Turn Off Ads?
Page 29 of 31 FirstFirst ... 1925262728293031 LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 455

Thread: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

  1. #421
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    Game-changing or not, if the NCAA thinks its' located the person that paid the Newtons, that's a big deal.
    Well of course, if the NCAA proved a star player received special benefits, it would be a big deal…. If a large meteor hit Jordan-Hare stadium, it would be a big deal too.

    There’s lots of ifs and little fact. Sheridan’s segment on Finebaum’s show had the feel of Tigerdroppings if it were broadcast on the radio.

    Sheridan has already begun to backtrack as he’s said today that “bagman” was an inappropriate term and now his source has been clarified as a person or persons who know a person or persons inside the NCAA. We no longer even have a clue about the supposed orders of magnitude between the enforcement committee and the oddsmaker…. That’s right; this story is predicated upon the NCAA channeling information through an oddsmaker…


    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    Sheridan made a lot of qualifiers because that's what reasonable people do when reporting such information... they try to qualify that it's not a slam-dunk.
    Sheridan’s interview essentially posed this “new insight”: 1) The NCAA is investigating the possibility that Cecil was paid, 2) if an individual with explicit proof that Cecil was paid materializes and agrees to cooperate with the NCAA, Auburn would be in trouble, 3) If something like that doesn’t materialize within the next several months, the investigation would be over. This is new??????? This is even insightful? If what Sheridan implied were actually true (i.e. the NCAA has a bagman identified and not only knows how much was paid but explicitly knows how the payment was distributed amongst family members and Cecil's church), why hasn't Auburn received a LOI?

    The context of the "SEC media day one" which was held in the heart of Bama country is this- Auburn was catapulted into the national championship game in large part because the Tigers overcame a 24 point deficit to beat Bama in the Iron Bowl (on national tv no less) ultimately winning (or in the eyes of many Bama fans, stealing) the championship season many Bama fans feel was rightfully ordained to Bama. A significant portion of the Bama fanbase can’t stomach that Auburn won a championship let alone Bama’s rightful championship especially given the way Auburn beat them in Tuscaloosa.

    Why did Sheridan make lots of qualifiers? Sheridan made lots of qualifiers so that he and Finebaum could have a titillating conversation that pandered to the Bama fringe that drives Finebaum’s ratings. Sheridan spoke in sweeping generalities which make it virtually impossible for his story to be wrong. Five dollars and a fortune teller will buy one more specifics than a close examination of Sheridan’s comments reveals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    LOL are you serious with this? How was it shown to be factually inaccurate? Show me a link that disproves it. Seriously... you can't (and won't) because there is absolutely nothing that disproves it.

    I don't know what on earth makes you think it was disproved. If anything, the facts continue to be supportive of the likelihood it DID happen. Again, it requires a giant leap of faith to conclude that the original story was only half-right.
    Simply reread this thread carefully for content to see where the assertion in question has been shown to be factually wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    Very unusual that someone would speak off-the-record to someone they've known, allegedly, for over 20 years? That's not unusual at all.

    And contrary to your belief, just because the NCAA won't speak on the record about an investigation doesn't mean they wouldn't want a renegade program to endure bad press if they're trying to pin them for serious alleged violations.
    Either the NCAA has a consistent policy that it doesn't comment upon ongoing investigations or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways especially when you’re arguing that when the NCAA does comment upon an investigation, they’d do so to an odds maker.

    Contrary to your belief, if what Sheridan originally implied on the Finebaum show about his “source” had a shred of truth, it would be an absolutely huge issue thank frankly would be bigger then the Cam story.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #422
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    Well of course, if the NCAA proved a star player received special benefits, it would be a big deal…. If a large meteor hit Jordan-Hare stadium, it would be a big deal too.

    There’s lots of ifs and little fact. Sheridan’s segment on Finebaum’s show had the feel of Tigerdroppings if it were broadcast on the radio.

