(07-10-2013 01:14 PM)fishman6581 Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 04:01 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Isn't that ******* incredible. The worst is that Miami will probably walk.

Yep. Though the bundling of the investigation is why Miami will walk.

Funny thing (not ha ha funny) that people don't mention very much, is the NCAA's prejudicial statement about reopening the investigation if our appeal was granted. They had no jurisdiction to do this. Based on that statement alone, we should have been allowed to walk.

There were no reasons for the NCAA to do what they did; they had to invent one.

in the end, is the vacation of wins really a big deal? I haven't had anyone tell me that 2008 didn't happen. Mainly because no one gives a **** about the NCAA and its investigation unless there is a postseason ban.

(07-10-2013 01:58 PM)fsquid Wrote:  in the end, is the vacation of wins really a big deal? I haven't had anyone tell me that 2008 didn't happen. Mainly because no one gives a **** about the NCAA and its investigation unless there is a postseason ban.

It is a huge deal because it follows us around and isn't going away. There is also a major difference if you look at it from the perspective of Duke (twice), UNC and Kansas, compared to our situation.

(07-10-2013 01:58 PM)fsquid Wrote:  in the end, is the vacation of wins really a big deal? I haven't had anyone tell me that 2008 didn't happen. Mainly because no one gives a **** about the NCAA and its investigation unless there is a postseason ban.

I have. It's ridiculous for someone to take the stance that it didn't happen, but it's also annoying that we can't enjoy one of our most successful seasons ever without this stigma.

It just rubs salt in the wound that the NCAA is so quick to take up the strict liability standard to punish us, and then throw the standard by the wayside just as quickly for the next school.

(07-10-2013 01:58 PM)fsquid Wrote:  in the end, is the vacation of wins really a big deal? I haven't had anyone tell me that 2008 didn't happen. Mainly because no one gives a **** about the NCAA and its investigation unless there is a postseason ban.

There are several banners missing from the Forum.

It matters.

(07-10-2013 02:02 PM)spankadelphia Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 01:58 PM)fsquid Wrote:  in the end, is the vacation of wins really a big deal? I haven't had anyone tell me that 2008 didn't happen. Mainly because no one gives a **** about the NCAA and its investigation unless there is a postseason ban.

There are several banners missing from the Forum.

It matters.

Yup. There's no such thing as a nice vacate-shun.

Well...innocent players were punished harshly at Penn State (I am perfectly fine with their punishment and would have agreed with the death penalty- it was way more than one rogue pedophile, it was systematic blindness in the name of football).

In our recent case, innocent players were not really punished. We were placed on probation and had past games forfeited. no television reductions no tourney sanctions, no real anything other than symbolic.

Big school USC was indeed punished well after the fact, but...were punished and missed bowl games. And they are huge.

(07-10-2013 12:46 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:33 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 11:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  ...

No surprise, that someone like yourself who always tries to twist things into the most negative possible light, would take this ridiculous stance. If player plays 1 game they are often not eligible for a redshirt. If a player plays one game in a pro league they are often ineligible period.

Coming up with a ridiculous half baked concept, that has no basis whatsoever in fact; is right up your alley. They played with an ineligible player; end of story.

What are you even talking about?

Just commenting on your dumb statement, which is that the NCAA says you CAN play ineligible players without penalty if they are not starters, or prominent players.

Not even close. You are so far out of your depth it's ridiculous. Why don't you come up with a list of eligibility situations that may or may not bear some relation to Dixon and post that without any further argument and then pretend it's somehow devastating. Here, I'll do it for you:

Eric Bledsoe
Darrel Arthur
Corey Maggette
Lance Thomas
Shabazz Muhammad
Cam Newton
Ron Weaver*

*

Quote:...Ron Weaver, the 30-year-old backup cornerback who convinced Texas he was a 23-year-old junior college transfer named Ron McElvey, right up until he was forced to bail on the team just days before the 1996 Sugar Bowl when his cover was blown by a newspaper in his hometown in California.
...
He played a little, mainly on special teams, but also got on the field on defense in blowouts, at one point costing the 'Horns a shutout on a blown coverage in a 48-7 win over Texas Tech. He asked to redshirt, to afford him another year on the team. The UT media guide listed his favorite movie as "Casablanca."
...
Because everyone associated with the team was deemed ignorant of the situation and Weaver hadn't remotely affected the outcome of any game, the NCAA declined to act against Texas for playing an ineligible player...

Interesting story.

Friggin shortwhorns...

Quote:@kyleveazey: Ole Miss says it has suspended Marshall Henderson indefinitely "for (a) violation of team rules."

