Started By
Message
re: Updated: The Elephant, The Midget, and the Wardrobe---KEEP DISCUSSION HERE***
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:16 pm to The ChizMan Cometh
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:16 pm to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:Technically against the rules, but damn near impossible to prove apart from circumstantial evidence.
I don't know if the are profiting while they are students, but a lot of players certainly profit right after graduating.. Quid Pro Quo??? They sign tons of memorabilia while they are students, but get repaid with large autograph sessions and commercials after wards?
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:17 pm to TTsTowel
Things that give me comfort in this whole thing:
1) Guy has been doing TV spots with former players for a couple of years - would be a flag if current players
2) Guy didn't have game worn stuff. Most that I saw still had Nike tags on it. He purchased, they signed.
3) Guy had a sideline pass. He was immediately under their nose. Hard to provide players with suits while directly under UA's nose.
4) Compliance - who is not the same keystone cop group from a decade ago - has looked at this MONTHS before Clay Travis ever thought of writting a blog on it. Bama declared Dareus ineligible b/c of issues, then appealed for re-instatement. Bama declared Julio & Ingram ineligible b/c of issues, then appealed for re-instatement. Bama declared Smith ineligible for Sugar Bowl.
compliance is not hiding anything like they did 10 years ago. if they found issues (and we all know this would be an eligibility issue and nothing more) they would have declared ineligible and then applied for re-instatement.
1) Guy has been doing TV spots with former players for a couple of years - would be a flag if current players
2) Guy didn't have game worn stuff. Most that I saw still had Nike tags on it. He purchased, they signed.
3) Guy had a sideline pass. He was immediately under their nose. Hard to provide players with suits while directly under UA's nose.
4) Compliance - who is not the same keystone cop group from a decade ago - has looked at this MONTHS before Clay Travis ever thought of writting a blog on it. Bama declared Dareus ineligible b/c of issues, then appealed for re-instatement. Bama declared Julio & Ingram ineligible b/c of issues, then appealed for re-instatement. Bama declared Smith ineligible for Sugar Bowl.
compliance is not hiding anything like they did 10 years ago. if they found issues (and we all know this would be an eligibility issue and nothing more) they would have declared ineligible and then applied for re-instatement.
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:17 pm to WDE24
quote:
circumstantial evidence.
Ga Tech
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:17 pm to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:
I don't know if the are profiting while they are students, but a lot of players certainly profit right after graduating.. Quid Pro Quo??? They sign tons of memorabilia while they are students, but get repaid with large autograph sessions and commercials after wards? just throwing it out there.
What's wrong with that?
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:17 pm to TTsTowel
quote:I was hoping to avoid a regurgitation of the "As the World Turns" titles and come up with something new. JMO
"As the Tahd Evaporates".
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:18 pm to Bellabama
I guess my only real question in all this is what was the guy doing with a sideline pass? Past that, everything seems 

Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:18 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
Compliance
quote:
has looked at this MONTHS before
God, that sounds like CGC.
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:18 pm to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:
I don't know if the are profiting while they are students, but a lot of players certainly profit right after graduating.. Quid Pro Quo??? They sign tons of memorabilia while they are students, but get repaid with large autograph sessions and commercials after wards?
just throwing it out there.
I can deal with this. Al Betar uses athletes in his advertising. It could be understood that if you are nice to this guy, after you graduate he'll hook you up with some commercial work. That's networking and every student does it. It's also not against the rules. Otherwise how would so many former athletes break into the banking and insurance industries.

Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:19 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
What's wrong with that?
Absolutely nothing if you can't prove there is an agreement in place.
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:20 pm to TheSandman
quote:
I guess my only real question in all this is what was the guy doing with a sideline pass? Past that, everything seems
Saban and the coaches by their suits from him. Doesn't cost them anything to throw him a pass. Or maybe he buys a big ad in the gameday program? Or has box seats? Or any number of legitimate ways normal rich people get sideline passes.
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:20 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I'm pretty sure it's permissible. Someone posted the by-law in the thread that got wacked. There's a whole lot of teams that dress the team's out in suits for events. No way all these kids are buying them.
I am pretty sure the bylaw posted said that schools are not allowed to provide any clothing that is not athletic related, such as suits for pre game
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:20 pm to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:
Absolutely nothing if you can't prove there is an agreement in place.
As stated above, that's just networking IMO.
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:21 pm to bamasgot13
quote:I'm not sure about Smith, but weren't there media reports prior to Bama declaring the athletes ineligible.
4) Compliance - who is not the same keystone cop group from a decade ago - has looked at this MONTHS before Clay Travis ever thought of writting a blog on it. Bama declared Dareus ineligible b/c of issues, then appealed for re-instatement. Bama declared Julio & Ingram ineligible b/c of issues, then appealed for re-instatement. Bama declared Smith ineligible for Sugar Bowl.
I'm of the opinion this probably isn't a big deal, but I don't know if this is the best reason. Its a matter of interpretation and compliance is likely to interpret it the best way possible for the school while doing their best to properly CYA (cease and desist letter). NCAA may or may not interpret it differently. Also, compliance is more likely to accept a parties statement at face value than the NCAA is. JMO.
This post was edited on 7/26/11 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:21 pm to The ChizMan Cometh
you are lying if you think this whole thing isnt shady
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:21 pm to auzach91
quote:
they cannot get any treatment that regular students cant get. they arent rock stars. they are students that happen to play football
Who provides the uniforms teams wear? Nike, Under Armour, who? Isn't that the same thing? Do the players buy their own uniforms? So if a university wants their kids to dress nice, which some wouldn't be able to afford, what would be the problem?
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:21 pm to NYCAuburn
That's what I meant. Who has Bama's contract for those pre-game suits?
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:21 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
Saban and the coaches by their suits from him. Doesn't cost them anything to throw him a pass. Or maybe he buys a big ad in the gameday program? Or has box seats? Or any number of legitimate ways normal rich people get sideline passes.
I've gotten a sideline pass before and I'm poor and a nobody, so I don't really see the big deal.
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:21 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
circumstantial evidence.
quote:
Ga Tech
Look at the OSU country club deal. Ncaa said "no new violations uncovered" even though there was circumstantial on that.
Look at the AU p4p deal. Cam's dad asks MSU for money. Cams's dad makes decision for Cam to go to AU. That is at BEST circumstantial. NCAA said "no evidence cam knew".
circumstantial got you killed by ncaa years ago. evidently it doesn't any more.
Posted on 7/26/11 at 2:22 pm to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:
They sign tons of memorabilia while they are students, but get repaid with large autograph sessions and commercials after wards?
Can you give me examples of the athletes that did this?
Popular
Back to top
