Started By
Message
re: I've changed my mind...
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:36 pm to Bellabama
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:36 pm to Bellabama
Oh I found a new article in Forbes about this very thing.
https://blo[link=(gs.forbes.com/monteburke/2010/12/10/is-the-ncaa-done-investigating-cam-newton/?boxes=businesschannelsections
)]What timing for my confusion![/link]
Someone from Auburn needs to write a letter to this guy who wrote the article and tell him he needs to google NCAA Vacated wins. Clearly he has made the same mistake I have.
https://blo[link=(gs.forbes.com/monteburke/2010/12/10/is-the-ncaa-done-investigating-cam-newton/?boxes=businesschannelsections
)]What timing for my confusion![/link]
quote:
But a couple recent cases show that finishing out a season doesn’t mean every chapter has been written in a controversial athlete’s college career. A few months after the 2007-2008 Memphis Tigers basketball team lost in the NCAA finals to Kansas, it was discovered that star freshman Derrick Rose’s SAT may have been taken by someone else and that some of his high school grades may have been changed. Though Rose maintained his innocence, the NCAA found enough evidence of wrong-doing to vacate Memphis’ entire 2007-2008 season.
Someone from Auburn needs to write a letter to this guy who wrote the article and tell him he needs to google NCAA Vacated wins. Clearly he has made the same mistake I have.
2
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:37 pm to Bellabama
I don't know Bella. You may be Mike Slive himself. I know I poured over the NCAA website for hours to better understand what was happening, not ESPN or message board. Here's a fact for you though. The NCAA has no issue with declaring players ineligible until they conclude an investigation. The NCAA has more information on this case than you or I. The NCAA ruled Cam Newton eligible to play with 'No conditions'. How can you possibly argue anything beyond your belief knowing that the ruling body knows more about the subject than you do as a mere spectator. That just baffles me.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:39 pm to Bellabama
BOOM 
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:40 pm to Bellabama
Bella, that guy was found to have violated the NCAA rules. That was what you were building up to? Wow, I'm sorry. I'll try to clarify, if Cam or Auburn are found to have committed an infraction of NCAA rules then they should be punished accordingly. I hope that helps you out in some way.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:48 pm to AUBfanatic
I think you fail to see that the NCAA also has no problem ruling players eligible, and then saying later that they were ineligible.
I can understand your hope, and your optimism, but if you think that the fact that the NCAA has not addressed the first part of this season is merely due to implied reasoning is a HUGE flaw in your reasoning.
If you know the subtleties of the NCAA, legalese, and what not, as well as the huge long term ramifications of this situation and the ruling that ultimately stands, it would seem you would be incredibly reckless to assume, or to throw into people's faces as a measure of argument, that Cam has been cleared. It's primitive and erroneous logic to think otherwise.
Just because YOU don't understand the ruling, or unconsciously assume things, doesn't mean that others can't infer a better understanding of what is going on, nor does it mean they are reading into things that don't exist because they are butthurt, jealous, or paranoid.
I can understand your hope, and your optimism, but if you think that the fact that the NCAA has not addressed the first part of this season is merely due to implied reasoning is a HUGE flaw in your reasoning.
If you know the subtleties of the NCAA, legalese, and what not, as well as the huge long term ramifications of this situation and the ruling that ultimately stands, it would seem you would be incredibly reckless to assume, or to throw into people's faces as a measure of argument, that Cam has been cleared. It's primitive and erroneous logic to think otherwise.
Just because YOU don't understand the ruling, or unconsciously assume things, doesn't mean that others can't infer a better understanding of what is going on, nor does it mean they are reading into things that don't exist because they are butthurt, jealous, or paranoid.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:49 pm to AUBfanatic
Here's a timeline for you-
October 2007 - Alabama declares 5 football players ineligible when they learn of the textbook issue
November 2007 - the players miss 4 games and are then declared eligible by the NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement.
May 2008 - the NCAA investigative committee, the Committee of Infractions, tells the University that there are possible violations and the investigation continues
February 2009 - University representatives meet with the COI
May 2009 - the NCAA COI hands down its ruling - finds violations and retroactively vacates all victories that the 5 football players played in prior to the eligibility ruling
The 5 Alabama players were deemed eligible by the NCAA Committee on Reinstatement and the the COI went back and still vacated victories.
October 2007 - Alabama declares 5 football players ineligible when they learn of the textbook issue
November 2007 - the players miss 4 games and are then declared eligible by the NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement.