    Sheridan has already begun to backtrack as he’s said today that “bagman” was an inappropriate term and now his source has been clarified as a person or persons who know a person or persons inside the NCAA. We no longer even have a clue about the supposed orders of magnitude between the enforcement committee and the oddsmaker…. That’s right; this story is predicated upon the NCAA channeling information through an oddsmaker…




    Sheridan’s interview essentially posed this “new insight”: 1) The NCAA is investigating the possibility that Cecil was paid, 2) if an individual with explicit proof that Cecil was paid materializes and agrees to cooperate with the NCAA, Auburn would be in trouble, 3) If something like that doesn’t materialize within the next several months, the investigation would be over. This is new??????? This is even insightful? If what Sheridan implied were actually true (i.e. the NCAA has a bagman identified and not only knows how much was paid but explicitly knows how the payment was distributed amongst family members and Cecil's church), why hasn't Auburn received a LOI?

    The context of the "SEC media day one" which was held in the heart of Bama country is this- Auburn was catapulted into the national championship game in large part because the Tigers overcame a 24 point deficit to beat Bama in the Iron Bowl (on national tv no less) ultimately winning (or in the eyes of many Bama fans, stealing) the championship season many Bama fans feel was rightfully ordained to Bama. A significant portion of the Bama fanbase can’t stomach that Auburn won a championship let alone Bama’s rightful championship especially given the way Auburn beat them in Tuscaloosa.

    Why did Sheridan make lots of qualifiers? Sheridan made lots of qualifiers so that he and Finebaum could have a titillating conversation that pandered to the Bama fringe that drives Finebaum’s ratings. Sheridan spoke in sweeping generalities which make it virtually impossible for his story to be wrong. Five dollars and a fortune teller will buy one more specifics than a close examination of Sheridan’s comments reveals.



    Simply reread this thread carefully for content to see where the assertion in question has been shown to be factually wrong.



    Either the NCAA has a consistent policy that it doesn't comment upon ongoing investigations or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways especially when you’re arguing that when the NCAA does comment upon an investigation, they’d do so to an odds maker.

    Contrary to your belief, if what Sheridan originally implied on the Finebaum show about his “source” had a shred of truth, it would be an absolutely huge issue thank frankly would be bigger then the Cam story.
    There's really nothing to look through. I know 100% that absolutely nothing has proven the reported conversation with the Mississippi State coaching staff to be inaccurate. It's just a fairy tale said by someone who is hoping so much for all this to blow over.

    You yourself said this was over when the NCAA reinstated Newton. That has shown to be absolutely inaccurate, by the NCAA's own admission.

    This isn't over. Far from it. It never was over with.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  4. #423
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    There's really nothing to look through. I know 100% that absolutely nothing has proven the reported conversation with the Mississippi State coaching staff to be inaccurate. It's just a fairy tale said by someone who is hoping so much for all this to blow over.
    First, I have continually laid out an argument for my position using fact-based premises that everyone can easily check (especially since many of my posts provide the links). So please quit making personal attacks on my ability to objectively discuss this issue.

    For the benefit of others who might be interested in this (and I’m guessing fewer and fewer people actually are)-Mullen clearly indicated only members of his coaching staff are registered as recruiters. MSU did not report to the NCAA that Cam made the statement that some keep claiming he made. If the assertion that Cam called a member of MSU’s staff and stated he “went to Auburn because the money was too good” were correct, it would be a puzzling omission on MSU’s part given this would have been a central point in the NCAA’s investigation and such an omission would be a clear violation. It is a virtual certainty that the NCAA would have specifically asked about such a call when interviewing any member of the MSU staff. Furthermore, the claim that keeps getting repeated as essentially fact (i.e. Cam confessed in phone call to MSU coaching staff) wasn’t even part of the original articles that broke the story (despite it being argued as such repeatedly by some). This inaccuracy has been pointed out clearly multiple times in this very thread so I apologize in advance for junking up the thread by rehashing it yet again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    You yourself said this was over when the NCAA reinstated Newton. That has shown to be absolutely inaccurate, by the NCAA's own admission.
    This isn't over. Far from it. It never was over with.
    Since the NCAA cleared Cam to play, some have argued that this is only just beginning. What I have actually said (posed) in response to that position is a very legitimate question-“what fertile lines of inquiry are left to investigate?” In other words, the NCAA may technically have an investigation open but its unlikely, given the scope of the investigation last fall, that there is remaining meat to allow it to go anywhere other than toward closure.

