BuzzerBeater Forums

BB USA > LSU college football

LSU college football

Set priority
Show messages by
From: GM-hrudey

To: red
This Post:
33
203956.96 in reply to 203956.93
Date: 12/23/2011 5:04:45 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
ESPN paid the SEC something like 2B for all TV rights not claimed by CBS. So to talk about it like ESPN has no connection to the SEC is downright inaccurate.


I'm not saying at all that they have no connection. I am saying that ESPN has either complete or at least a share of the first tier rights of every single BCS conference, except the SEC. So claiming that ESPN is going to protect the SEC because of that contract is you simply talking out of your Maurice Clarett hole. The simple fact is that if the #1 and #2 teams in the country for a regular season game play, whether it's Ohio State - Michigan, Oregon-USC, Texas - Oklahoma, Florida State-Va Tech(lol!), Whoever is left in the Big East v. Someone else in the Big East, that game will be on ESPN (well, ABC, but the point exists - they own that). But LSU - Alabama? That was on CBS. So while, of course, ESPN has a big financial interest in the SEC, they have a more compelling interest to "protect" the other conferences.

For what it is worth, and I guess I'll have to state it again, OSU DID self report. They self reported. They told the NCAA what happened. ...
Lastly, your 'that is what happens when...' line is well, not actually right! Looking at precedent, it is NOT what happens! It is simply what happened in this case.


Auburn self-reported too. North Carolina self-reported. Pretty much everyone self-reports whenever they find something out because otherwise they are going to get hammered. As far as your comment, the NCAA notice of allegations itself said that Tressel lied to the NCAA (well, "falsely attested that he had reported"... etc.). You lie to the NCAA, you get hammered, period (ask Dez Bryant). Show me a precedent where a coach was caught flat out lying and covering up known violations and not getting hammered, and I'll believe you. Good luck with that. (The closest thing I can think of is that Bruce Pearl's sanctions didn't add to what UT had already self-imposed, but they had pretty much self-imposed a one-year ban on him recruiting).

About Bush, ya, USC did not directly give him benefits, I guess it was just a coincidence that had nothing to do with USC in the least, just like none of the stuff going on with OSU players had any connection to Ohio State....that is called blissfully ignorant. You also speak about this as if it is impossible for someone to hide conversations, destroy records, what not. Sure that is speculation, but, only to a point. The NCAA has no investigation powers at all, they get to work with what the university gives them and that alone. So if the Uni gives them nothing......then it surely must not have happened!


Who in the University tipped off the NCAA about Bush or Nevin Shapiro? Heck, it took an FBI sting to get the tOSU to "self-report" in advance of SI blowing it out for them.

Claim 13 months all you want, but the guy was suspended and then reinstated less than 24 hours after. If they still had an investigation ongoing, he should have been held out. It is funny how Ohio State is being chastised by you guys for playing people they 'knew' were ineligible prior to the ncaa ruling coming out. Nice how one school can wait for the ruling and another has to do it before. Wonder what you would say had Cam been found guilty this October.......


You're comparing apples to dog turds. There were "allegations" that Cam Newton's dad asked for money; there has never been anything to show he did anything that would violate his eligibility. So they reported what they knew, the NCAA found no reason to *immediately* declare him permanently ineligible, so his eligibility was restored. Then they spent another year investigating the claims and if they had found anything, sanctions would be coming. Now, in the tOSU's case, Tressel *KNEW* these guys were ineligible and personally and intentionally covered it up.

This Post:
00
203956.97 in reply to 203956.96
Date: 12/23/2011 7:51:29 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
246246
I believe we have the same view sir, well said.

From: Stauder

To: red
This Post:
00
203956.99 in reply to 203956.98
Date: 12/24/2011 5:18:49 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
246246
The difference is that they PROVED JT had direct knowledge. Period.

As for Cam's "suspension"...he was NEVER suspended and Auburn was the one that said they would hold him out of the SEC championship. The NCAA then said he could play as they had zero proof he was ever even offered money by the school. If proof is found then Auburn will forfeit every single game from that season, just as OSU did, even though the NCAA told Auburn to play Cam.

Also, the NCAA didn't take away the Sugar Bowl win, OSU placed that sanction, as well as refunding the bowl money, on themselves. Would the NCAA have done the same? Maybe. However they found more violations and found AFTERWARDS that there was a cover up...that is why the NCAA would have done the same as well.

From: GM-hrudey

To: red
This Post:
11
203956.100 in reply to 203956.98
Date: 12/27/2011 9:51:49 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
Ok, you guys both seem to accept that a guy is going to turn down 150k or whatever it was and go play for free with no reservations or anything at all. I dont. Cam Newtons suspension got turned around overnight, while say like a usc player who got a ride across campus on a golf cart stayed suspended for a full week before he was reinstated.


