....so basically, the NCAA has very little and everybody agrees with that?
I don't understand the "unethical conduct" part.
I don't understand the "unethical conduct" part.
Interesting Renardo news....
- Thread starter DowntownDawg
- Start date
....so basically, the NCAA has very little and everybody agrees with that?
I don't understand the "unethical conduct" part.
I don't understand the "unethical conduct" part.
the family friend was paid back for a recruiting trip and that he may have received excess rebok gear...
please tell me how this saga has drug on to this level over trivial BS like this..
please tell me after all this crap about the house, and how they have not one shred of evidence that this house was a violation just like everybody in the media has been saying...
all you defenders of the ncaa on this **** need to fess up... this is total bull ****... read it and then come back with something....
please tell me how this saga has drug on to this level over trivial BS like this..
please tell me after all this crap about the house, and how they have not one shred of evidence that this house was a violation just like everybody in the media has been saying...
all you defenders of the ncaa on this **** need to fess up... this is total bull ****... read it and then come back with something....
19 games served is plenty of punishment. Hell, we arent going to win any titles anyway, so forfeiting a few games will not amount to much.
That email has bs and spinwritten all over it. If that is actually what they found, he should be playing. I just find it hard to believe that they keep a kid from playing because of a suspicion.
.....if Jackson's email summarizes the entire document without leaving anything out, then there should be no question of what to do next. We simply agree with the revised statement of facts, send it up to the eligibility center, and get a ruling. There is no way that the facts as presented could result in a suspension of more than 19 games. It's a time already served situation. The fact that State still doesn't know what do tells me that there maybe some more troublesome information in there.
<div>there's some attorney jibberish in there that I can't wrap my head around. can he play or not?</div><div>
</div>this is the email from Jackson:<div>
</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; "><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">The fact finding committee convened on Monday in the Renardo Sidney, Jr. amateurism investigation. A final Statement of Facts was issued yesterday. Among the significant findings were the following:</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">1. There was no evidence to establish that a family loan was based upon the student-athlete’s athletic ability or “payback” potential as the Eligibility Center staff alleged.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">2. The committee made NO findings relative to the family’s living expenses during the term of their stay in California. Notably, the ACP Staff did not include any reference to the allegedly inappropriate living arrangement in their proposed Statement of Facts. Despite a nearly year long investigation, no factual findings were made or proposed regarding the Los Angeles residence.
More than adequate documentation was provided to document the family’s payment of living expenses.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">3. The ACP Staff alleged and the committee agreed that the student athlete received excess Reebok gear and that a family friend assisted with the costs of unofficial visits to two schools. The family friend was repaid; no factual finding was made on the repayment of the loan.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">4. No factual finding was made and the ACP staff did not propose any specific facts relative to the propriety of the student-athlete’s father’s employment with Reebok. The reality of the matter is that his employment with Reebok does not (in any way) point toward a violation of any type.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Other “factual issues” were either determined to have been beyond the scope of the committee’s authority or no findings were issued. In an interesting and unprecedented twist, the ACP Staff attempted to impose an unethical conduct charge upon the family of the student-athlete maintaining that 10.1 applied to their interview testimony. This represents an extraordinary stretch as 10.1 has always been interpreted to apply to athletic department staff and student-athletes…..never family members. This was a clear effort to manufacture a violation.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Currently, the student-athlete has missed nineteen (19) regular season games and two (2) exhibition games.</p></span></div>
</div>this is the email from Jackson:<div>
</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; "><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">The fact finding committee convened on Monday in the Renardo Sidney, Jr. amateurism investigation. A final Statement of Facts was issued yesterday. Among the significant findings were the following:</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">1. There was no evidence to establish that a family loan was based upon the student-athlete’s athletic ability or “payback” potential as the Eligibility Center staff alleged.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">2. The committee made NO findings relative to the family’s living expenses during the term of their stay in California. Notably, the ACP Staff did not include any reference to the allegedly inappropriate living arrangement in their proposed Statement of Facts. Despite a nearly year long investigation, no factual findings were made or proposed regarding the Los Angeles residence.
More than adequate documentation was provided to document the family’s payment of living expenses.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">3. The ACP Staff alleged and the committee agreed that the student athlete received excess Reebok gear and that a family friend assisted with the costs of unofficial visits to two schools. The family friend was repaid; no factual finding was made on the repayment of the loan.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">4. No factual finding was made and the ACP staff did not propose any specific facts relative to the propriety of the student-athlete’s father’s employment with Reebok. The reality of the matter is that his employment with Reebok does not (in any way) point toward a violation of any type.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Other “factual issues” were either determined to have been beyond the scope of the committee’s authority or no findings were issued. In an interesting and unprecedented twist, the ACP Staff attempted to impose an unethical conduct charge upon the family of the student-athlete maintaining that 10.1 applied to their interview testimony. This represents an extraordinary stretch as 10.1 has always been interpreted to apply to athletic department staff and student-athletes…..never family members. This was a clear effort to manufacture a violation.</p><p style="margin-top: 13px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Currently, the student-athlete has missed nineteen (19) regular season games and two (2) exhibition games.</p></span></div>
I still like the idea of squeaking into the tournament and then using Sidney to knock off a 2 seed like Duke. That would be hilarious....saltybulldog said:
That way he can play next year for MSU...but there probably won't be a next year for Sidney in college.