    Some, like Finebaum, are invested in turning every bird chirp into a whistling Sasquatch like Finebaum did in his version of “Finding Bigfoot” yesterday but investigations need new facts in order to meaningfully progress. The reality is that short of a hypothetical boogie man having an epiphany of conscience and showing up on Julie Roe Lach’s doorstep posturing in full contrition, this will end fairly shortly.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  5. #424
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Says ouch.... fresh off the revelation that months of FBI wiretaps of McGregor made during the "Bingo" scandal had no reference to Auburn or Cam, the legion of bitter Bama fans on sand mountain consumed by their pining for the death penalty for Auburn suffered yet another significant disappointment as their latest adopted savior was emasculated by the NCAA today:

    Quote Originally Posted by NCAA statement on Danny Sheridan comments;
    Danny Sheridan continues to make vague, unsubstantiated claims without backing them up with proof. Contrary to his claims of having an inside source with details on the Auburn investigation, the NCAA has not provided information to Sheridan or anyone else. As a matter of due diligence, the NCAA spoke with Sheridan this week to determine if he had any facts pertaining to the investigation. Sheridan, however, did not provide any information to the enforcement staff and certainly did not provide a name. Instead, he unsuccessfully attempted to gather information for his own use.
    How often does the NCAA issue such a strongly worded response to a fringe personality such as today's that basically served to discredit Sheridan? One likewise has to assume the NCAA has lost its patience with the roughly 100,000 emailed allegations its received to date concerning Auburn from Sand Mountaineers as well....

    The NCAA reinstated Cam's eligibility at Auburn last fall with Mark Emmert explaining the decision by saying, "There was no evidence that Auburn University had anything to do with that or the student-athlete had anything to do with that, and under the rules that exist today, he could play ball." The gauge has not moved a single micrometer concerning new info/evidence since.

    Unless a dramatic change or revelation occurs fairly soon, this "investigation" has all of the signs of being emaciated by starvation as one has to wonder what fertile lines of inquiry are left for the NCAA?
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  6. #425
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Why would the NCAA make an unprecedented statement about an individual concerning potential compliance issues? It's because Sheridan is the poster boy for the baseless innuendo and speculation that has largely been put forth by parties with ulterior motives....

    In the mid-90s, Sheridan claimed to have similar sources in the NCAA. At that time he commented that there was simply not a shred of evidence against Alabama. Alabama was found to have committed, and attempted a cover up, dozens of infractions. The program was crippled with NCAA sanctions.
    Alabama's football program has forfeited/vacated 29 games due to NCAA sanctions since the 90's (that's 29 to Auburn's 0). But to listen to Finebaum, his lackeys he parades on his show to fuel innuendo (Sheridan, Brando etc), and the bammers from sand mountain he lets call in, you'd think the NCAA is gunning intensely with several investigations into Auburn's football program and Auburn is the dirtiest program in the history of college sports and they are about to have a hammer dropped on them that will cripple their program for the foreseeable future.

    None of it is true of course as the crickets chirp on concerning actual facts that rise to a newsworthy level since the NCAA's decision last fall. The Cam issue is about all but dead and what we're left with is bickering between the Hatfields and McCoys that no one else cares about outside of Alabama and some neighboring SEC fanbases. Yet its kept alive because it drives some ratings and allows specific others to use the innuendo as a recruitment ploy.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  7. #426
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    652

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Cam has looked pretty good this afternoon for the Panthers...

  8. #427
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    This really comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed this story closely from it's start but the NCAA has concluded it's investigation into Cam and found no evidence of wrong doing by Auburn.

    http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...s_no_majo.html

    The NCAA did not find any major rules violations in Auburn's signing of quarterback Cam Newton and has concluded its investigation.

    The NCAA enforcement staff also concluded its investigation into charges by four former players on HBO who accused the school of providing extra benefits. Again, it found no wrongdoing.
    The NCAA issued this statement which like the Sheridan statement seems to chastise those who raced ahead of the facts:

    Quote Originally Posted by NCAA;
    After conducting more than 80 interviews, the NCAA has concluded its investigation into Auburn University. The NCAA enforcement staff is committed to a fair and thorough investigative process. As such, any allegations of major rules violations must meet a burden of proof, which is a higher standard than rampant public speculation online and in the media. The allegations must be based on credible and persuasive information and includes a good-faith belief that the Committee on Infractions could make a finding. As with any case, should the enforcement staff become aware of additional credible information, it will review the information to determine whether further investigation is warranted.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  9. #428
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Here is the letter from Jackie Thurnes, Associate Director of Enforcement for the NCAA to Jay Jacobs the AD at Auburn that lets Gene Chizik know the investigation is over.

