BuzzerBeater Forums

BB USA > LSU college football

LSU college football

Set priority
Show messages by
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.