Go Black Bears!!!

(07-10-2013 04:04 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Not even close. You are so far out of your depth it's ridiculous. Why don't you come up with a list of eligibility situations that may or may not bear some relation to Dixon and post that without any further argument and then pretend it's somehow devastating. Here, I'll do it for you:

Eric Bledsoe
Darrel Arthur
Corey Maggette
Lance Thomas
Shabazz Muhammad
Cam Newton
Ron Weaver*

*

Quote:...Ron Weaver, the 30-year-old backup cornerback who convinced Texas he was a 23-year-old junior college transfer named Ron McElvey, right up until he was forced to bail on the team just days before the 1996 Sugar Bowl when his cover was blown by a newspaper in his hometown in California.
...
He played a little, mainly on special teams, but also got on the field on defense in blowouts, at one point costing the 'Horns a shutout on a blown coverage in a 48-7 win over Texas Tech. He asked to redshirt, to afford him another year on the team. The UT media guide listed his favorite movie as "Casablanca."
...
Because everyone associated with the team was deemed ignorant of the situation and Weaver hadn't remotely affected the outcome of any game, the NCAA declined to act against Texas for playing an ineligible player...

Interesting story.

(07-10-2013 01:58 PM)fsquid Wrote:  in the end, is the vacation of wins really a big deal? I haven't had anyone tell me that 2008 didn't happen. Mainly because no one gives a **** about the NCAA and its investigation unless there is a postseason ban.

really dude?? You live under a rock? We are still considered cheaters by some, even after being 4 years removed from Cal.

(07-10-2013 05:19 PM)TigerSeth Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 01:58 PM)fsquid Wrote:  in the end, is the vacation of wins really a big deal? I haven't had anyone tell me that 2008 didn't happen. Mainly because no one gives a **** about the NCAA and its investigation unless there is a postseason ban.

really dude?? You live under a rock? We are still considered cheaters by some, even after being 4 years removed from Cal.

I guess it is what happens when you live away from Memphis then. It just never comes up, even when I travel in Indiana, the Carolinas, and out in California and those people usually know college basketball. The only time I see it is on here and sometimes a sentence in an article.

(07-10-2013 04:04 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:46 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:33 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 11:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  ...

No surprise, that someone like yourself who always tries to twist things into the most negative possible light, would take this ridiculous stance. If player plays 1 game they are often not eligible for a redshirt. If a player plays one game in a pro league they are often ineligible period.

Coming up with a ridiculous half baked concept, that has no basis whatsoever in fact; is right up your alley. They played with an ineligible player; end of story.

What are you even talking about?

Just commenting on your dumb statement, which is that the NCAA says you CAN play ineligible players without penalty if they are not starters, or prominent players.

Not even close. You are so far out of your depth it's ridiculous. Why don't you come up with a list of eligibility situations that may or may not bear some relation to Dixon and post that without any further argument and then pretend it's somehow devastating. Here, I'll do it for you:

Eric Bledsoe
Darrel Arthur
Corey Maggette
Lance Thomas
Shabazz Muhammad
Cam Newton
Ron Weaver*

*

Quote:...Ron Weaver, the 30-year-old backup cornerback who convinced Texas he was a 23-year-old junior college transfer named Ron McElvey, right up until he was forced to bail on the team just days before the 1996 Sugar Bowl when his cover was blown by a newspaper in his hometown in California.
...
He played a little, mainly on special teams, but also got on the field on defense in blowouts, at one point costing the 'Horns a shutout on a blown coverage in a 48-7 win over Texas Tech. He asked to redshirt, to afford him another year on the team. The UT media guide listed his favorite movie as "Casablanca."
...
Because everyone associated with the team was deemed ignorant of the situation and Weaver hadn't remotely affected the outcome of any game, the NCAA declined to act against Texas for playing an ineligible player...

Interesting story.

Ron Weaver, 17 years ago during the last 100 years minus 1 day, when the concept of strict eligibility didn't exist. None of the other players deemed ineligible. Awesome job of not making a point.

(07-10-2013 08:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 04:04 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:46 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:33 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 11:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  ...

No surprise, that someone like yourself who always tries to twist things into the most negative possible light, would take this ridiculous stance. If player plays 1 game they are often not eligible for a redshirt. If a player plays one game in a pro league they are often ineligible period.

Coming up with a ridiculous half baked concept, that has no basis whatsoever in fact; is right up your alley. They played with an ineligible player; end of story.

What are you even talking about?

Just commenting on your dumb statement, which is that the NCAA says you CAN play ineligible players without penalty if they are not starters, or prominent players.