    Somewhere Danny Sheridan is no doubt claiming this vindicates him....
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  10. #429
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Given the language the NCAA has used (both in response to Sheridan and in their announcement of the conclusion to their investigation of Cam) and the timing of the announcement (smack dab in the middle of Finebaum's show and right before one of Auburn's biggest recruiting weekends of the fall), it seems clear that the NCAA has taken a position that Auburn has conducted itself well both in the way it runs its program and when working with the NCAA during this issue over the course of the last year.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  11. #430
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,570

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    It's clear by the wording the NCAA thinks something was up, but couldn't prove it. This also shows that the investigation never did end, despite some very resolved assertions by some to the contrary.
    "No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

  12. #431
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    It's clear by the wording the NCAA thinks something was up, but couldn't prove it. This also shows that the investigation never did end, despite some very resolved assertions by some to the contrary.
    If you're insinuating that I'm such a resolved person, it's clear that I continually asked what fertile avenue was left to investigate and indicated given a lack of one, this would end soon and as it did. As it turned out, there was not any fertile avenues left, it ended soon, and it ended with the NCAA confirming the allegations could not be substantiated.

    This is particularly damning language for those that maintain the NCAA thought there was truth to the allegations but just couldn't prove it:

    Quote Originally Posted by NCAA
    As such, any allegations of major rules violations must meet a burden of proof, which is a higher standard than rampant public speculation online and in the media. The allegations must be based on credible and persuasive information and includes a good-faith belief that the Committee on Infractions could make a finding.
    The NCAA itself is stating forcefully that those who got ahead of the facts were very wrong. They found no credible or persuasive information and couldn't in good faith continue pursuing this issue.

    Repeat: The NCAA stated it found no credible or persuasive information to sustain the allegations and it could not in good faith continue. In other words, the NCAA-by it's own statement-couldn't indicate more clearly that it in fact did not believe something was up at Auburn.

    Also, for those who still cling to the notion that the NCAA thought Auburn was guilty but just couldn't prove it, the following language is also a huge hurdle tripping up that position:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Thurnes, Associate Director of Enforcement
    Regarding Mr. Newton, the enforcement staff and the university conducted over 50 interviews regarding an alleged pay-for-play scenario. Additionally, an extensive number of documents including, but not limited to, bank records, personal IRS tax documents, telephone records and email messages, were obtained and reviewed as part of that inquiry.
    Can it really be reasonably argued that the NCAA didn't have enough information at it's disposal to make a definitive ruling on this issue? If it can't, then the notion that the NCAA thought Auburn was guilty but gave up, just isn't compelling. Seriously, if the NCAA actually had subpoena power, what more would they have gathered in order to reach a determination on this issue? The fact is that Auburn and the NCAA worked diligently on this issue and the NCAA's investigation was not hampered by a lack of access.

    Furthermore, if the NCAA actually thought something was up at Auburn, why did they end their inquiry? They had no compelling reason to end things after only 13 months, unless they actually were satisfied that nothing was up at Auburn.

    Given the facts and the recent statements by the NCAA, the position that the NCAA thought something was up at Auburn but ended its investigation prematurely because it just couldn't prove it has to be rejected out of hand as incongruent with what is known about this situation.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  13. #432
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,672

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp View Post
    It's clear by the wording the NCAA thinks something was up, but couldn't prove it. This also shows that the investigation never did end, despite some very resolved assertions by some to the contrary.
    Yep. Nobody would talk. It's still unbelievable to me that the stuff that they did prove wasn't enough to rule him ineligible, but whatever.

  14. #433
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Quote Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27 View Post
    Yep. Nobody would talk. It's still unbelievable to me that the stuff that they did prove wasn't enough to rule him ineligible, but whatever.
    Auburn didn't do any "stuff".
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  15. #434
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,672

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Quote Originally Posted by jojo View Post
    Auburn didn't do any "stuff".
    Possibly. Cam did though.

  16. #435
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18,993

    Re: Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

    Quote Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27 View Post
    Possibly. Cam did though.
    Actually, no Cam didn't either.
    "This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner


Turn Off Ads?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25