He was never suspended. He was declared temporarily ineligible, as there were allegations that he had done something that would violate his amateur status and therefore his eligibility. There was, and still is, no proof at all that he has ever done anything in this case to be ineligible, and so was therefore immediately declared eligible to play. Then the NCAA investigated for another year and somehow they never got around to asking you for your opinion, so decided there were no violations he had committed and declared it closed. Look, I'm not exactly a big Cam fan -- if he hadn't been the turd in the punch bowl that he was at Florida, we might not have had to suffer through the last couple of years of the Brantley ffense [sic]. But you seem to have some difficulty grasping the difference between "someone said he did something wrong" and "proof of wrongdoing."

I dont think it is off base, you guys keep harping on that along with JT lying being the big difference, that we knew they were inelligible and then played them. The only way that didnt happen at auburn is if you think young 18 year olds are turning down 150k to play football. I dont.


Your disdain for facts, though lamentable, is at least admirably consistent. (I really wish I thought you were stupid so I could translate that to little words, but I think you're a smart enough fellow with just a little bit of a blind spot in this case). I can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that Cam Newton did not ever take money as a young 18 year old to play at Auburn. Of course, that might have to do with the fact that he was at Florida two years (one a medical redshirt), transferred to a JUCO, and was a redshirt junior by the time he went to Auburn. Of course, putting that aside, the investigation looked at bank records, tax records, telephone records, email records, etc. and the only thing that was ever substantiated was that his father had made the statement to boosters of Mississippi State about needing money to transfer there. There's never been a link that Cam was there, that Cam knew of or endorsed this, and never a link that says that anyone ever asked for or accepted money from Auburn, their boosters, the Tooth Fairy, or Charles Barkley's two-ton backside.

The nice thing about this country is that you're perfectly free to think what you want. If you want to think there's people all over the South giving SEC athletes big money, you're entitled to that opinion. But the other great thing is that we don't let opinion trump facts and evidence, and in this case, there's simply no objective evidence at all to support your opinion. The Sweatervest knew that his players were ineligible, and personally withheld that information to allow them to play. That is a matter of pure, undeniable fact - the documentation is freely reviewable, though names are redacted from most of the documents I've seen online. As far as Cam Newton's allegations, the only thing that can be factually confirmed is that he didn't take money to go to play for Mississippi State. I guess that's how far things have fallen for the tOSU if they consider not taking money to be a bigger violation than actually accepting gifts from boosters and money for work not done.

This Post:
00
203956.101 in reply to 203956.100
Date: 12/27/2011 10:59:20 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
246246
or Charles Barkley's two-ton backside.


Have you seen his backside lately? He's "losing weight like a man" on Weight Watchers, and I bet he would be offended by this terrible representation of facts about his buttocks.

This Post:
00
203956.102 in reply to 203956.101
Date: 12/27/2011 11:22:32 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
or Charles Barkley's two-ton backside.


Have you seen his backside lately? He's "losing weight like a man" on Weight Watchers, and I bet he would be offended by this terrible representation of facts about his buttocks.


I am willing to bet someone else's money that, if you were to put Barkley in the low post, back to the basket, his previously-hidden backside bumpers would suddenly burst free and he'd be able to back down an elephant with his posterior alone.

This Post:
00
203956.103 in reply to 203956.102
Date: 12/27/2011 11:43:24 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
246246
That's quite possible. I've never seen anybody that short be such a monster in the post. Corliss "Big Nasty" Williamson was instant offense down low as well, but not quite to the level of Barkley down there, plus Corliss was 1 inch taller if I remember correctly.

From: GM-hrudey

To: red
This Post:
00
203956.105 in reply to 203956.104
Date: 1/10/2012 8:11:22 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
And, surprise surprise, LSU sucked, who would have guessed (points to me). Their offense is horrible, as expected, and Alabama is daaaaaamn good. Revisiting the idea of having two teams play a second time in a season for the title, this pretty much is exactly what is feared.

LSU got robbed in the sense that they already beat Bama, should not have had to play them again, and just played a horrendous game last night or they were lucky to not lose throughout the season. Either way, last night was the kind of boring rematch everyone feared, and precisely why two teams should not play again for a title. It really is a shame for LSU because quite clearly Alabama was the best team all along, and it really diminishes the fact that they went on the road and beat Bama earlier in the season. Consistency should count for something, and last night it didnt.


The optimist in me hopes that this is the final push they need to put a +1 game in, at minimum. The eternal pessimist thinks that they'll put in a +1 and that just means next time, they'll have a third Alabama-LSU game to break the tie.