May 2008 - the NCAA investigative committee, the Committee of Infractions, tells the University that there are possible violations and the investigation continues
February 2009 - University representatives meet with the COI
May 2009 - the NCAA COI hands down its ruling - finds violations and retroactively vacates all victories that the 5 football players played in prior to the eligibility ruling
The 5 Alabama players were deemed eligible by the NCAA Committee on Reinstatement and the the COI went back and still vacated victories.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:53 pm to BamaChick
He hasn't addressed this yet. I've already asked why this is different than Auburn. I think it's just because it's Auburn and they are going to the BCS, and so everyone can assume what they meant to say but didn't.
This post was edited on 12/10/10 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:00 pm to BamaChick
Its common knowledge that the investigation is ongoing. If I made a statement saying otherwise, then please disregard. I'm not going back to see I'll just take your word for it. Text book scandal and Derek Rose involved cases where the institution agreed that a violation occurred. Bama decided to sit their players. NCAA I guess said that's not enough and vacated wins. Probably has a lot to do with Bama's refusal to come out of probation. Please dispute my logic in stating that the NCAA knows more about this than you and has done everything in their power to ensure Auburn has not been harmed. The hammer wielding NCAA is going out of their way to ensure Auburn isn't harmed through this process. Why is that?
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:00 pm to Bellabama
quote:
Bellabama
I believe it is the phrase "no conditions" that is throwing them off. It seems they think it means that all is said and done.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:01 pm to AUBfanatic
quote:
Bella, that guy was found to have violated the NCAA rules. That was what you were building up to? Wow, I'm sorry. I'll try to clarify, if Cam or Auburn are found to have committed an infraction of NCAA rules then they should be punished accordingly. I hope that helps you out in some way.
I followed the whole Reggie Bush thing on a USC board. The thing is, the Auburn fans sound EXACTLY like the USC fans sounded. Very self-assured, all kinds of facts and whatnot to back up their positions. It all came to naught. They had to give back the crystal and Reggie had to give up the Heisman.
The thing is, Cam watched all that play out. He watched as Reggie Bush gave back the Heisman. But you know what Cam noticed on Reggies hand holding the trophy? That's right, a Super Bowl ring.
That's why Cam's smiling when asked about it all. he knows he'll end up with a big fat pay check - that he doesn't have to hand over to his dad. He couldn't give a shite about Auburn, the Family, the crystal - or the Heisman.
To be honest, given the system, I don't blame him.
But watch out Auburn fans, it's already played out once before, it could happen again. I bet it does.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:03 pm to Bellabama
Sure, the COI is a completely different entity than the committe on eligibilty reinstatement. But, in the case of Alabama in 2007, the university was culpable and was still on NCAA probation. No credible information to date suggests Auburn had any pay-4-play discussions or that Auburn was aware Cecil had discussions with MSU.
It's not a stretch for AU fans to feel like the big hurdle in this whole mess was Cam's eligibility. The COI sanctions Universities... the questions should be -- Did Auburn do anything improper in the recruitment of Cam Newton? Was Auburn aware that his eligibility was compromised by his father?.... the answers are more than likely no (although that would be up to the COI).
It's not a stretch for AU fans to feel like the big hurdle in this whole mess was Cam's eligibility. The COI sanctions Universities... the questions should be -- Did Auburn do anything improper in the recruitment of Cam Newton? Was Auburn aware that his eligibility was compromised by his father?.... the answers are more than likely no (although that would be up to the COI).
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:08 pm to AUBfanatic
Damn, you really do have your head in the sand don't you?
October 2007 - Alabama declares the players ineligible
November 2007 - NCAA Committee on Athlete Reinstatement declares players eligible
May 2009 - COI vacates all victories the 5 players played in PRIOR TO BEING REINSTATED
No fricking duh - they also know more about it than any Auburn fan, too.
And THAT is why the rest of the country thinks this whole mess of shennanigans stinks of dirty dollar bills and Mike Slive's aftershave.
And finally, since we all agree the NCAA knows more than any of us, let's then refer to them for the final word, shall we?
quote:
Text book scandal and Derek Rose involved cases where the institution agreed that a violation occurred.
quote:
According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete’s father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment to attend college and play football. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship.
quote:
Bama decided to sit their players. NCAA I guess said that's not enough and vacated wins.
October 2007 - Alabama declares the players ineligible
November 2007 - NCAA Committee on Athlete Reinstatement declares players eligible
May 2009 - COI vacates all victories the 5 players played in PRIOR TO BEING REINSTATED
quote:
Please dispute my logic in stating that the NCAA knows more about this than you
No fricking duh - they also know more about it than any Auburn fan, too.
quote:
has done everything in their power to ensure Auburn has not been harmed. The hammer wielding NCAA is going out of their way to ensure Auburn isn't harmed through this process. Why is that?
And THAT is why the rest of the country thinks this whole mess of shennanigans stinks of dirty dollar bills and Mike Slive's aftershave.
