Reply With Quote
Yeah. I think Manziel did it. Just like we all thought OJ did it.
The only question is when the ESPN special featuring ultra light dramatic piano music will be released....
If they don't have concrete proof that he violated ncaa bylaws, they would be leaving themselves wide open to a huge lawsuit that they would most likely lose.
I'd say for all practical purposes, they need proof.
Yeah. I think Manziel did it. Just like we all thought OJ did it.
The only question is when the ESPN special featuring ultra light dramatic piano music will be released....
Like the Freeh Report with Penn State, which had as much subpoena power has the NCAA, zilch, and was pretty much one mans opinion without intervieweing a couple of key people.
I'm not saying Ped Aggy didn't deserve punishment, but the NCAA used a report that some holes. The bottom line the NCAA does things with little rhyme or reason the majority of the time and trying to guess what they will do next is almost anyones best guess.
Are you seriously trying to put money for autographs in the same galaxy as a cover up for sexually assaulting underage boys?
If you're deliberately trying to misunderstand him, sure.
He's talking about how the NCAA handled the information put before them. They will not act as swiftly and with such force on an investigation regarding autographs.
The bottom line the NCAA does things with little rhyme or reason the majority of the time and trying to guess what they will do next is almost anyones best guess.
This goes both ways you know. Just because a broker is claiming they did pay JF doesn't mean he did.
Players like Jadaveon Clowney and Teddy Bridgewater have both sat down and down signings in bulk. Maybe they only did it a couple times and it wasn't as significant as Manziel's signings but they have. So, according to some of you this is enough evidence to suspend them also?
My point remains, Lee. They are far more likely to act harshly toward an investigation involving children being molested than a QB signing for cash.
Cannot answer for other posters but Clowney's and Bridgewaters signing seemed to have been cleared by there schools and are in the hundreds if all sessions are added together. Manzeil dd over a 1000 in 1 session alone in florida and I have not heard 1 ATM official defend these signings yet. Dude, if Manzeil played for UT you would be all this board saying how guilty he is. Its ok to defend one of your own but please quit trying to compare him to other players cause there has never been any other case like this.
Oh my gosh. I never said Manziel was innocent. If you go back in the thread you will clearly see me post multiple times that I think he's probably guilty of at least some, if not all these accusations. Do I care? No. I think it's a stupid rule but that's a different discussion. If Clowney or Bridgewater were facing potential suspension for signing their name I wouldn't want them suspended either. These are the best players in college football.
What I have been saying in this thread is that yeah, you can easily come to the conclusion that Johnny probably did these things, but that still shouldn't be enough to suspend a player. For the NCAA to suspend a player they should have to collect hard evidence and facts of the matter. Not "well who would sign 1,000 items for no compensation? suspend him." - No, that's not good enough for me.
He got payed? Ok show me how. Pretty convenient that all these brokers who allegedly "payed" Manziel for his signature also all claim they did not see any exchange of money...... Zero brokers saw an actual exchange. So we have 8 brokers come out, only a couple who have actually said they payed him on the record but NONE have seen an exchange of money? Then who, why, where, when was the money for these signatures exchanged? How do the brokers not know this?
Last edited by DesignatedT; 08-13-2013 at 01:34 PM.
Please read what we are saying or get out of this thread. How dense can you possibly be?
bama went through this issue with Richardson. what has to be done by the NCAA is that they have to prove that the athlete knew he was signing items that would be then sold for profit. of course, as jay bilas pointed out, the NCAA was more or less violating their own rule (which is why the NCAA was so quick to remove items from their website).
Wow, you really missed the boat on that one.
Wrong again. I was trying to imply that the NCAA has used information that was not fully verified. In the Freeh report the NCAA relied on Freeh's opinion when he like the NCAA did not have subpoena power and did not interview many key people involved. This was to counter act Bill's comment that the NCAA would not act unless it had undeniable evidence, because they have in the past and that it is hard to predict what the NCAA will do on a case by case basis.
Was in no way trying to compare the infractions comitted in the cases, and for you even to suggest that means you are either (a) re ed or (b) can't read. I am guessing it is a combination of both.
Oh yeah no doubt. I was trying to imply that in my post a little bit but it didn't come out like that. Relying on those brokers is a double edged sword for sure.
You are comparing how the NCAA might handle a case about signatures with how they handled a case about sexual assault, no?
The Freeh Report wasn't commissioned by the NCAA but they did use its findings as a basis for sanctions.
Strike three. Not comparing how the case are/would/could/should be handled. Bill stated that the NCAA should use undeniable evidence in judgements and I pointed out a recent sanction in which the NCAA relied on a person's opinion who did not have subpoena power like the NCAA. Nothing more nothing less. No comparison to the scenarios in the least bit.
So you're just saying how they used evidence for no reason at all? Pretty pointless post, then.
You seriously can't read. Not what I said at all. Please go back to grade school.
The bottom line is you referenced how the NCAA acted on a case that involved molestation. I am saying that they will/would act differently in a case that doesn't involve a criminal act.
Interesting tweet from Tom Penders (coached horns BB for 10 years)
Tom Penders@CoachSumlin Hang tough Kevin.! UT is trying to cut down your legacy. I know the feeling.! Keep supporting Johnny Football.....TP.!
You are thinking way to hard on the original post. You are insisting that I am comparing the acts atributable to an NCAA investigation with the process of an NCAA investigation. How come that is so hard for you to comprehend?
Plus you also missed what I said in the original post:
Disgruntled fired coach... There is no connection whatsoever between AGGY fail and UT except when UT is playing AGGY on the field.
Interesting?
Bizzare is the word. What exactly has UT got to do with this mess?
ATM will do fine on their own producing coaching legacies. Thank you Jackie Sherril and Dennis Franchise.
Last edited by pgardn; 08-14-2013 at 08:25 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
