re: Ha Ha received money from asst strength coach

My entire post is making fun of rolltide1987...including his assumptions. But thanks for the bite.

I went to college you poor. Lol at your student loans. But serious question since you brought it up, do full scholarship athletes have student loans too? And if so do you know for a fact haha does?

quote:

---

you guys don't have a clue of what's going on, I'm going to the Auburn board to get accurate information

---

quote:

---

players have to provide the ncaa with whatever they want or risk getting hammered

---

You contradicted yourself there. If they do not they risk but are not required. Tressel and OSU got hammered because they covered up and continued to do so after the NCAA got involved. Key word is risk when you do not cooperate.

One more thing. Think these guys are enjoying this?

quote:

---

If he's innocent he should show everything he can to prove it and get back on the field

---

And the reports today are he has already. So apparently nothing to hide.

Where did LSU say that?

quote:

---

But serious question since you brought it up, do full scholarship athletes have student loans too?

---

Good question!

Another question. What about Pell Grant money? How is that processed and what are the amounts, if any a player on scholarship can receive?

quote:

---

I disagree and maybe I just do not follow enough of what is out there outside of UA, but I am unaware of anytime the NCAA has given a punishment based on a violation per hearsay when they was supporting evidence to back up the other side.

---

This really isn't the case. The loan has been acknowledge, so the violation is there. The repayment/mitigation is what might be in question. There is some documentation that might support the mitigating circumstances, but the NCAA could deem the student athlete's testimony that he used it to repay the coach not credible.

I think the NCAA did that about an excuse the coach gave in the LSU case. Would have to re-read the findings to verify, but I think I am right on that.

quote:

---

Athletes are not required to cooperate. It is expected just as the school.

---

They are required to cooperate or they face sanctions.

quote:

---

All the NCAA can do is ask they have no subpoena power if HCD or bank says no they have to walk away

---

If Bama or HCD started refusing to cooperate they would rule HCD ineligible because he already admitted to cheating and nail Bama because a member of their coaching staff was involved. Bama suspended him because either he told them he took money, like reported, or the coach told them he paid him. So Bama has already shown they believe rules were broken and they have to tell the NCAA what made them believe that enough to suspend him.

If the NCAA worked like you claimed no one would ever get in trouble because all any player would have to do is plead the 5th and call anyone who said they paid them a liar. The payer would have to have a video tape of them taking the money and saying for what in detail to ever punish anyone.

quote:

---

NCAA compliance experts says HaHa Clinton-Dix violation 'not that serious'

At least two NCAA bylaw experts say any potential penalties Alabama safety HaHa Clinton-Dix faces won't likely be far reaching, though he already has been suspended indefinitely.

John Infante, a former compliance official at Loyola Marymount and Colorado State and author of the Bylaw Blog for AthleticScholarships.net, said the situation bears resemblance to two recent infractions cases, one pertaining to the coach, assistant strength coach Corey Harris, and another pertaining to Clinton-Dix.

"From the coach's perspective, it sounds like a mini John Blake at (North Carolina)," Infante said.

Blake, a former assistant coach at North Carolina, was accused of accepting cash from a sports agent and was given a three-year show-cause penalty from the NCAA.

Clinton-Dix's offense, according to Infante, will likely carry a significantly smaller penalty.

"From Clinton-Dix's perspective, even if the coach is deemed an agent, it is still not that serious of a violation,” Infante said. “Marcell Dareus was in line for a four game suspension before mitigating circumstances and he was found to have received over $2,000 from an agent."

Dareus, a former Alabama star defensive end, was suspended for two games in 2010 after taking multiple trips that involved contact with agents.

Dareus was also forced to pay $1,787.17 of benefits to a charity of his choice. Dareus originally was given a four-game suspension but had the penalty reduced to two games due to what the NCAA deemed to be mitigating circumstances in the case.

Dr. David Ridpath, associate professor of sports administration at Ohio University and NCAA compliance expert, backed up Infante's assertion that the value of the benefit Clinton-Dix received suggests that the penalties from the NCAA will be minor.

"It is certainly a serious issue, and Alabama is acting correctly in how they've addressed it so far," Ridpath said. "I think the fact that he's already paid the money back is probably going to be seen as a mitigating circumstance. I'm just not sure the NCAA has a leg to stand on there in terms of penalizing him for a long period of time."

Ridpath said that Clinton-Dix's bid for reinstatement could be helped along by a proactive approach from Alabama.

"I think if Alabama is proactive about it and reports to the NCAA that they will suspend him for a certain period of time in advance of actually carrying out the suspension, there's a good chance it will put them in a better position than if they simply suspended him and declared what they had done afterwards."

---

LINK