And finally, since we all agree the NCAA knows more than any of us, let's then refer to them for the final word, shall we?
quote:
During the reinstatement process, NCAA staff review each case on its own merits based on the specific facts. Staff decisions are made based on a number of factors including guidelines established by the Division I NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, as well as any mitigating factors presented by the university.
Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete’s involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation. It is NCAA policy not to comment on current, pending or potential investigations.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:09 pm to lowspark12
yes, a school with Pat Dye and Lowder running around again had no idea.....
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:09 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Look I understand the frustration if you've only followed the headlines. Bush was eventually found to have committed an infraction at USC. Auburn should be sanctioned if they are found to have committed an infraction. If Auburn payed Newton than they should be punished. I've said that over and over. I just don't think its going to happen and to follow your logic Bella, I guess its just as ridiculous to believe that nothing more will come of this as it is to condemn a person without knowing all of the facts.
On a side note: Have any of you been able to pull up some case study on the NCAA declaring a player ineligible soley based on the act of solicitation? Keep looking....
On a side note: Have any of you been able to pull up some case study on the NCAA declaring a player ineligible soley based on the act of solicitation? Keep looking....
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:14 pm to BamaChick
Wow Bamachick! You really brought your A game. That's the first time I've seen those quotes (insert sarcastic smile here)
The belief that the enforcement and eligibility sides of the NCAA act totally independent of one another is comical. That has circulated for several days now and I ask that you do a little research into the validity of that premise. FYI--its a short wait on the answer
The belief that the enforcement and eligibility sides of the NCAA act totally independent of one another is comical. That has circulated for several days now and I ask that you do a little research into the validity of that premise. FYI--its a short wait on the answer
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:14 pm to lowspark12
I understand that, and that's my point about it being a grey matter. I think that to jump to a definitive black and white conclusion about anything at this point is idiotic. I am an Alabama fan, so I will obviously look for the gaps in a ruling or a statement to see what was and wasn't said... In the same way that Alabama fans can be utterly obnoxious, jump to conclusions, blah blah blah, I think that Auburn fans who think Alabama fans are unwilling to see that the NCAA has spoken are as delusional on the continuum. Similarly, we have no idea what will be or has been uncovered, and how the NCAA will or won't use findings to make an example or new interpretation of something that is already on the books.
What is clear is that if they do that, they will be will documented, and will do whatever they can to avoid the inevitable lawsuits that will come with whatever they conclude if they find Auburn, Cam, or any other university to be at fault.
What is clear is that if they do that, they will be will documented, and will do whatever they can to avoid the inevitable lawsuits that will come with whatever they conclude if they find Auburn, Cam, or any other university to be at fault.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:16 pm to AUBfanatic
I <3 the bama girls ... they are so feisty and like to play with their kill. RAWR 
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:21 pm to AUBfanatic
quote:
The belief that the enforcement and eligibility sides of the NCAA act totally independent of one another is comical. That has circulated for several days now and I ask that you do a little research into the validity of that premise. FYI--its a short wait on the answer
I think it's fairly clear to the average poster at this point that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, but you think you do.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:22 pm to AUBfanatic
quote:
Look I understand the frustration if you've only followed the headlines.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not frustrated. I'm pulling for Auburn to win the BCSCG. That can only serve to help the SEC - regardless of any sanctions that may come out years from now. As long as the SEC is holding serve we all will get the benefit of the doubt when it comes time for selection in the BCSCG.
quote:
Bush was eventually found to have committed an infraction at USC. Auburn should be sanctioned if they are found to have committed an infraction. If Auburn payed Newton than they should be punished. I've said that over and over. I just don't think its going to happen...
THAT'S my point, NO USC fans ever thought it would happen to them - but it did.
quote:
and to follow your logic Bella, I guess its just as ridiculous to believe that nothing more will come of this as it is to condemn a person without knowing all of the facts.
And all of the facts won't come out for another couple of years.
quote:
On a side note: Have any of you been able to pull up some case study on the NCAA declaring a player ineligible soley based on the act of solicitation? Keep looking....
Again, just like the USC fans whistling past the graveyard.
My question to you is, do you know any older Auburn fans that were defending Auburn just as vehemently each of the other times Auburn was caught cheating? How did they feel after? How are they responding to these allegations now? My guess is with a LOT more circumspection than you're showing here.
My advice to Auburn fans is to just shut up and sit down. If you continue defending your program, you'll just come off looking like fools if sanctions are ever levelled at Auburn - which I believe will happen. The NCAA really just can't afford even the PERCEPTION of programs entering into bidding wars for players.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 4:23 pm to memphisplaya
I think AUBfanatic is holding his own here.. I'd say it's 50-50 right now..
Page 7 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News