Not even close. You are so far out of your depth it's ridiculous. Why don't you come up with a list of eligibility situations that may or may not bear some relation to Dixon and post that without any further argument and then pretend it's somehow devastating. Here, I'll do it for you:

Eric Bledsoe
Darrel Arthur
Corey Maggette
Lance Thomas
Shabazz Muhammad
Cam Newton
Ron Weaver*

*

Quote:...Ron Weaver, the 30-year-old backup cornerback who convinced Texas he was a 23-year-old junior college transfer named Ron McElvey, right up until he was forced to bail on the team just days before the 1996 Sugar Bowl when his cover was blown by a newspaper in his hometown in California.
...
He played a little, mainly on special teams, but also got on the field on defense in blowouts, at one point costing the 'Horns a shutout on a blown coverage in a 48-7 win over Texas Tech. He asked to redshirt, to afford him another year on the team. The UT media guide listed his favorite movie as "Casablanca."
...
Because everyone associated with the team was deemed ignorant of the situation and Weaver hadn't remotely affected the outcome of any game, the NCAA declined to act against Texas for playing an ineligible player...

Interesting story.

Ron Weaver, 17 years ago during the last 100 years minus 1 day, when the concept of strict eligibility didn't exist. None of the other players deemed ineligible. Awesome job of not making a point.

The list is your argument. Again it's just an assortment of eligibility situations that may or may not bear any relation to the kid at Ole Miss. I just went ahead and provided it to you gratis to save everybody time. You should keep posting it over and over again as if each time is a more profound humiliation for me.

That's how this works, right? Or do you want to come up with your own list?

(07-10-2013 10:28 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 08:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 04:04 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:46 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 12:33 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  What are you even talking about?

Just commenting on your dumb statement, which is that the NCAA says you CAN play ineligible players without penalty if they are not starters, or prominent players.

Not even close. You are so far out of your depth it's ridiculous. Why don't you come up with a list of eligibility situations that may or may not bear some relation to Dixon and post that without any further argument and then pretend it's somehow devastating. Here, I'll do it for you:

Eric Bledsoe
Darrel Arthur
Corey Maggette
Lance Thomas
Shabazz Muhammad
Cam Newton
Ron Weaver*

*

Quote:...Ron Weaver, the 30-year-old backup cornerback who convinced Texas he was a 23-year-old junior college transfer named Ron McElvey, right up until he was forced to bail on the team just days before the 1996 Sugar Bowl when his cover was blown by a newspaper in his hometown in California.
...
He played a little, mainly on special teams, but also got on the field on defense in blowouts, at one point costing the 'Horns a shutout on a blown coverage in a 48-7 win over Texas Tech. He asked to redshirt, to afford him another year on the team. The UT media guide listed his favorite movie as "Casablanca."
...
Because everyone associated with the team was deemed ignorant of the situation and Weaver hadn't remotely affected the outcome of any game, the NCAA declined to act against Texas for playing an ineligible player...

Interesting story.

Ron Weaver, 17 years ago during the last 100 years minus 1 day, when the concept of strict eligibility didn't exist. None of the other players deemed ineligible. Awesome job of not making a point.

The list is your argument. Again it's just an assortment of eligibility situations that may or may not bear any relation to the kid at Ole Miss. I just went ahead and provided it to you gratis to save everybody time. You should keep posting it over and over again as if each time is a more profound humiliation for me.

That's how this works, right? Or do you want to come up with your own list?

You are obviously confused. You say that the NCAA says that it is ok to play ineligible players if they aren't starters. You are defending them for letting Ole Piss off the hook and punishing us. Obviously, something isn't quite working right for you.

(07-11-2013 08:20 AM)Stammers Wrote:  ...
You are obviously confused. You say that the NCAA says that it is ok to play ineligible players if they aren't starters. You are defending them for letting Ole Piss off the hook and punishing us. Obviously, something isn't quite working right for you.

Stammers, you seem to be unable to follow anything I say and to be unable to look at the issues I've raised except through a narrow and simpleminded view of the concepts involved (for instance trying to boil down the idea that the NCAA might look at competitive or recruiting advantage in assessing eligibility penalties in situations where a school has played someone who subsequently turned out to be ineligible to the dullwitted statement that "the NCAA says that it is ok to play ineligible players if they aren't starters.").

