Started By
Message
re: NCAA speaks about: "Cam Did not Know"
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:41 am to bamascott2
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:41 am to bamascott2
200
frick you Scotty
frick you Scotty
This post was edited on 5/11/11 at 11:41 am
2
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:41 am to memphisplaya
I win.
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:41 am to bamascott2
quote:He signed with a pro agent didn't he?
I wonder how much money Langham got? Hmmm...
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:41 am to bamascott2
quote:
I win.
Nobody is winning in this thread
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:41 am to memphisplaya
quote:
200
Fail
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:42 am to WDE24
quote:
He signed with a pro agent didn't he?
It was a napkin brah.
This post was edited on 5/11/11 at 11:43 am
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:42 am to WDE24
quote:
He signed with a pro agent didn't he?
Signed a napkin or something. You know, something...
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:45 am to bamascott2
quote:
Signed a napkin or something. You know, something...
I know you are not infering it, at least I hope. But everytime I hear, "All he did was sign a napkin" I can't help but
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:46 am to NYCAuburn
quote:What's the story? I don't even remember. I remember the defense being he was drunk and it was a cocktail napkin, but I don't really know anything else about it.
I know you are not infering it, at least I hope. But everytime I hear, "All he did was sign a napkin" I can't help but
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:48 am to WDE24
As far as AL, he signed with an agent while drunk in NO. Changed his mind and decided to stay. Wasn't reported that he did that and that's what nailed him. The bulk of the sanctions from that time was Gene Jelks and the digging Aub boosters did in paying him to come forward.
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:49 am to WDE24
quote:
What's the story? I don't even remember. I remember the defense being he was drunk and it was a cocktail napkin, but I don't really know anything else about it.
Besides mutltiple documented meetings, phone calls and signed and witnessed contracts. he took $24,400 in unsecured loans from the agent while playing. There is more but I havent seen it in a while.
But the story has evolved into he sign a napkin and only took $400
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:52 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Besides mutltiple documented meetings, phone calls and signed and witnessed contracts. he took $24,400 in unsecured loans from the agent while playing. There is more but I havent seen it in a while.
Wrong. Gene Jelks was the one with the loans. Go back and read the report.
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:54 am to Alahunter
quote:Got a link?
Go back and read the report.
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:56 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Besides mutltiple documented meetings, phone calls and signed and witnessed contracts.
Where was Antonio's dad when we needed him? Dammit!
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:58 am to bamascott2
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:58 am to Alahunter
quote:
Wrong. Gene Jelks was the one with the loans. Go back and read the report.
you are right Brooksie
But the signed napkin thing is BS. I got it confused when I always hear $400 and a napkin, I put the two together. The $400 was for jelks + $24000 I also hear, he never talked to the agent, it was just his uncle
again, full contract signed and notorized as well as multiple meetings and phone calls with the agent
This post was edited on 5/11/11 at 11:59 am
Posted on 5/11/11 at 11:59 am to bamascott2
This is what happened concerning Langham.
quote:
In January 1993, the football student-athlete telephoned the head football coach
and reported that he had met with an individual and had signed papers forgoing
his senior year of eligibility and requesting inclusion on the NFL draft list. The
student-athlete told the coach that he had made a mistake and wanted to return to
the University of Alabama for his senior year. The head coach asked if an agent
was involved. When the student-athlete said no agent was involved, the head
coach did not further investigate the matter and did not review governing NCAA
legislation. The head coach called the NFL offices to notify the staff that the
student-athlete had changed his mind. The student-athlete's name did not appear
on the NFL draft list that year. Although the head coach appropriately reported
the matter to the director of athletics in a timely manner, he should have inquired
more about
Posted on 5/11/11 at 12:01 pm to Alahunter
And this justification by the NCAA is why Tennessee should get nailed and why Ohio State should get nailed.
quote:
Regardless of this misunderstanding, as the director of
athletics, he had an obligation to investigate the matter when he learned of
potential problems with the eligibility of a student-athlete. The obligation placed
on a director of athletics is greater than that placed on a football coach,
particularly in light of the coach's failure to investigate the information the
student-athlete reported. The director of athletics also failed in his responsibility
to inform the faculty athletics representative or the director of compliance and to
request clarification of the application of NCAA bylaws.
Posted on 5/11/11 at 12:03 pm to Alahunter
How do you find that stuff so quick? I an in awe 
Posted on 5/11/11 at 12:03 pm to Alahunter
And this is what brought it home for Bama, and why any shady characters should be kept from players and schools
quote:
On September 18, 1993, at a home football game, the student-athlete's
guardian contacted the institution's director of compliance and reported that an
individual, who later was identified as a sports agent, had alleged that in January
1993 the student-athlete had signed documents declaring his intent to enter the
NFL draft. This individual threatened to make trouble for the student-athlete and
the university if the student-athlete did not cooperate.
Page 11 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News