The CardBoard
Crap - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Crap (/thread-1136.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Crap - CrazedZooChimp - 01-18-2011

It sure would help if we had a DC in place (although since it sounds like the position coaches are being retained on defense, you\'d figure that would alleviate that a bit).

Doesn\'t $C have some sort of scholarship restriction?  How do they keep signing guys?

Re: Crap - washingtonismoney - 01-18-2011

Because SC undersigned guys in the class of 2010, they\'re allowed to backdate recruits who enroll in January to the class of 2010, which is unaffected by sanctions. The classes of 2011, 12, and 13 are the ones hit by the 15 players max rule.

Re: Crap - CrazedZooChimp - 01-18-2011

Quote:Because SC undersigned guys in the class of 2010, they\'re allowed to backdate recruits who enroll in January to the class of 2010, which is unaffected by sanctions. The classes of 2011, 12, and 13 are the ones hit by the 15 players max rule.

I see, so next year is when they really get stuck?

Re: Crap - Spiny_Norman - 01-18-2011

SC also found a loophole that they are exploiting.  Any recruit who enrolls early in January 2011 counts as a 2010 signee rather than against the 2011 limit.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-usc-newcomers-20110110,0,5860380.story

Gotta hope those JC players a poison pill - Redrum - 01-18-2011

Not as highly rated as guys like Sarao.   Hope that translates into a degradation in depth and competitiveness.

Re: Crap - Farm93 - 01-18-2011

Quote:SC also found a loophole that they are exploiting.  Any recruit who enrolls early in January 2011 counts as a 2010 signee rather than against the 2011 limit.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-usc-newcomers-20110110,0,5860380.story

In some regards their use of the loophole should reduce the likelihood that the NCAA will reduce the scholie limit restrictions to 2 years.

Re: Crap - Leftcoast - 01-18-2011

The NCAA has an albatross hanging around their necks tagged "Cam Newton".  

They risk serious ill will from folks who matter, college and conference presidents, if they can\'t rationalize their handling of recent high profile disciplinary actions with how they handled the Cam Newton case.   And let\'s face it - the timing, orchestration and rationalization of NCAA oversight as regards Cam Newton (and to a lesser extent Ohio St.) at best gave the whole NCAA a PR and compliance headache and at worst opened the NCAA to charges of incompetence and "special consideration" for the SEC title game and NC.  

I bet they\'ll take the easy road and be lenient in their rulings until this blows over.  That\'s good news for USC .... and bad news for the rest of us.

Re: Crap - yvonne - 01-18-2011

It could also work the other way. Because of the Cam Newton situation and the Ohio State situation, he NCAA could seek to prove that it doesn\'t look the other way when successful programs skirt the rules.

Re: Crap - Robbie - 01-18-2011

I thought the circumstantial evidence was that Cecil Newton\'s church repair bills were paid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/sports/ncaafootball/24newton.html

The money came from somewhere, nobody is saying where, and the timing is uncanny.

No obvious ties to Auburn, but I don\'t think that Cecil Newton found the repair money lying in the street.

Re: Yeah, but... - jalapeno - 01-18-2011

Quote:It would hurt less if Sarao were going to his original love:  Rutgers.   We will end up playing against this very talented kid.

Also,  there is an opportunity to shift the balance of power in the Pac-12 with the (deserved) sanctions weakening USC.  Maybe not permanently, but a window of opportunity for other schools.  Their ability to power through the sanctions relatively undiminished leaves the rest of the Pac holding the consolation prize.   USC\'s weakness is an opportunity for us (and others)  that they can recruit well despite their problems does not bode well.

For braveheart:   I kinda liked the new paradigm for Stanford football.  In the past we would constantly reassure ourselves that our, say, 2-star guys would somehow magically become 4-star players.   It does happen,  but a better, more reliable model,  one we have partially accomplished,  is to get a whole bunch of 4-star guys and have them compete against each other.   I think a better model is having a guy like Shayne Skov come in and just dominate at the position.  That\'s better than hoping a serviceable LB like Bergen will suddenly start playing out of his skull.    It improves the breed, it raises individual performances,  if for no other reason than who the players play against every day in practice.

We have not exhausted our talent pool.  Some of the redshirts will develop and emerge,  but if you\'re not going forward, replenishing and improving talent with every class,  gravity takes hold and suddenly Stanford could be a 7-5 team year after year.


This is what I believe, Stanford should be ok for the next 4-5 years. They might not be the dominating team Harbaugh assembled, but they\'ll be a better than average Pac-12 school at worst.

Re: Crap - Pastor - 01-18-2011

Garvin,

I think a lot depends on the scope of what is considered compensation.  What if Auburn promised to give Newton\'s father a job...in two years at an absurdly high salary?  Externally, they could argue that they were just rewarding a loyal alum\'s dad (two years after the son left) but internally that could be the quid pro quo for the son\'s 6 months of mercenary work.

