Malzahn to Vandy!
- Thread starter Arthur2478
- Start date
- Status
Dangit boomboommsu...I really was trying to leave, and then you throw out information that isincorrect andcompletely absurd.boomboommsu said:
1) First of all, I don't understand how you came up with Cecil lied to Auburn investigators.Cecil could have told them exactly what he did...they reviewed it, discussedthingswith their in-house compliance official and the NCAA and determined thatit wouldn't affect Cam's eligibility because no benefits exchanged, Cam knew nothing, and this all happened at State...not Auburn.
I think you don't understand the concept or meaning of "lack of institutional control" because I don't see any way you cantwist the facts and come up with that. That"status" is used whena program is repeatedly and knowingly violating NCAA rules...Auburn hasn't been accused ofviolating any rules in dealing withCam's recruitment.
2) Of course Auburn didn't rule Cam ineligible until the NCAA declared an infraction on Cecil...that is the way this works. Let me walk you through this. Step 1: The NCAA concludes its investigation into the recruitment of Cam Newton and determined that Cecil Newton violated an NCAA rule causing Cam to be ineligible. They inform Auburn of their findings. Step 2: Auburn agrees with the NCAA ruling and declares Cam ineligible due to the violation. Step 3: Auburn applies for reinstatement of Cam's eligibility citing mititaging circumstances - i.e. Cam was not aware of the solicitation regarding his recruitment at Miss State and no benefits were exchanged. Step 4: The NCAA agrees with Auburns request for reinstatement due to the mitigating circumstances and reinstates Cam with no conditions (that means he doesn't have to sit out, and no wins are vacated, etc). ** The NCAA will "suggest" to a school if it is in their interest to rule a player ineligible and have them sit to avoid potential vacated wins, etc. Because the NCAA did not do this in the situaton with Cam, then Auburn had no reason to sit him...they would have been foolish to do so. They waited until the NCAA completed this portion of the investigation, then abided by the NCAA's findings.
3) Patently not true. Here isthe article from the Times Heraldin September of 2009 that says Cecil'schurch had the money in hand and had already submitted plansto the city counsel tomake therepairs: http://www.times-herald.com/Local/Pastor-says-church-can-meet-building-code-within-6-months-862469. This is LONG before Auburn ever came into the picture...and long before Cecil and Kenny Rogers ever got together on this pay for play deal. Now, the repairs did in factfinish in 2010, but if you know anything about construction, you have toprove your financial capacity to pay before a contractor will begin work. At least a portion of the work would have taken place prior to the end of the year, so at that time at least a portion of the money would have been paid to the contractor. In other words...Cecil didn't just "say" he had the money...he would havehad to actually have it.Amazing how much incorrect information there is out there that people hang their opinions on.
Ok...now I will attempt to go away...hope this clarifies some details for you
all this boils down to is good ole fashioned jealousy ... you guys can't raise enough money to buy the good players like AU can ... when your alums aren't earning but just above the poverty line I do suppose that would be tough ... plus we can get them for half t he $$ price you have to dish out ... we actually have beautiful women and a promise of a future we can use to buffer some of the cost ... it must suck to be you
- Status