Started By
Message
re: Danny Sheridan has the info
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:53 pm to WDE24
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:53 pm to WDE24
You're subtly trying to change the argument and insinuate I'm meaning something else. You're wrong. The NCAA website states that compliance and the investigative portion of enforcement are separate and do not work together to decide eligibility of a student athlete when the case is presented to them by a University.
3
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:53 pm to Alahunter
quote:Again, like I originally said, you need to tell Mark Emmert that.
Again.. enforcement has nothing to do with compliances decision to reinstate Cam.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:53 pm to Alahunter
quote:You got that backwards bud.
You're subtly trying to change the argument and insinuate I'm meaning something else.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:54 pm to Alahunter
Alabama knowingly hired cheater coaches from Miami. 
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:54 pm to Alahunter
The NCAA President said they did with Cam. But if you don't want to believe him then there is no sense in trying to get you to pull your head out of the sand.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:55 pm to WDE24
You need to tell him to rewrite their website and rule book. He was getting nailed by every media outlet in the country on the handling of the situation. He was saying whatever he could to get his arse out of the fire. His statements do not coincide with the NCAA website or the VP of Enforcement's own statement.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:55 pm to Alahunter
Dude give it a rest. Go catch Iron bowl replay on CSS.
7:00pm College Football Classics: Auburn at Alabama
(11/26/10).
7:00pm College Football Classics: Auburn at Alabama
(11/26/10).
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:55 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Alabama knowingly hired cheater coaches from Miami.
frick yeah we did. It is a cheating free for all in the great state of Alabama.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:56 pm to DonAUfan
quote:
The NCAA President said they did with Cam. But if you don't want to believe him then there is no sense in trying to get you to pull your head out of the sand.
The NCAA website, history and the VP of enforcement have contradicted him. 3 to 1 against him. U mad.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:57 pm to Alahunter
quote:Well, this whole discussion started with you challenging my statement that another poster needed to inform Mark Emmert how the NCAA worked. I then provided the link you wanted and you tried to change the argument and discredit the NCAA president (who was the one I referenced in the first place). On top of all of that, you accused me of trying to change the argument. The good news is, its in black and white, I got to go, so you can read back through it and catch up.
His statements do not coincide with the NCAA website or the VP of Enforcement's own statement.
Oh and
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 7:59 pm
Posted on 8/17/11 at 7:57 pm to Alahunter
quote:
U mad.
Nope, I am too old to get mad about shite like this.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:02 pm to NBamaAlum
I'm turning this into a Bama and thread so I can get it anchored/whacked.
Cyrus was lured to Bama by that dirty cheater coach from Miami. Saban knew. NCAA on campus.
Cyrus was lured to Bama by that dirty cheater coach from Miami. Saban knew. NCAA on campus.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:03 pm to Aubie Spr96
You might have better luck if you mention that he also got several nice new suits.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:08 pm to 1999
Just listened to the full Sheridan interview from today.
It's really gotten to the point that I don't care anymore. I've moved on to Conference Expansion/A&M/Miami/2011 season.
All that said, I actually still believe Sheridan. Guy sounds like he's being sincerely honest to me.
It's really gotten to the point that I don't care anymore. I've moved on to Conference Expansion/A&M/Miami/2011 season.
All that said, I actually still believe Sheridan. Guy sounds like he's being sincerely honest to me.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:11 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
JPLSU1981
I think any objective person would agree.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:12 pm to m2pro
quote:
m2pro
Nice sarcasm. Subtle.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:20 pm to TheJones
In a few words, what happened today concerning this story? Thanks in advance.
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:24 pm to bona fide
Sheridan declined to name a name. Says it's on advice from his attorney who was present. Later said that he doesn't know the name of the bagman, but knows the name of a witness to the transaction. Also wanted paul to stop saying bagman. Also said he may not know the name and only the location.
He said a lot of contradicting things. Feel free to correct any of this if I'm wrong - anyone.
He said a lot of contradicting things. Feel free to correct any of this if I'm wrong - anyone.
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:30 pm to TheJones
quote:
Sheridan declined to name a name.
Correct. But he does claim that he has the name of the bagman and the location of the witness. He just doesn't want to divulge it because if he was to be sued, he will have to give up his source(s) at the NCAA and those sources will lose their jobs.
quote:
Later said that he doesn't know the name of the bagman, but knows the name of a witness to the transaction.
This statement is totally incorrect. He specifically said he has the name of the "bagman." He does not have a name for the third-party witness, but he does have the witnesses location.
quote:
Also said he may not know the name and only the location.
He never said this FWIW.
quote:
He said a lot of contradicting things.
Sheridan has not contradicted himself on anything IMO. Is he a cocky SOB and a stupid arse for ever starting this BS? Yes. Nonetheless, he hasn't contradicted himself on anything and he comes across IMO as pretty sincere in his knowledge/sources.
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 8/17/11 at 8:32 pm to JPLSU1981
Alright, I got some of the information about the bagman and witness mixed then.
The whole thing is suspicious, IMO. The concept of saying you'll possibly drop a name when you know that you'll never actually do it is a puzzling decision. Claiming to know there is a witness without knowing the name and only a location is strange and equally puzzling.
It also seemed to me that he wasn't confident that this witness was a legit witness or not, or he wasn't sure that the guy identified to him as the bagman is actually the bagman.
It seems to me that he caught wind of some hearsay and is unable to verify any of his information or he's unable to verify it with the person he originally got the information from.
The whole show was strange.
The whole thing is suspicious, IMO. The concept of saying you'll possibly drop a name when you know that you'll never actually do it is a puzzling decision. Claiming to know there is a witness without knowing the name and only a location is strange and equally puzzling.
It also seemed to me that he wasn't confident that this witness was a legit witness or not, or he wasn't sure that the guy identified to him as the bagman is actually the bagman.
It seems to me that he caught wind of some hearsay and is unable to verify any of his information or he's unable to verify it with the person he originally got the information from.
The whole show was strange.
This post was edited on 8/17/11 at 8:38 pm
Page 71 of 72
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News