Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/26/15 at 11:25 pm to BasilBogomil
Perfect Gif
Posted on 2/26/15 at 11:27 pm to SL Tiger
quote:
First off...don't even mention Arden Key in the same post as the kid that you signed. Key was pursued by every school in the country and rightly so. Womack probably wanted Bama all along but I doubt he had a committable offer. Once he committed to LSU, Saban would try to take him just to frick with us.
Meh. LSU wanted Womack enough to roll the dice and give him an FAA. Are you saying that your staff stinks at talent evaluating?
quote:
In the end, we signed a much better OL prospect anyway.
Maybe. Last year you had a lot of "better prospects" on the oline. That still didn't make your line dominant. Plus we don't know whether or not Chidi will qualify.
quote:
Why is NO ONE surprised that this issue has Bama right in the middle?
What did Alabama do wrong? We recruited a kid that was committed to another school. Just like you tried to steal Daylon Charlot who was committed to Alabama. We didn't turn you in for the Womack incident. Your compliance department did.
quote:
I have a feeling there will be more drama coming from this family. I'm hoping he bring trouble to the Gumps.
Just like Landon Collins brought so much trouble to Alabama.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 11:31 pm to chattabama
Technically, we didn't do anything wrong either. Signing FAA gives you more contact privileges which he did sign
These so called sanctions want hold up after all said and done
These so called sanctions want hold up after all said and done
This post was edited on 2/26/15 at 11:33 pm
Posted on 2/26/15 at 11:45 pm to LSUNV
why do you do this to yourself? Of course they will hold up. The rules are pretty clear. You can have unlimited contact provided a player signs and enrolls early. He did neither. Because schools abused the FAA last year, the NCAA went out of their way to make it clear that in such instances a penalty would be assessed in the future.
LSU, like every other school, knew the risk. It's why they reported it. You may feel the punishment is harsh but honestly LSU appears to have been pretty cavalier given the kid himself said he wasn't solid and wasn't even sure he was going to enroll early. All they had to do to stay in compliance was follow normal contact rules. They didn't.
LSU probably thought they wouldn't get much punishment and felt the risk was worth it. They gambled and lost. It happens. But nobody wants recruiting to turn into the wild west. The punishment really isn't that severe but it's strong enough that other schools will think twice about showing such disdain for the rules. Honestly it seems well weighted.
LSU, like every other school, knew the risk. It's why they reported it. You may feel the punishment is harsh but honestly LSU appears to have been pretty cavalier given the kid himself said he wasn't solid and wasn't even sure he was going to enroll early. All they had to do to stay in compliance was follow normal contact rules. They didn't.
LSU probably thought they wouldn't get much punishment and felt the risk was worth it. They gambled and lost. It happens. But nobody wants recruiting to turn into the wild west. The punishment really isn't that severe but it's strong enough that other schools will think twice about showing such disdain for the rules. Honestly it seems well weighted.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 11:52 pm to tmc94
You are a moron if you can't see how to defend this! Read the fricking rule before spouting off an epilogue filled with diareah of the mouth. There is room for interpretation which will call many variables into question
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:04 am to LSUNV
there really aren't. I get that the homer in you think there are but it's really pretty clear
quote:
The NCAA modified the financial aid agreement (FAA) in April. It continued to allow schools “relaxed recruiting rules” for prospects who signed a financial aid agreement, but it also warned schools that they could be penalized for recruiting violations if that prospect did not eventually enroll in that school.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:10 am to tmc94
If you read the rule in all of its entirety then you would have noticed the amendment about the school that he signs the first FAA is the only legal institution that may contact him in the dead period. Remind me whose agreement he signed first?
So yeah it will be pretty clear cut and dry. LSU compliance Department didn't know how to interpret some of the verbage so they reported it to be on the safe side.
So yeah it will be pretty clear cut and dry. LSU compliance Department didn't know how to interpret some of the verbage so they reported it to be on the safe side.
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 12:13 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:12 am to LSUNV
Complete non-sequitur. What exactly does this have to do with LSU violating the contact rules?
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:14 am to tmc94
Unless you have a legal degree then you should just move a long
quote:
If you read the rule in all of its entirety then you would have noticed the amendment about the school that he signs the first FAA is the only legal institution that may contact him in the dead period. Remind me whose agreement he signed first? So yeah it will be pretty clear cut and dry. LSU compliance Department didn't know how to interpret some of the verbage so they reported it to be on the safe side.
