Started By
Message
re: If Auburn Was Innocent.....
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:47 am to TigerInBamaLand
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:47 am to TigerInBamaLand
quote:
TigerInBamaLand
Finally someone get's it, even if you don't agree. Just my opinon.
0
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:48 am to TigerInBamaLand
quote:
AU is innocent but they know that Cam is ineligible.
That is his assumption and opinion.
The NCAA did not advise AU to sit Cam.
What they did do, was interview Cam and his family in AU last week and after the interviews determined that Cam was eligible to play against UGA.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:50 am to TigerInBamaLand
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.
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 there 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)
Good post
But I think the Auburn position they will argue is there is no credible information out there to say he's ineligible
I agree that this is not a plausible defense if Cam's father has indeed admitted to trying to sell him to MSU
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:50 am to I Love Bama
quote:
If Auburn Was Innocent.....
I feel dumber now.
It's not just a feeling. It happened to me too after reading this...
Posted on 11/17/10 at 8:53 am to GoldenSombrero
Oh, gotcha.
Don't agree, but gotcha.
IMO, if the NCAA doesn't tell Auburn to sit him, then don't sit him.
Don't agree, but gotcha.
IMO, if the NCAA doesn't tell Auburn to sit him, then don't sit him.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 9:16 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
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.
Uh, no. Say, hypothetically, that you do sit him and win all four remaining games (including SEC Championship), yet you have to vacate the first 10 wins. So your official record is 4-10.
On the other hand, if you just pay attention to the fact that the NCAA and Auburn have been discussing this matter SINCE JULY, so how is sitting him now going to help anything?
Just because you didn't know anything about this two weeks ago doesn't mean that no one did. Get your head out of your arse and quit praying for the worst in Auburn.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 9:23 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
If Auburn Was Innocent.....
....they would SIT Cam.
I was saying this before the UGA game. Playing him was a de facto admission by Auburn that they were neck deep (or deeper) and had nothing to gain by sitting him. Therefore they have nothing to lose by playing him. Therefore, they are, in culinary terms, well done.
I wonder what wine goes with well done wareagleplainsmantiger?
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 9:24 am
Posted on 11/17/10 at 9:24 am to GoldenSombrero
Don't ever, ever go into a profession that requires logical thinking or sharp analytical skills. Ever.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 9:25 am to Ace Midnight
tiger piss
Posted on 11/17/10 at 9:26 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Playing him was a de facto admission by Auburn that they were neck deep (or deeper) and had nothing to gain by sitting him. Therefore they have nothing to lose by playing him.
lulz
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:49 am to NorthGwinnettTiger
quote:
lulz
Just because it's funny doesn't mean it's not true.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:50 am to chevygirl
quote:
tiger piss
Easy girl, you may have to specify what kind of tiger. For this extremely limited issue, we may be on the same side.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:04 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
Think about it, they KNOW what Ceil did will eventually make Cam ineligible.
Yes, Auburn, the NCAA know what Cecil did and I am beginning to think that there specific statement in the NCAA rules that covers what Cecil did. It states unethical conduct by the athlete or institutional staff members but makes not mention of a representative of the athlete including family members.
==================================================
10.1 Unethical Conduct
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limitedto, the following:
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News