Started By
Message
re: When Bama's best two players received improper benefits
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:06 pm to FTBLFN
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:06 pm to FTBLFN
quote:
Never...you get a mulligan on this one.
But, but, but the hammer is going to drop on Auburn! BOOOOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE! So many people on here say so! It has to be true. Don't stop believing!!!!!!
0
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:07 pm to CFBFAN1121
They were ruled ineligible.
The NCAA reinstated them.
They paid the equivalent money to charity.
The guy that took them on the fishing trip was an AU booster and fan.
If you think shopping a recruit for hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure his signature = a one day fishing trip then you are even dumber than I thought.
The NCAA reinstated them.
They paid the equivalent money to charity.
The guy that took them on the fishing trip was an AU booster and fan.
If you think shopping a recruit for hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure his signature = a one day fishing trip then you are even dumber than I thought.
This post was edited on 12/3/10 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:08 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
There's a difference, Ingram and Julio were suspended and paid back the money. That same guy also gave Jerrell Harris a free laptop and when Saban found out about this he sat Harris for pretty much the entire year.
So they actually got benefits, but Auburn has given zero benefits to Cam Newton? If you say they have, please show my proof where Auburn, boosters, staff, coaches, etc has given Cam anything. Show me where Auburn is being investigated.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:08 pm to CFBFAN1121
What a dumb post. A damn fishing trip with a friend doth not equate to a player and his father pimping themselves for CARS and MONEY.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:10 pm to auburnu008
quote:
Show me where Auburn is being investigated.
quote:.
Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete’s involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation. It is NCAA policy not to comment on current, pending or potential investigations
Show me where it says AU isn't being investigated.
Sounds like the NCAA left its options open in that regard.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:10 pm to auburnu008
quote:
So they actually got benefits, but Auburn has given zero benefits to Cam Newton?
You don't know this.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:11 pm to BamaChick
quote:
They were ruled ineligible.
The NCAA reinstated them.
Isnt that exactly what happened in AU's case?
But you guys have been screaming that he violated SEC by law so anything less than ruling Cam ineligible is a travesty.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:13 pm to LSU8932
quote:
What a dumb post. A damn fishing trip with a friend doth not equate to a player and his father pimping themselves for CARS and MONEY.
Where? PLEASE I will give you a million dollars if you show me proof Cam got benefits! Just because you post this shite OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER does not make it true.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:13 pm to LSU8932
quote:
They were ruled ineligible.
The NCAA reinstated them.
Isnt that exactly what happened in AU's case?
But you guys have been screaming that he violated SEC by law so anything less than ruling Cam ineligible is a travesty.
BOOM! 
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:13 pm to LSU8932
quote:
Isnt that exactly what happened in AU's case?
Not exactly.
Mark and Julio played in ZERO games while their eligibility was in question. The NCAA reinstated them prior to the season.
The NCAA stated that the investigation was done in the fishing trip incident and that was that.
Nowhere has the NCAA stated that they were done investigating the Cam Newton matter and he played in 12 games.
This post was edited on 12/3/10 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:13 pm to Alahunter
quote:
You don't know this
Evem though it's small, they received improper benefits. That's whythey had to pay back the money.
You guys have been saying Slive should adhere to this by law. But it's totally ok that he didnt adhere to it when involving Bama players
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:15 pm to BamaChick
quote:
Isnt that exactly what happened in AU's case?
Not exactly.
Mark and Julio played in ZERO games while their eligibility was in question. The NCAA reinstated them prior to the season.
The NCAA stated that the investigation was done in the fishing trip incident and that was that.
Nowhere as the NCAA stated that they were done investigated the Cam Newton matter and he played in 12 games.
Either way the NCAA came out and cleared him. If they used your logic they would have made us forfeit the games.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:15 pm to LSU8932
Damn you are stupid.
Learn to read and you will see the difference.
No wonder you disguise yourself as an LSU fan.
Learn to read and you will see the difference.
No wonder you disguise yourself as an LSU fan.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:15 pm to LSU8932
and let's not forget Jerrell Harris and his laptop.... yet again, a TANGIBLE benefit.... you know, where something of value is given away.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:15 pm to CFBFAN1121
quote:
OHHH ok, so now it's different, if you receive an improper benefit like Julio and Mark did, you shouldnt be ruled ineligible?
Amazing how the opinion is changed when it's reversed
It's not perceived as an impermissible benefit if the individual who offers the gift has a long standing relationship with the player...like Julio did.
Not to mention, both were ineligible and sat ineligible until they were cleared, unlike what Auburn did. Auburn played Cam knowing that if anything happens their season hits the shits. That's idiotic at best.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:16 pm to BamaChick
quote:
Mark and Julio played in ZERO games while their eligibility was in question. The NCAA reinstated them prior to the season.
The NCAA stated that the investigation was done in the fishing trip incident and that was that.
Nowhere has the NCAA stated that they were done investigating the Cam Newton matter and he played in 12 games.
All of that is irrelevant according to you bama fans. For the last week you've been saying "who cares what the NCAA says, SEC by law states if you receive an improper benefit, you should be ruled ineligible to play SEC football."
But of course, it's totally different now.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:17 pm to LSU8932
quote:
Evem though it's small, they received improper benefits. That's whythey had to pay back the money.
You guys have been saying Slive should adhere to this by law. But it's totally ok that he didnt adhere to it when involving Bama players
First off, as BamaChick just stated, Bama's players played in zero games. They were ruled ineligible at the first hint of impropriety and the NCAA was notified. Bama then waited until that investigation was over and the NCAA cleared them to play. Unlike Auburn, who played him all season and had a one day declaration of ineligibility.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:17 pm to CFBFAN1121
quote:I never knew that was a $200k fishing trip?
When Bama's best two players received improper benefits
Where were the Bama faithful screaming at the top of their lungs like they're doing now "OH MY GOD, MARK INGRAM AND JULIO JONES RECEIVED IMPROPER BENEFITS, SEC BY LAW 14.01.3.2 STATES
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:17 pm to lowspark12
quote:
and let's not forget Jerrell Harris and his laptop
And he was penalized and sat for half the season.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:18 pm to secftw
What the au faithful in this thread are forgetting is that cecil newton was found guilty of shopping cam around...which is an SEC AND NCAA violation.
However, both governing bodies chose to overlook their own rules.
However, both governing bodies chose to overlook their own rules.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News