(10-16-2015 09:48 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:45 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 07:31 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:55 PM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  Maybe this is a source of some scuttlebutt.....Ole Miss,All I know is I had heard it before his ULL stint from varied sources and I wasn't lying about hearing it.I'm just a semi connected fan like alot of others here is all.I've said my 2 cents and won't be picking scabs on this issue anymore.

http://www.raginpagin.com/louisiana/show...ed-in-suit

May I ask you, would you discern any difference between these two quotes?

Quote:Saunders, now the linebackers coach at UL, says coach Houston Nutt wanted to hire him full-time but athletic director Pete Boone denied him employment because of Saunders' work helping athletes with learning disabilities be admitted to the school.

Quote:Saunders, now the linebackers coach at UL, says coach Houston Nutt wanted to hire him full-time but athletic director Pete Boone denied him employment because of Saunders' history of falsifying ACT scores in clear violation of NCAA by-laws in order to get otherwise non-qualifying athletes admitted to the school.

You don't really need to answer.

Why else would Boone deny him a job? Because he passionately hates learning disabled kids? These are two pretty easy dots to connect and this is not a criminal court of law where there must be no reasonable shadow of a doubt.

So ole miss hiring a part time cheater is ok? Just not full time?

I imagine Boone didn't bother to take much time vetting a minor staffer when he was first hired.

So you neg me for sticking your own foot in your mouth? Rich.

(10-16-2015 09:56 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:48 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:45 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 07:31 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:55 PM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  Maybe this is a source of some scuttlebutt.....Ole Miss,All I know is I had heard it before his ULL stint from varied sources and I wasn't lying about hearing it.I'm just a semi connected fan like alot of others here is all.I've said my 2 cents and won't be picking scabs on this issue anymore.

http://www.raginpagin.com/louisiana/show...ed-in-suit

May I ask you, would you discern any difference between these two quotes?

Quote:Saunders, now the linebackers coach at UL, says coach Houston Nutt wanted to hire him full-time but athletic director Pete Boone denied him employment because of Saunders' work helping athletes with learning disabilities be admitted to the school.

Quote:Saunders, now the linebackers coach at UL, says coach Houston Nutt wanted to hire him full-time but athletic director Pete Boone denied him employment because of Saunders' history of falsifying ACT scores in clear violation of NCAA by-laws in order to get otherwise non-qualifying athletes admitted to the school.

You don't really need to answer.

Why else would Boone deny him a job? Because he passionately hates learning disabled kids? These are two pretty easy dots to connect and this is not a criminal court of law where there must be no reasonable shadow of a doubt.

So ole miss hiring a part time cheater is ok? Just not full time?

I would have thought he could connect those dots. Apparently not.

I'm just not being purposely obtuse about this situation.
I really, truly am fine if ULL only has the penalties they've proposed themselves levied against them.

(10-16-2015 10:00 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  So you neg me for sticking your own foot in your mouth? Rich.

No foot (or anything else) in my mouth.
I neg repped you before your response to my post.

(10-16-2015 09:57 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I imagine Boone didn't bother to take much time vetting a minor staffer when he was first hired.

This does raise all sorts of interesting questions, doesn't it? Why wouldn't an AD vet a "minor staffer" when any staffer could cause you to get your tit in the wringer with the NCAA?

And did Boone subsequently deny Saunders a full-time position because he knew the guy was helping athletes cheat on ACT scores? If he did know, did he notify the NCAA promptly, or did he brush it under the rug until this all come out after Saunders filed suit against Ole Miss?

I don't know the answers to these questions but certainly hope to see the smoke cleared evenutally. I've found plenty of comments about the Cager woman who was involved in the scheme, dating back to as far as 2006, but nothing on Saunders other than the Advertiser and related stories that WW quoted.

I suspect it was Saunders lawsuit against Ole Miss that inspired them to really investigate the guy and eventually uncover his ACT activities. I am in no way trying to absolve the Cajun program of its responsibilities though I am challenging those who say "Hud should have known" to offer something more substantial than what has been offered to date.

(10-16-2015 10:07 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:00 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  So you neg me for sticking your own foot in your mouth? Rich.

No foot (or anything else) in my mouth.
I neg repped you before your response to my post.

Then that's even worse as all I was doing with my previous post was demonstrating that different meanings could have been drawn by a reader from what the story was quoted as saying.

At least with my response to your post I insulted your ability to draw a logical conclusion. Having a part-time cheat is just as bad as having a full-time one. Would you not agree?

(10-16-2015 10:22 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:07 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:00 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  So you neg me for sticking your own foot in your mouth? Rich.

