Started By
Message
re: NCAA statement on Danny Sheridan comments
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:37 pm to bamascott2
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:37 pm to bamascott2
quote:
When did the NCAA's investigation of Da U become active? Formal? Has Da U received the LOI? What category does the last five months of Da U dealio fall under...formal or active???
I don't really know. I don't think they have received a letter, but after the Yahoo story it shouldn't take too long. I didn't realize they were being investigated before the Yahoo story, I haven't really kept up with it though
0
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:37 pm to AMM AU9893
quote:
When some AU fans say there isn't an investigation, they are referring to a formal investigation. There is no formal investigation, as we have received no letter
They don't send fans letters, fyi.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:37 pm to Supravol22
I need to see the next ten seconds after that GIF
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:38 pm to Alahunter
Tells me they don't have a name of any "bagman" Sheridan was claiming.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:39 pm to Alahunter
quote:Your interpretation. It could also give the appearance of the NCAA saying we don't have that information so no one at the NCAA could have told Sheridan that. Granted, I'm not good at spinning the obvious into something else like you are.
It gives the appearance that they didn't tell him anything officially,
This post was edited on 8/26/11 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:39 pm to Alahunter
My opinion is they are tired of sheridan saying NCAA this, NCAA that. that is why they have broken protocal.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:39 pm to 2close2Gainesville
They send them to schools under formal investigation though. They haven't sent one to Auburn. Do I have to connect the dots, or can you do it for yourself for once?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:41 pm to Vince
How is this hard to comprehend for these people?
1. Someone affiliated with gambling is saying that he has an insider in the NCAA.
2. The NCAA wants nothing to do with someone in the gambling industry. NCAA meets with said person to find out if there is any truth to it.
3. After their meeting, the NCAA feels the person has no real information in regards to an inside source at the NCAA. Meanwhile the person keeps talking about his NCAA sources.
4. NCAA decides it's time to make sure it is known that this person is an idiot who is making things up and puts out a statement to make sure it is understood that they have no ties with someone in the gambling industry and that no one within the NCAA is working with him.
1. Someone affiliated with gambling is saying that he has an insider in the NCAA.
2. The NCAA wants nothing to do with someone in the gambling industry. NCAA meets with said person to find out if there is any truth to it.
3. After their meeting, the NCAA feels the person has no real information in regards to an inside source at the NCAA. Meanwhile the person keeps talking about his NCAA sources.
4. NCAA decides it's time to make sure it is known that this person is an idiot who is making things up and puts out a statement to make sure it is understood that they have no ties with someone in the gambling industry and that no one within the NCAA is working with him.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:41 pm to Alahunter
quote:
addresses nothing to what Sheridan has claimed
So them saying no one has told him anything about Auburn doesnt address any thing sheridan ahs claimed.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:42 pm to Ross
quote:
Tells me they don't have a name of any "bagman" Sheridan was claiming.
How do you get that? They didn't deny it in any way. They basically stated that they haven't officially given him any information and he didn't divulge any, but fished for more in their meeting. Their statement is as vague as Sheridan's.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:42 pm to AMM AU9893
Ya dude, I was joking with you. Do you need me to spell it out for you?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:42 pm to AMM AU9893
Bryan Fischer tweets
quote:
I'm waiting on the NCAA statement saying Craig James is also making things up without proof.
quote:
NCAA ignores its policy not to comment on investigations by commenting on investigation Emmert wouldn't admit existed.
quote:
Oh to be a fly on the wall in the room when everybody at the NCAA thought this statement was a good idea.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:43 pm to Alahunter
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:43 pm to Alahunter
No, it really doesn't come across that way at all.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:45 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
So them saying no one has told him anything about Auburn doesnt address any thing sheridan ahs claimed
How would they know this, if he didn't divulge his source? They're now making assumptions and innuendo about something they are in the dark about, are they not? Unless they mean officially, thru channels. Then, it still does nothing to address whether or not Sheridan actually has a source. Again, not taking sides, but this is a vague, general statement, like Sheridan's was and once again... is irrelevant and shines no light on anything. Until the investigation is dropped or NOI is delivered, this is just more message board foddar. Emmert also is continuing to show what a joke he is in feeling a need to address any rumor that pops up.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:45 pm to Ross
This thread reminds me of a bunch of neighborhood dogs barking at each other.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:45 pm to WDE24
His argumentative prowess is amusing, but I can argue that the sky is green for ten hours if I wanted to.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:46 pm to flyAU
quote:
1. Someone affiliated with gambling is saying that he has an insider in the NCAA.
2. The NCAA wants nothing to do with someone in the gambling industry. NCAA meets with said person to find out if there is any truth to it.
3. After their meeting, the NCAA feels the person has no real information in regards to an inside source at the NCAA. Meanwhile the person keeps talking about his NCAA sources.
4. NCAA decides it's time to make sure it is known that this person is an idiot who is making things up and puts out a statement to make sure it is understood that they have no ties with someone in the gambling industry and that no one within the NCAA is working with him.
I would expect you have this under good authority.
Or your just making claims and trying to build credit for yourself. See how I did that?
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:47 pm to Alahunter
Bro they said his claims lacked proof. They said he had no connections in the NCAA. They said when they contacted him to see if he had pertinent information all he did was ask them questions.
They :boom:'d him. He's finished.
They :boom:'d him. He's finished.
Posted on 8/26/11 at 5:47 pm to Ross
Their statement was vague. It didn't specifically address if he actually had a source. It was stupid to make a statement about their meeting with him. They have no clue if he actually has a source, if he wouldn't give it to them.
Page 9 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News