsibilities, boosters, coaches, administrators. I don’t go and talk to them. If issues come up that’s one thing. (The compliance offices) understand there are different processes in play. Those discussions, if they have questions, comments, support, or concerns, would be directed towards our Academic and Membership affairs group.
Roe Lach: The cases you mentioned were decided by our Student-Athlete Reinstatement department, which is actually housed in the Academic and Membership Affairs branch. That group decides all athlete eligibility issues. I work in the enforcement side and we investigate and deal with institutional responsibilities, boosters, coaches, administrators. I don’t go and talk to them. If issues come up that’s one thing. (The compliance offices) understand there are different processes in play. Those discussions, if they have questions, comments, support, or concerns, would be directed towards our Academic and Membership affairs group.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:22 pm to Alahunter
quote:I linked a quote from the NCAA pres showing that they did and a Q&A on the NCAA web site stating they sometimes did.
And showed nothing where compliance, or enforcement actually worked together in Cam's reinstatement.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:23 pm to AlxTgr
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:24 pm to DonAUfan
And again. The school determines to rule him ineligible, turns in their investigation to the compliance and they determine to reinstate based on that. The enforcement division has no part of it. And to think they did, when the ruling was done in 24 hrs is ridiculous to think. Especially when the last statement, again says they work independently from one another.
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:25 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
The link I provided earlier was from the NCAA's website. It was from questions about why they reinstated Cam to play for Auburn.
Here it is again:
LINK
Did you read all that?
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:25 pm to WDE24
quote:
they sometimes did
Again. Link where the compliance and enforcement actually did this, in a 24 hr time frame from when Auburn submitted his reinstatement from when they ruled him ineligible.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:26 pm to Alahunter
quote:This
The school determines to rule him ineligible, turns in their investigation to the compliance and the determine to reinstate based on that. The enforcement division has no part of it. And to think they did, when the ruling was done in 24 hrs is ridiculous to think.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:28 pm to Alahunter
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. I'm not saying the enforcement staff started and completed their investigation in 24 hours (the investigation still isn't complete), I am saying the NCAA had been investigating the matter for months and didn't ignore information they already had (whether from enforcement or eligibility) and rely solely on what AU provided.
To think they had verifiable evidence of money changing hands in one corner of the NCAA offices, but ignored it and reinstated Cam solely on the basis of info AU gave them is laughable.
To think they had verifiable evidence of money changing hands in one corner of the NCAA offices, but ignored it and reinstated Cam solely on the basis of info AU gave them is laughable.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:29 pm to AlxTgr
Did you?
The NCAA looks at each student-athlete eligibility decision based on its merits, because no two are identical. In the Cam Newton reinstatement case, there was not sufficient evidence available to establish he had any knowledge of his father’s actions and there was no indication he actually received any impermissible benefit. If a student-athlete does not receive tangible benefits, that is a different situation from a student-athlete or family member who receives cash, housing or other benefits or knowingly competes and is compensated as a professional athlete.
In order to do that, they would have to know what information MSU had submitted.
The NCAA looks at each student-athlete eligibility decision based on its merits, because no two are identical. In the Cam Newton reinstatement case, there was not sufficient evidence available to establish he had any knowledge of his father’s actions and there was no indication he actually received any impermissible benefit. If a student-athlete does not receive tangible benefits, that is a different situation from a student-athlete or family member who receives cash, housing or other benefits or knowingly competes and is compensated as a professional athlete.
In order to do that, they would have to know what information MSU had submitted.
Page 68 of 72
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News