No foot (or anything else) in my mouth.
I neg repped you before your response to my post.

Then that's even worse as all I was doing with my previous post was demonstrating that different meanings could have been drawn by a reader from what the story was quoted as saying.

At least with my response to your post I insulted your ability to draw a logical conclusion. Having a part-time cheat is just as bad as having a full-time one. Would you not agree?

Because your user rating is so important to you, I just added two points back to your rating. Someone else must've felt the same way because now you're four points higher.
You owe me.

(10-16-2015 10:28 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:22 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:07 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:00 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  So you neg me for sticking your own foot in your mouth? Rich.

No foot (or anything else) in my mouth.
I neg repped you before your response to my post.

Then that's even worse as all I was doing with my previous post was demonstrating that different meanings could have been drawn by a reader from what the story was quoted as saying.

At least with my response to your post I insulted your ability to draw a logical conclusion. Having a part-time cheat is just as bad as having a full-time one. Would you not agree?

Because your user rating is so important to you, I just added two points back to your rating. Someone else must've felt the same way because now you're four points higher.
You owe me.

BTW, the obvious, logical conclusion is that Boone was uncomfortable with Saunders activities and did not want him associated with Ole Miss any longer. He probably kept himself in a state of willful ignorance to learn any further details.

(10-16-2015 10:22 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:07 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 10:00 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  So you neg me for sticking your own foot in your mouth? Rich.

No foot (or anything else) in my mouth.
I neg repped you before your response to my post.

Then that's even worse as all I was doing with my previous post was demonstrating that different meanings could have been drawn by a reader from what the story was quoted as saying.

At least with my response to your post I insulted your ability to draw a logical conclusion. Having a part-time cheat is just as bad as having a full-time one. Would you not agree?

I laughed out loud (and agreed) at that comment:

"So ole miss hiring a part time cheater is ok? Just not full time?"



And this might be one of the best lines I've read on this board...

"tit in the wringer"

I'm awarding you entertainment points for those two!

And, good luck with the NCAA. Hope they don't crack down too hard, the conference needs the Cajuns to be strong - even if most of you seem to want out of said conference.

(10-16-2015 10:02 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm just not being purposely obtuse about this situation.

Obtuse I'm not trying to be.

Again, here's the rub.

Some say "Hud should have known". Okay, Hud should have known. How exactly, I ask? What evidence was available for Hud to see and process? In response, a quote like the one I altered above is offered as proof that Hud should have known.

Fine, with everything we know TODAY, yeah, red flags would wave with that comment from several years ago. But before this story broke, did anyone think it was possible to fake scores on an ACT test? Had such a thing ever been reported before? Not that I'm aware of. Are you aware of scores being faked from an ACT center?

There's been a lengthy discussion about an athlete scoring 16 on one ACT, and then later scoring a 22 or better........and that that somehow should indicate that there was cheating involved. And yet with a bit of research there are plenty of examples of students who do misearbly on the ACT the first time, then take prep courses and do much better the second time. I don't have a hard time believing that is possible.

If Hud knew this guy was dirty and kept him on anyway, I want to know about it because he could be dismissed WITH CAUSE and without any further monetary payments to him by the university. But to crucify Hud using 20-20 hindsight where there is no evidence that he was aware of the scam is just flat wrong. I wouldn't want it done to me and I bet no one here would want the same treatment either.

(10-16-2015 10:28 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  Because your user rating is so important to you, I just added two points back to your rating. Someone else must've felt the same way because now you're four points higher.
You owe me.

Come on man, I wasn't asking you to change the neg rep. If you feel strongly about it, put it back....though I suggest you link to the post so others can enjoy it as well. I mentioned it because I always find it interesting what gets under people's skin. Since you didn't neg me for the insulting comment I posted about your inability to draw a logical conclusion, I still don't know the reason.

And along those same lines, LaTech poster St.Gregg is one of the most sensitive posters on this site. Say anything negative about LaTech or him personally, even in a light-hearted or joking manner, and he'll neg you. He's dinged me about 10 times but I always give him a positive thereafter for hurting his feelings. What a twat.

If he sees this post, he'll give me another.

(10-16-2015 10:31 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  BTW, the obvious, logical conclusion is that Boone was uncomfortable with Saunders activities and did not want him associated with Ole Miss any longer. He probably kept himself in a state of willful ignorance to learn any further details.

That may be the case though I would add that today, any AD or head coach you adopts that strategery should be shown the door.....fast.

(10-15-2015 01:27 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:27 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:19 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:33 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Because you don't know what you are talking about

Sensitive bunch,

Yes because vacated wins, losing minor coaches and being on probation are program killers....just ask FSU....

