Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:42 pm to secfan123
Just think, in a bit less than 17 days, we will have real football and hopefully this freakin' shittake will stop for a bit.
Then, we can root for our team, jeer everyone else . . . and drink a mug or two.
Then, we can root for our team, jeer everyone else . . . and drink a mug or two.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:42 pm to Alahunter
quote:Fixed.
Exactly. And what the NCAA says on their website. Contrary to Mark Emmert's claim.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:43 pm to Bham4Tide
quote:
Then, we can root for our team, jeer everyone else . . . and drink a mug or two.
I'm all for that, this other shite is giving me a damn headache - make it stop.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:44 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
You should have looked at Pages 65 and 66. What was stated was that they made their decision based on info that was provided by MSU and Auburn. It was stated that they don't share any info given to them and that is not correct.
quote:
WDE - As crazy and messed up as the NCAA is, they had begun their own investigation and would not have declared Cam eligible if they had verifiable information at that time that he had been paid. It doesn't matter which department of the NCAA was in possession of the info. I get the dichotomy of the roles between enforcement and eligibility, but they aren't going to withhold information from each other. Also, the NCAA isn't going to ignore information hey already have and solely rely on the information provided by the school.
Compliance wouldn't know or be able to find out what Enforcement had in the investigation in 24 hrs to reinstate Cam. It's not that they ignore. They are separate issues and one isn't necessary, in the NCAA world of workings, to make a decision, with the other. COMPLIANCE MAKES THEIR DECISIONS, BASED ON INFORMATION THE UNIVERSITY PROVIDES THEM. That's all. And it's not that hard to understand. Really.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:45 pm to Alahunter
quote:So you believe that they would ignore evidence that Cam was paid and reinstated him simply because that evidence was gleaned from something not provided by the university?
COMPLIANCE MAKES THEIR DECISIONS, BASED ON INFORMATION THE UNIVERSITY PROVIDES THEM. That's all. And it's not that hard to understand. Really.
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 7:47 pm
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:45 pm to Alahunter
Right now, you're just trying to find anything to give Bama fans a shred of hope. If nothing damning has come out about about Cam Newton at this point, with all the scrutiny he has been under, it's time to move on. Deal with it.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:45 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Compliance wouldn't know or be able to find out what Enforcement had in the investigation in 24 hrs to reinstate Cam. It's not that they ignore. They are separate issues and one isn't necessary, in the NCAA world of workings, to make a decision, with the other. COMPLIANCE MAKES THEIR DECISIONS, BASED ON INFORMATION THE UNIVERSITY PROVIDES THEM. That's all. And it's not that hard to understand. Really.
Are you meaning to say Enforcement and Eligibility?
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:45 pm to WDE24
You must have Hunter upset with today's events.
Dude wasted post 55,000 arguing with you!
Dude wasted post 55,000 arguing with you!
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:45 pm to NBamaAlum
"Where were you? When Sheridan brought the Newton evidence to Heaven? Did it make you feel like crying or did you think it was kinda g*y?
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:46 pm to WDE24
I believe they don't go to enforcement when they are given an investigation by a University and asked to make a ruling if the player is eligible or ineligible. Compliance and reinstatement has nothing to do with enforcement. Which is why they said they had no reason to withhold his eligibility, AT THIS TIME.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:47 pm to Alahunter
quote:Actually they said they had no evidence that he did any thing wrong, at this time.
Which is why they said they had no reason to withhold his eligibility, AT THIS TIME.
The President also said they performed a good investigation and got to the facts the best they could.
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:47 pm to e2drummer
No, I'm not. I simply stating that the enforcement division does not play a role in deciding eligibility of a player when it goes through the compliance division. Nothing more.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:48 pm to Alahunter
From the NCAA website:
At the time that Cam was reinstated MSU had already submitted the info they had to the NCAA so an investigation was already ongoing
So, Auburn went to the Enforcement Staff to get agreement on the facts at that time, and then they went to the Reinstatement Staff.
quote:
At times, the student-athlete eligibility issues become ripe within the context of an enforcement investigation.
At the time that Cam was reinstated MSU had already submitted the info they had to the NCAA so an investigation was already ongoing
quote:
When this occurs, the school and the enforcement staff agree upon facts that are then presented to the reinstatement staff specific to the student-athlete’s eligibility.
So, Auburn went to the Enforcement Staff to get agreement on the facts at that time, and then they went to the Reinstatement Staff.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:49 pm to Alahunter
I find it comical how you act as if the NCAA only had 24 hours to deal with this matter. as if Au's declaring Cam ineligible was their first notice of it and when they began looking into it.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:49 pm to WDE24
Which, was based on the information given to them by Auburn. Not Auburn and enforcement investigative part of the NCAA. As you claimed.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:49 pm to WDE24
quote:
I find it comical how you act as if the NCAA only had 24 hours to deal with this matter. as if Au's declaring Cam ineligible was their first notice of it and when they began looking into it
Show me any other case that compliance has dealt with an issue, before the University declared someone ineligible and then asked for reinstatement.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:50 pm to Alahunter
quote:I didn't claim that. I just claimed that had enforcement had verifiable information that Cam had been paid he wouldn't have been reinstated.
Not Auburn and enforcement investigative part of the NCAA. As you claimed.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:51 pm to Alahunter
quote:Why? What would that prove? Are you insinuating that the NCAA had not been dealing with this matter for months or that the NCAA didn't know what AU was going to do before they did it?
Show me any other case that compliance has dealt with an issue, before the University declared someone ineligible and then asked for reinstatement.
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:51 pm to WDE24
quote:
I just claimed that had enforcement had verifiable information that Cam had been paid he wouldn't have been reinstated.
Again.. enforcement has nothing to do with compliances decision to reinstate Cam. They do not communicate and work hand in hand to determine eligibility in situations like this.
Page 70 of 72
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News