Started By
Message
re: When Bama's best two players received improper benefits
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:18 pm to secftw
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:18 pm to secftw
quote:
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.
So why did they have to pay the money back if it was totally permissible?
1
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:19 pm to TiggerWoods
quote:
Either way the NCAA came out and cleared him. If they used your logic they would have made us forfeit the games.
Nope.
Show me where the NCAA states this matter is closed.
You can't.
The NCAA said this when they made their statement this week-
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
That paragraph was not included in the NCAA's statement about Ingram and Jones' eligibility.
quote:
"The NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff has reinstated the eligibility of University of Alabama football student-athletes Julio Jones and Mark Ingram based on a condition of repayment.
"According to the facts of the case submitted by Alabama, the student-athletes received impermissible food, lodging, transportation and entertainment from an individual with whom one of the student-athletes had become acquainted prior to enrolling in college.
"Consistent with NCAA membership requirements, the institution reported the violation and declared the student-athletes ineligible. As part of the reinstatement request, the institution required the student-athletes to make repayment of the value of the impermissible benefits to charity.
"During the reinstatement process, the NCAA staff considers a number of factors including guidelines established by the NCAA Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, relevant case precedent, the student-athlete's responsibility for the violation, as well as any mitigating factors presented by the institution."
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:21 pm to LSU8932
quote:
LSU8932
In case you haven't noticed also, it's not just Bama fans that are talking about it. lsu fans and pretty much the rest of the nation is perplexed at what the NCAA has done to date with the situation.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:21 pm to LSU8932
quote:
So why did they have to pay the money back if it was totally permissible?
Why did the NCAA decide "he didn't know about it" was a proper defense?
Who knows?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:26 pm to BamaChick
Bammers, you cant escape this hypocrisy.
You guys have been saying ALL WEEK that Cam should be ruled permantly ineligible due to this By-law.
I point out your players broke this same by law, now all of a sudden you're saying if someone breaks that by law that doesnt mean they should be ruled permantly ineligible.
BTW, i got this from Finebaum today, a bammer called up reaing this by law and finebaum simply responded, didn't Julio and Ingram break this same by law? dude literally hung up.
You guys have been saying ALL WEEK that Cam should be ruled permantly ineligible due to this By-law.
I point out your players broke this same by law, now all of a sudden you're saying if someone breaks that by law that doesnt mean they should be ruled permantly ineligible.
BTW, i got this from Finebaum today, a bammer called up reaing this by law and finebaum simply responded, didn't Julio and Ingram break this same by law? dude literally hung up.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:26 pm to CFBFAN1121
Is this the free conspiracy theory they handed out with your "Official ITAT Propeller Beanie"?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:28 pm to CFBFAN1121
You are a super duper dumbass.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:29 pm to cyde
conspiracy?.... what conspiracy?... pretty sure Ingram and Jones compromised their eligibility and had it reinstated by the NCAA.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:29 pm to auburnu008
quote:
So they actually got benefits
Did you miss the part where they got suspended, paid the "benefits" back to charity and got reinstated by the NCAA?
(I'm guessing that was the part you intentionally skipped)
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:30 pm to CFBFAN1121
quote:
BTW, i got this from Finebaum today,
At least we know where you get your talking points now.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:30 pm to BamaChick
quote:
You are a super duper dumbass.
yeah, a real moron, for sure..... someone actually receives an extra benefit.... of course they shouldn't be ineligible for any games (and later go on and win the heisman)
This post was edited on 12/3/10 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:30 pm to BamaChick
quote:
You are a super duper dumbass.
Translation, I cant defend the hypocrisy b/c it's obvious, so I'll just call you a name.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:33 pm to CFBFAN1121
No - I already posted the difference including the statement from the NCAA on both cases.
But you morons just keep deflecting and neglect any critical reasoning skills.
I called you a name because you have proven over and over again that you are a Facebook stalking, low intelligence waterhead.
And that you can't tell the difference between "know" and "no".
But you morons just keep deflecting and neglect any critical reasoning skills.
I called you a name because you have proven over and over again that you are a Facebook stalking, low intelligence waterhead.
And that you can't tell the difference between "know" and "no".
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:33 pm to CFBFAN1121
Felon of a QB talked to his dad several times a week before signing, really wanted to go to a different school, but let his dad make the decision, basically making him culpable to that decision. Dad solicited and Cam knew nothing. 
I took a million dollars from aub008 and you can have half too.
I took a million dollars from aub008 and you can have half too.Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:33 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:34 pm to BamaChick
FWIW, $500 fishing trip > $0
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:34 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Alahunter
Don't bother. hunter. This fricking jackwagon is going to keep insisting that llamas, camels and alpacas are the exact same thing on the basis that they're all members of the family Camelidae.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:34 pm to lowspark12
A player's Dad > a booster from a rival school
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:37 pm to BamaChick
Cam > Ingram FTFY
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:38 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
don't forget the free laptop that the LB got
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News