Started By
Message
If Auburn Was Innocent.....
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:04 am
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:04 am
....they would SIT Cam. Think about it. Everyone saying they are playing him because they have nothing to hide/ did nothing wrong is way off base. Think about it, they KNOW what Ceil did will eventually make Cam ineligible. And, if they had nothing to hide they would sit him, vacate 10 wins and move on.
But instead they have decided to ride this thing into the ground which shows me they have many skeltons in the closet that are being uncovered.
Enjoy these last few days Auburn
But instead they have decided to ride this thing into the ground which shows me they have many skeltons in the closet that are being uncovered.
Enjoy these last few days Auburn
9
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:05 am to GoldenSombrero
I feel dumber now.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:06 am to GoldenSombrero
No way whats so ever do I sit Newton at 10-0 and ranked number 2 in the BCS. What if the NCAA and teh SEC never find anything. you gave up 2 games for Rumors on Tiger Droppings.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:07 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
And, if they had nothing to hide they would sit him, vacate 10 wins and move on.
Doesn't make sense. If hypothetically nothing at all happened against NCAA rules why on Earth would they sit him? I think regardless of the situation you play him, at this point when the NCAA finds his dad guilty then we have to vacate the first 10 wins.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:07 am to I Love Bama
Need.... More..... Coffee.....
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:07 am to Tiger Phanatick
How many times are we going to re-visit this question? 
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:08 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
If Auburn Was Innocent...they would SIT Cam.
Nah the OP is joking. You're joking, right?
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:11 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
Enjoy these last few days Auburn
I swear, people assume its the end of the world for Auburn Athletics...
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 8:11 am
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:19 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
If Auburn Was Innocent.........they would SIT Cam.
I stopped reading there.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:23 am to Broham
I completely misread the post.
And now it sounds even dumber than originally.
Some Arky fans.
And now it sounds even dumber than originally.
Some Arky fans.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:23 am to Broham
I thought they were 11-0?????
quote:
I think regardless of the situation you play him, at this point when the NCAA finds his dad guilty then we have to vacate the first 10 wins.
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 8:24 am
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:25 am to MsGarrison
No I'm being serious. Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
We can all agree Cecil trying to solicit money from MSU makes Cam ineligible? Right. If you can't see that then don't read any further.
Auburn, from various sources other than TD, was told by the NCAA that they urge them to sit Cam. Based solely on Cecil admitting to the reports of asking for money Cam would be ineligible, regardless of what AU did or did not do.
Therefore, IF Auburn was merely an innocent bystander and knew nothing of Cecil asking for money, they would sit him to risk further penalties. They would have to vacate wins, but their program wouldn't be punished long term.
They know the hammer is coming down hard and just hope it doesn't before the MNC.
We can all agree Cecil trying to solicit money from MSU makes Cam ineligible? Right. If you can't see that then don't read any further.
Auburn, from various sources other than TD, was told by the NCAA that they urge them to sit Cam. Based solely on Cecil admitting to the reports of asking for money Cam would be ineligible, regardless of what AU did or did not do.
Therefore, IF Auburn was merely an innocent bystander and knew nothing of Cecil asking for money, they would sit him to risk further penalties. They would have to vacate wins, but their program wouldn't be punished long term.
They know the hammer is coming down hard and just hope it doesn't before the MNC.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:28 am to GoldenSombrero
Dude, this makes NO sense.
"We're innocent, so let's sit our best player."
"We're innocent, so let's sit our best player."
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:36 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
We can all agree Cecil trying to solicit money from MSU makes Cam ineligible? Right
if you believe Kenny then yes.
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 8:36 am
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:36 am to Hog Springs
quote:
Auburn, from various sources other than TD, was told by the NCAA that they urge them to sit Cam. Based solely on Cecil admitting to the reports of asking for money Cam would be ineligible, regardless of what AU did or did not do.
This is not true. The NCAA met with the Newton's in Auburn on Thursday, we are in the clear for now.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:36 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
Auburn, from various sources other than TD, was told by the NCAA that they urge them to sit Cam.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:37 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
We can all agree Cecil trying to solicit money from MSU makes Cam ineligible? Right. If you can't see that then don't read any further.
Most of us think that - but they are screwed anyway if it's true
If the Auburn administration or boosters intimately associated with the program have their hands dirty they are screwed anyway.
If they are not involved or they have plausible deniability then they are going to play him because nothing worse than lost wins is likely
The only thing that would make them sit him at this point would be an expectation of more severe NCAA sanctions for doing so... and I don't know enough to say if that's a plausible issue
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:39 am to Hog Springs
quote:
Dude, this makes NO sense.
"We're innocent, so let's sit our best player."
Dude, yes it does.
Just because AU could be innocent doesn't mean that Cam is. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Let me give you another example. Let's say Mallett took $20K from an agent, before he got to AR and Arkansas knew nothing about it. Reports surfaced and his dad admitted to it. The NCAA advised that we sit him. We had done nothing wrong to this point, why wouldn't we sit him to not risk further penalties??
Just because the school could be innocent doesn't mean the player is.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:42 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
Let me give you another example. Let's say Mallett took $20K from an agent, before he got to AR and Arkansas knew nothing about it. Reports surfaced and his dad admitted to it. The NCAA advised that we sit him. We had done nothing wrong to this point, why wouldn't we sit him to not risk further penalties??
The bolded part has not happened and does not typically happen as I understand the process
The NCAA apparently just tells the schools to use their best judgment on sitting or not sitting players (based on what the schools know)
The hotly contested issue RE: Auburn is whether they really think they are in the clear or the chance for a SEC or NC makes it worth the risk of significant NCAA penalty - which again would come down to who knows what and did what
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:43 am to Hog Springs
quote:FWIW that's not what he's saying. I think that I understand his point even though I don't really agree with him.
"We're innocent, so let's sit our best player."
I think that what he is saying is (HIS point - NOT mine):
AU is innocent but they know that Cam is ineligible. As an innocent institution they're at no risk of NCAA penalty other than the vacating of wins (i.e. they will not be put on probation).
If they are innocent continuing to play him (even after they know he is ineligible) puts them squaerly in the NCAA crosshairs for sanctions. Therefore (according to this poster - NOT me) they must already feel that they will be put on probation from all this so why not win the most games they can on the way down. If they are innocent the only way they risk probation is continuing to play him, so why would they.
(Disclaimer: The above post does not represent the opinion of 20th Century Fox, it's employees or TigerInBamaLand)
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 8:49 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News