Because they aren't gonna take back self imposed punishment, so if the things we have admitted to don't call for a bowl ban, why would we give ourselves one? That's why you don't know what you are talking, I know it upsets you that this won't be the death of our program.

Doesn't upset me at all. Just saying vacating games that have already been played, probation and firing some low level coach has no effect. If faking that many ACT test scoreS does not warrant a bowl ban it should. Not to mention if players were paid, which is just a wild accusation I guess. You can make me out to be whatever evil strawman you want if it makes you feel better. Good luck

I'm sure the university and their highly paid legal team they hired that deals with NCAA infractions will make sure to contact you next time before they make decisions and self impose sanctions out of thin air.

Maybe they should have consulted with me about fudging ACT scores...no law degree needed their. I would have told them for free. I actually defended UL earlier in the thread but it is obvious the UL fanatics are to tightly wound up right now not to freak out over any hint of criticism or critique....

(10-16-2015 11:18 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:27 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:27 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:19 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  Sensitive bunch,

Yes because vacated wins, losing minor coaches and being on probation are program killers....just ask FSU....

Because they aren't gonna take back self imposed punishment, so if the things we have admitted to don't call for a bowl ban, why would we give ourselves one? That's why you don't know what you are talking, I know it upsets you that this won't be the death of our program.

Doesn't upset me at all. Just saying vacating games that have already been played, probation and firing some low level coach has no effect. If faking that many ACT test scoreS does not warrant a bowl ban it should. Not to mention if players were paid, which is just a wild accusation I guess. You can make me out to be whatever evil strawman you want if it makes you feel better. Good luck

I'm sure the university and their highly paid legal team they hired that deals with NCAA infractions will make sure to contact you next time before they make decisions and self impose sanctions out of thin air.

Maybe they should have consulted with me about fudging ACT scores...no law degree needed their. I would have told them for free. I actually defended UL earlier in the thread but it is obvious the UL fanatics are to tightly wound up right now not to freak out over any hint of criticism or critique....

No it's just funny all the message board experts who found out about this 6 days ago know what we should have done instead of the legal team involved for almost 2 years now, one that specializes in NCAA sanctions. The only reason anyone knows this is because our local beat writer wouldn't leave it alone.

Guys. I think it's time to let this go.

There will be no news on this until after the Bowl season.

No sense in picking at this scab.

Perhaps we should move this thread to the spin room?

(10-16-2015 11:21 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 11:18 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:27 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:27 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Because they aren't gonna take back self imposed punishment, so if the things we have admitted to don't call for a bowl ban, why would we give ourselves one? That's why you don't know what you are talking, I know it upsets you that this won't be the death of our program.

Doesn't upset me at all. Just saying vacating games that have already been played, probation and firing some low level coach has no effect. If faking that many ACT test scoreS does not warrant a bowl ban it should. Not to mention if players were paid, which is just a wild accusation I guess. You can make me out to be whatever evil strawman you want if it makes you feel better. Good luck

I'm sure the university and their highly paid legal team they hired that deals with NCAA infractions will make sure to contact you next time before they make decisions and self impose sanctions out of thin air.

Maybe they should have consulted with me about fudging ACT scores...no law degree needed their. I would have told them for free. I actually defended UL earlier in the thread but it is obvious the UL fanatics are to tightly wound up right now not to freak out over any hint of criticism or critique....

No it's just funny all the message board experts who found out about this 6 days ago know what we should have done instead of the legal team involved for almost 2 years now, one that specializes in NCAA sanctions. The only reason anyone knows this is because our local beat writer wouldn't leave it alone.

I just expressed an OPINION..I did not say A infraction equals B punishment. I have not said ONE ill word about UL in this entire thread! I expressed IMO it is just a roll of the dice not to just sit out this year. I don't care who the team is, academic cheating should always equal a one year ban or why do we even make the kids go to class? That opinion is not just about UL I hope GS gets hit just as hard for something like that.

(10-16-2015 11:35 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Perhaps we should move this thread to the spin room?

Or the freaked out overly sensitive fanbase room.

(10-16-2015 11:41 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 11:35 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Perhaps we should move this thread to the spin room?

Or the freaked out overly sensitive fanbase room.

Coming from a member of the fan base that tries to turn EVERY thread into something about GS. You might be irony-challenged.

*Did not play UL.

(10-16-2015 11:41 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 11:35 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Perhaps we should move this thread to the spin room?

Or the freaked out overly sensitive fanbase room.

Personally, I'd rather see our fanbase freaked out and overly sensitive instead of just shrugging their shoulders and mumbling something about business as usual.