Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/12/11 at 3:20 pm to WDE24
I suspect, eventually we will.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 3:20 pm to Alahunter
Not reading the thread, I can see where the NCAA should have done something immediately to help with PR. I can also somewhat understand their argument for relenting.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 3:22 pm to Ross
quote:
I can see where the NCAA should have done something immediately to help with PR
The way this thing played out from the get go.. I don't think there's anything they could have done PR wise to help. About the only thing they could have done is not rule on Cam's eligibility and stated that they don't comment on potential or current investigations. By giving the appearance of fast tracking it, they contributed to the maelstrom.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 3:26 pm to Alahunter
quote:I hope so, but I have my doubts if we will ever get the full story.
I suspect, eventually we will.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 3:27 pm to WDE24
I don't think the whole story will get out. Never does in situations like this. But I think enough of it will.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 3:37 pm to WDE24
quote:
quote:
A lot of you are assuming that the NCAA has to abide by some legal burden of proof...they don't.
They don't have to, but they have chosen to abide by a "preponderance of the evidence " burden of proof.
This time...not always
quote:
quote:
They could have said "Cecil Newton solicited extra benefits from Mississippi State University. In doing so he was acting as Cam Newton's agent. This is not allowed under NCAA rules. The player is permanently inneligible in college athletics due to a loss of amateur status."
They could have, but they didn't because they believe that they needed to find some culpability on the part of the school or the player.
Again...this time...they haven't always...
quote:
quote:
Auburn could have played with legal definitions to their hearts content and it wouldn't have mattered.
The NCAA committees are made up of mostly lawyers and, while not required to take them into consideration, legal authority will be persuasive.
It's persuasive for the NCAA when they feel like using it and backs up their agenda. Other times when it would prevent them they just ignore it
quote:.
quote:
Its a closed system where they interpret their own rules. They don't have to consider a legal definition at all.
Mostly true, but they do so anyway.
Completely true.
Look the reason this ruling has gotten such bad press and completely demolished by virtually all of the conference commissioners is because the justifications used for it...things like following legal definitions and dissecting by-laws down to the point of making them un-enforcible...have not been the way rulings have been made. Others have tried to make these arguments and been laughed off by the NCAA as they make whatever ruling they want even to the point of just making things up. The NCAA made a ruling purely to save the biggest revenue generating college sport from a major scandal.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:00 pm to WDE24
I don't post as alters and rarely post in the ATPB thread. So climb off my nuts and pull your head out of you arse. Goddamn barners.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:01 pm to BamaDan
yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.. new life!
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:03 pm to WDE24
Its pretty obvious what the whole story is. The details to prove it may never surface. But if you really 100% doubt cam turned down 180k and went to auburn for free, then you are so fricking delusional there is no hope. That's the truth. How do I know? We've done it before too!
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:04 pm to BamaDan
I find that our slush fund is quite successful. I'm actually considering being a premium donor so that we can swing a few more five star players, but, I'll have to see how my finances work out.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:04 pm to Alahunter
Oh I wasn't about to let it go after I saw that little bitch crack he made a few pages back at me. frick these goddamn apologists shite.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:12 pm to BamaDan
What have I missed? I bet I can think of a way to use the steroid analogy here again for people to misunderstand and call me stupid.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:14 pm to Bellabama
Official barn apologist trying to explain how cam and auburn are innocent lambs. iPuked.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:18 pm to auburntiger77
quote:
The difference is that you had BOOSTERS involved who game money, not just solicited... If Bama (Logan) had not given money, Alabama would not be in trouble... Remember the coaches solicitied money from Arkie, UT and UGA and NONE of those got in trouble.. Should they all have gotten in trouble...
You had BOOSTERS telling players which RIGGED SLOT machine to play to get money. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? YOUR boosters GAVE MR. NEWTON so much business, he bought new trucks... THOSE ARE BENEFITS! PLUS in a church, there is the loophole for taxes. Mr. Newton will get hammered on this.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:19 pm to Jaketigger
Well, none of that stuff has been "proven" yet.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:25 pm to Alahunter
It's not like a Dad and a Son are some sort of "special relationship" where they commincate to each other on a regular basis.
Geez this guy Cecil hardly knew this guy Cam.
Geez this guy Cecil hardly knew this guy Cam.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 7:33 pm to Crow Pie
:racist:
Posted on 1/12/11 at 9:53 pm to Alahunter
the NCAA just needs to enforce the rules ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.......
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News