This is the NCAA's way of saying 'we can't prove anything, but we know something isn't right', so they're going to simply delay until it won't be a factor anymore.
This is the NCAA's way of saying 'we can't prove anything, but we know something isn't right', so they're going to simply delay until it won't be a factor anymore.
I'm not a black helicopters kind ofguy, but the NCAA is one of theshadiest organizations on earth. Itis basically exempt from the law b/c the only people with standing to challenge it really can't afford to. And itexists solely to transfer as muchvalue from the players in its organizations to its members.fairweatherfan said:
They may actually have a reason for not declaring Sydney eligible, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.
I have heard that the problem is thatsome income on tax returns was not declared and that incomewas used to pay for the housing in LA... The problem is that income came from a USC or UCLA booster and that is why it was not reported.
Driving the shiny new Daytona Charger two weeks after he arrives on campus.
They (NCAA) don't need to be able to prove anything to know that there was no way his family could afford that amount of rent ($5,000 per month?) on a California House with what his dad made. Can the NCAA prove that his dad snacked on nickels and shat thousand dollar bills? No they can't, and that is why they are dragging their feet. In their minds, the bank would not loan 99.999% of the people in the USA that money and they want to know why it was loaned to Sidney's family. Hell, they know why it was loaned to them, because when it was loaned, he was scheduled to play on the west coast for someone with much more influence than MSU has.
Having said all that bull. I sorta think he might actuallyplay in another three weeks, but certainlyno sooner than that. Andonly thenif everyone accepts the NCAA's latest statement of fact in this case and humbles tehmselves before the NCAA Supreme Court of Doom. I'm beginning to think that he might get toplay two or three games before the SEC tourney and then the rest of the way into the NCAA tournament, if we are incredibly lucky, because the simple fact is they(NCAA) have no incentive to rule otherwise in this case. Something tells me that Sidneymight be in the pros for five years before anything ever came to court. At that point Sidney probably would care less about whetherhe had ever worn aMSU uniform. The best thing for him career wise would have been to play his freshman year from Game #1 and light up some team's season and that didn't happen. As late as it is in the season, I wonder if he actually cares now?I can dream up a scenario where he cuts his losses with whatever few games he gets to play for the Dogs and moves on. All of this cost him dollars as a pro, but none of that is MSU's fault. He took a risk when he moved to California under the circumstances he did.
They (NCAA) don't need to be able to prove anything to know that there was no way his family could afford that amount of rent ($5,000 per month?) on a California House with what his dad made. Can the NCAA prove that his dad snacked on nickels and shat thousand dollar bills? No they can't, and that is why they are dragging their feet. In their minds, the bank would not loan 99.999% of the people in the USA that money and they want to know why it was loaned to Sidney's family. Hell, they know why it was loaned to them, because when it was loaned, he was scheduled to play on the west coast for someone with much more influence than MSU has.
Having said all that bull. I sorta think he might actuallyplay in another three weeks, but certainlyno sooner than that. Andonly thenif everyone accepts the NCAA's latest statement of fact in this case and humbles tehmselves before the NCAA Supreme Court of Doom. I'm beginning to think that he might get toplay two or three games before the SEC tourney and then the rest of the way into the NCAA tournament, if we are incredibly lucky, because the simple fact is they(NCAA) have no incentive to rule otherwise in this case. Something tells me that Sidneymight be in the pros for five years before anything ever came to court. At that point Sidney probably would care less about whetherhe had ever worn aMSU uniform. The best thing for him career wise would have been to play his freshman year from Game #1 and light up some team's season and that didn't happen. As late as it is in the season, I wonder if he actually cares now?I can dream up a scenario where he cuts his losses with whatever few games he gets to play for the Dogs and moves on. All of this cost him dollars as a pro, but none of that is MSU's fault. He took a risk when he moved to California under the circumstances he did.
that since he has not been cleared to play, playing him would basically be telling the NCAA to go 17 itself and would be accompanied by a major **** storm.
If he is cleared, and we play him, and later something comes out that indicates he should not have been eligible, forfeiting games is pretty much the worse that could happen as long as MSU didn't have anything to do with him not being eligible.
But I've kind of been ignoring Sydney news, so I may have missed something.
If he is cleared, and we play him, and later something comes out that indicates he should not have been eligible, forfeiting games is pretty much the worse that could happen as long as MSU didn't have anything to do with him not being eligible.
But I've kind of been ignoring Sydney news, so I may have missed something.
for the NCAA to decide to make an example of MSU for being stupid enough to say 17 you NCAA, we're going to play this guy even though you haven't cleared him, which I would fully expect them to do. We'd forfeit any games he played in all right. Then the NCAA would launch a major investigation into our basketball program that would make the butt reaming we took in 2000-2003 look like a day in the park.