So in the future, please refrain from responding to anything I say unless you are sure that you understand it. If you want to argue with a strawman, erect one in your living room and argue with that. In the mean time you might want to look up "cognitive biases" specifically the "Duning Kruger Effect." While you do that I will pants you again since you seem incapable of embarrassment:

See generally

and See Specifically:

Quote:Level I: Severe breach of conduct

A violation which seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA enduring values (student-athlete success, the collegiate model, amateurism as a student model, competitive equity), including any violation which provides or is intended to provide a significant recruiting or competitive advantage, or a significant impermissible benefit...

• Level II: Significant breach of conduct

A violation that provides or is intended to provide minimal to significant recruiting or competitive advantage; ...

• Level III: Breach of Conduct

A violation that is isolated or limited in nature; provides no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage; and does not include more than a minimal impermissible benefit...

• Level IV: Incidental Issue

An incidental infraction is a minor infraction that is inadvertent and isolated, technical in nature and results in a negligible, if any, competitive advantage. Level IV infractions generally will not impact eligibility for intercollegiate athletics.

...but of course it's preposterous to think that the NCAA might differentiate between an eligibility violation by a walk-on vs an eligibility violation by a starter.

(07-11-2013 12:47 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 08:20 AM)Stammers Wrote:  ...
You are obviously confused. You say that the NCAA says that it is ok to play ineligible players if they aren't starters. You are defending them for letting Ole Piss off the hook and punishing us. Obviously, something isn't quite working right for you.

Stammers, you seem to be unable to follow anything I say and to be unable to look at the issues I've raised except through a narrow and simpleminded view of the concepts involved (for instance trying to boil down the idea that the NCAA might look at competitive or recruiting advantage in assessing eligibility penalties in situations where a school has played someone who subsequently turned out to be ineligible to the dullwitted statement that "the NCAA says that it is ok to play ineligible players if they aren't starters.").

So in the future, please refrain from responding to anything I say unless you are sure that you understand it. If you want to argue with a strawman, erect one in your living room and argue with that. In the mean time you might want to look up "cognitive biases" specifically the "Duning Kruger Effect." While you do that I will pants you again since you seem incapable of embarrassment:

See generally

and See Specifically:

Quote:Level I: Severe breach of conduct

A violation which seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA enduring values (student-athlete success, the collegiate model, amateurism as a student model, competitive equity), including any violation which provides or is intended to provide a significant recruiting or competitive advantage, or a significant impermissible benefit...

• Level II: Significant breach of conduct

A violation that provides or is intended to provide minimal to significant recruiting or competitive advantage; ...

• Level III: Breach of Conduct

A violation that is isolated or limited in nature; provides no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage; and does not include more than a minimal impermissible benefit...

• Level IV: Incidental Issue

An incidental infraction is a minor infraction that is inadvertent and isolated, technical in nature and results in a negligible, if any, competitive advantage. Level IV infractions generally will not impact eligibility for intercollegiate athletics.

...but of course it's preposterous to think that the NCAA might differentiate between an eligibility violation by a walk-on vs an eligibility violation by a starter.

You're awesome. You come up with this long winded bunch of nonsense to (attempt to) make your point, and what does your last line say?

The NCAA allows ineligible players to play without penalty if they aren't starters or prominent players. Just in case there were 2 or 3 people that weren't quite sure.

HINT: You contradict yourself and agree with me.

(07-11-2013 01:23 PM)Stammers Wrote:  ...

You're awesome. You come up with this long winded bunch of nonsense to (attempt to) make your point, and what does your last line say?

The NCAA allows ineligible players to play without penalty if they aren't starters or prominent players. Just in case there were 2 or 3 people that weren't quite sure.

HINT: You contradict yourself and agree with me.

Again Stammers, you might look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It might open your eyes about how incompetent you are at reasoning and/or arguing about things despite your apparent belief to the contrary.

Here's another one for you Stams. Why is it that our official record for 2007-2008 is 0-1 despite the fact that Rose was ineligible when he played in the loss against Tennessee? Is it because the "the NCAA says that it is ok to play ineligible players if you lose?" or that "the NCAA allows inelgible players to play without penalty so long as the team loses?"

And lets set something straight here:

"The NCAA says that it is ok to play ineligible players if they aren't starters."
=/=
"The NCAA allows ineligible players to play without penalty if they aren't starters or prominent players."
=/=
"...the NCAA might differentiate between an eligibility violation by a walk-on vs an eligibility violation by a starter."

Those three statements are not equivalent. Either you don't realize that the first two are different from one another or you're dishonest and you believe I won't notice that you've just shifted the goal posts. And either you are unable to tell the difference between your two formulations and what I said, or again you are dishonest and so desperate to "win" an online argument that you're willing to pretend that they are all the same.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you're just unable to see the difference.

Have a nice day.