Does the time offset negate any NCAA inquiry?  OTOH, if the NCAA were to find that problematic, does that mean the Newton\'s dad could never get a job  (or gift) from Auburn (or an Auburn booster)?  That would seem pretty clearly unconstitutional.

Re: Crap - mark3k - 01-18-2011

Which provision of the US Constitution bans policies that may eliminate or mitigate real or perceived conflicts of interest?!?  Sarbanes-Oxley sure seems to have missed that one!  ;)

I also love it when people defend turning a blind-eye to the Newton situation on the grounds that Cam is "innocent until proven guilty."  Really?!?  Is there some criminal proceeding that I missed?!?  The US Constitution doesn\'t grant you the right to participate in NCAA football games... that\'s supposed to be a privilege, which could clearly be revoked under a lesser burden of proof (if the NCAA and media weren\'t so conflicted).

Re: Crap - Pastor - 01-18-2011

Could an independent body (for example the NCAA) say that you could not work for any one (say General Mills)?  People have the freedom to work for whomever they wish (barring any illegality) or to receive any gift.

If (booster A) hires old man Newton two years after his son \'graduates\' or someone else (booster B) gives old man Newton a new car after said \'graduation\' what could the NCAA do about it unless they could prove a prior agreement.

Re: Crap - mark3k - 01-18-2011

Absolutely!  As a condition of my continued employment (by a regulated entity) there are multiple restrictions on my ability to work for various competitors, etc.  

Re: Crap - Pastor - 01-19-2011

That\'s a different situation.  You work for a company and they have conditions for that employment to which you agree.  But Newton\'s father does not work for the NCAA.  The NCAA is a third party to whom he is not connected in any way and therefore has NO conditions of employment with them.  This is as if Intel (for whom you have no relationship and never had work or otherwise) says you cannot work for Safeway

Re: Crap - mark3k - 01-19-2011

I work for this company of my own free will.  Cecil Newton\'s son played NCAA football of his own free will, and was supposed to do so under it\'s terms.  There is no G*d given (or Constitutional) right to play NCAA football.  Again, it\'s a privilege "with strings attached".  If your examples were as clearly unrelated as your Safeway-Intel analogy, there wouldn\'t be a problem, but you were talking about gifts and jobs from Auburn and/or boosters... clearly not comparable to an Intel exec taking a job bagging groceries.

Re: Crap - Pastor - 01-19-2011

Cam Newton played football for Auburn, Auburn belongs to the NCAA.  As such, old man Newton has no relationship with the NCAA and is free to work anywhere he wants. That\'s why the NCAA allowed Newton to play.  Unless they can show that the player violated the rules, they cannot anction him or the school.  Otherwise, if your wife gets a speeding ticket, can they count it against your record?

Do you remember when Jack Elway coached at Stanford, under your argument, that would be an NCAA violation.  My son played football at UCLA, does that mean I can NEVER work as a professor at UCLA?

You have a right to do as you will in employment or accepting \'gifts\'.  People cannot restrain your choices for whatever reason without your agreeent.  It has nothing to do with a right to lay football.

You should also be aware that (expecially in California) most courts will not uphold non-compete clauses for pretty much the same reason (people are free actors and have the right to earn a living).





Re: Crap - fullmetal - 01-19-2011

I wouldn\'t say Cam Newton "works" for the NCAA--under this analogy, Cam "works for" Auburn, and the NCAA imposes guidelines under which he may receive benefits related to his status as an Auburn football player.  Also, the statement that Auburn belongs to the NCAA is not technically correct by the spirit of your statement.

Companies require employees to follow similar guidelines when determining whether to accept gifts from third parties that are related to the association of the employees with their respective companies.

If I worked for Walmart in their procurement department and a certain supplier decided to compensate my dad with gifts of significant value, you can bet legal and ethical ramifications would abound, and not in a good way.

In any case, the real analogy is that in a salary-capped position of employment, a certain employer skirts this rule by transferring funds to a family member\'s account in order to lure a prospective employee.  Definitely violates the spirit of the rule.

Re: Crap - ealtice - 01-19-2011


I understand the legal position that a student and his parent are separate individuals with separate relationships to the University, but this opens up a real problem for the NCAA.  If they don\'t figure this out, what is to stop any clever but unscrupulous student and his family from simply arranging for a parent to discreetly contact alumni, athletic depts, etc., while leaving no paper/electronic trail leading back to the student?  Heck, forget the parent, get a more distant relative.  If you cannot reach the threshhold of evidence needed to prove a link between parent and child, how much more difficult will it be to make the case against other relatives?  If the NCAA cannot figure this one out, they will be basically irrelevant, at least regarding recruiting violations.  Maybe they already are, given their weak response to the Newtons and Ohio State

Re: Crap - Leftcoast - 01-19-2011

The NCAA has told players for YEARS that whatever your parents do on your behalf will impact THEIR standing.  

There were a lot of shocked folks (players, ex players and AD administrators) when Mark Emmert suddenly decided otherwise.