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 12:16 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:18 am to tmc94
quote:
Complete non-sequitur. What exactly does this have to do with LSU violating the contact rules?
It has everything to do with LSU and the contact rules.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:18 am to LSUNV
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:21 am to tmc94
Our Compliance Dept. Is severely lacking some skills and that truly isn't fair
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:26 am to LSUNV
Here we agree. I'm really shocked your compliance department didn't put a halt to it given what an obvious violation, though minor, it was.
Once the kid told the press he wasn't sure he was enrolling early it should have been clearly explained to your football staff that they should be following normal contact rules, no exceptions. Given that was when he signed the FAA, that means this should have been a no-brainer.
As is either the compliance dept dropped the ball or the football staff ignored them. Either should set off alarm bells within the AD.
Once the kid told the press he wasn't sure he was enrolling early it should have been clearly explained to your football staff that they should be following normal contact rules, no exceptions. Given that was when he signed the FAA, that means this should have been a no-brainer.
As is either the compliance dept dropped the ball or the football staff ignored them. Either should set off alarm bells within the AD.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:32 am to tmc94
quote:
Once the kid told the press he wasn't sure he was enrolling early it should have been clearly explained to your football staff that they should be following normal contact rules, no exceptions. Given that was when he signed the FAA, that means this should have been a no-brainer.
Like I said, usage the verbiage provided by the NCAA rule committee, we technically did nothing wrong. It doesn't say anything in the verbage about how to interpret some high school kids frame of mind but it does provide clear verbage about which institution can legally contact him in a dead period.
You seem to be under the impression that just because he didn't chose to go to LSU that we automatically are guilty. I provided sufficient evidence that says that is not necessarily the case
This whole thing hinges on one thing and that is what the father said about LSU not holding up the FAA. If he can prove it, which I don't see this sticking as it is just heresay at this point, then sanctions stand. If he can't it will be dropped, plain and simple
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 12:40 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:38 am to LSUNV
quote:
You seem to be under the impression that just because he didn't chose to go to LSU that we automatically are guilty.
not at all. Like every other school in this situation, LSU simply needed to follow normal contact rules and there is no violation
And the other things you are talking about (dead period and the like) are pure noise that have no bearing on this case since by the dead period the kid wasn't even committed to LSU and had no plans to enroll early
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:41 am to tmc94
That was the infraction that was reported.
Made an in home visit during the dead period which is allowed VIA FAA.
You really didn't think this through
If it has no bearing then why did he sign it? Eventually this will have to be called into question because high school kids can change their mind at anytime and like I said the amendment stops schools from being sanctioned undeservedly.
Made an in home visit during the dead period which is allowed VIA FAA.
You really didn't think this through
If it has no bearing then why did he sign it? Eventually this will have to be called into question because high school kids can change their mind at anytime and like I said the amendment stops schools from being sanctioned undeservedly.
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 12:45 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:43 am to LSUNV
ESPN article from the amendment last April
ETA: not saying I'm a fan of the rule
quote:
The NCAA has gone back to the drawing board over the rules that govern mid-year enrolling football prospects eligible for financial aid agreements on and after Aug. 1 of their senior years.
The Division I Legislative Council this week rescinded a December ruling that allowed only the first school to sign a prospect to an agreement to operate under relaxed recruiting restrictions.
The initial interpretation, issued last October by the NCAA’s academic and membership affairs staff, permitted schools that signed prospects to agreements to comment publicly about the recruits and ignore restrictions that limit contact outside of a dead period.
As an unintended consequence, several prospects in the Class of 2014 signed agreements with multiple programs, leading to the December action after an appeal of the original interpretation by the Southeastern Conference.
Many schools, according to the NCAA, then voiced concerns that they were not aware when prospects sign agreements with multiple schools and in what order, potentially leading to inadvertent violations.
As a result, the decision this week states if a school signs a prospect to an agreement and takes advantage of the relaxed restrictions, it will be in violation, retroactively, of NCAA rules if the prospect does not enroll at the school.
ETA: not saying I'm a fan of the rule
This post was edited on 2/27/15 at 12:47 am
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:44 am to LSUNV
you understand the FAA is invalid since he neither enrolled early nor enrolled at LSU right? Thus it's very much a violation and a willful one at that since the kid was committed to Bama at the time of the violation. You can't even pretend you thought he was going to be an EE at LSU
Posted on 2/27/15 at 12:46 am to TMDawg
It wasn't fully rescinded. There are parts left in.
Page 19 of 24
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News