🏈 Any Truth to This?

[CtrlAltDel]

http://www.dothaneagle.com/dea/sports/columnists/article/kiffin_has_ut_in_spotlight/73752/

At first, most people thought this would be a minor infraction, especially in light of Nick Saban suspending Caldwell and mates for four games during the 2007 season. However, the fact the NCAA has been so slow in rendering a decision has some concerned. That’s especially true since the governing body of collegiate sports asked Tide officials for specifics on the football team’s television contracts for the next two seasons. Why would they ask that if they weren’t considering a television ban?

 

[jocephus8179]

That's got me worried. ESPECIALLY them asking about the next TWO seasons.

 

[CtrlAltDel]

That's got me worried. ESPECIALLY them asking about the next TWO seasons.

Don't get too worried yet. Just because we read it doesn't mean it's true. I was hoping to get some verification from some of the connected folks on the board to see if there is really anything to it.

 

[TerryP]

http://www.dothaneagle.com/dea/sports/columnists/article/kiffin_has_ut_in_spotlight/73752/

At first, most people thought this would be a minor infraction, especially in light of Nick Saban suspending Caldwell and mates for four games during the 2007 season. However, the fact the NCAA has been so slow in rendering a decision has some concerned. That’s especially true since the governing body of collegiate sports asked Tide officials for specifics on the football team’s television contracts for the next two seasons. Why would they ask that if they weren’t considering a television ban?

This isn't new. It was in the original letter sent in May of 2008 - the same letter that was released a few months ago.

It's on page 10, paragraph K

It's a part of a form letter which can be found if you look for it - A Guide to Summary Dispositions + NCAA with google should take you directly to it.

Specifically, it is part of the "Background Information of the Institution."

If you look up any schools notice of allegations you'll find the same line, word for word, in the same section, in the same paragraph, in the same chronological order...

 

[Chuck-E-Cheeze]

Saw this rubbish on a barner board yesterday. Terry, thank you for easing my mind.

 

[CtrlAltDel]

Great, thanks from me also, Terry. I found the article by following a link off a newsgroup left there by??? you guessed it, one of our little brothers.

 

[Swamptick]

Terry = win.

 

[TerryP]

Just for the hell of it, I googled notice of allegations indiana.

Here's the site I came across...

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080213/ncb_noticeofallegations.pdf

Page 14, paragraph k.

You'll also see paragraph J is the same as in the notice of allegations sent to us I linked earlier.

 

[CtrlAltDel]

Just for the hell of it, I googled notice of allegations indiana.

Here's the site I came across...

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080213/ncb_noticeofallegations.pdf

Page 14, paragraph k.

You'll also see paragraph J is the same as in the notice of allegations sent to us I linked earlier.

Great sleuthing. This is one of the few times I have fell for an AuNeck's tricks. They are so desperate for 'Bama to be crippled, nothing new.

 

[rolltide1969]

If you listen to Slimebaum most days all he can talk about is how Bama is gonna be slammed by the NCAA infractions committee because when the textbook thing happened we were still under the 5 year probationary period. I've just quit listening to his program. I'm so sick of hearing him stir the pot....

 

[CtrlAltDel]

If you listen to Slimebaum most days all he can talk about is how Bama is gonna be slammed by the NCAA infractions committee because when the textbook thing happened we were still under the 5 year probationary period. I've just quit listening to his program. I'm so sick of hearing him stir the pot....

Good for you, 1969. I have listened to maybe 3 of his shows in my entire life and even then not all the way to the end.

 

[TerryP]

If you listen to Slimebaum most days all he can talk about is how Bama is gonna be slammed by the NCAA infractions committee because when the textbook thing happened we were still under the 5 year probationary period. I've just quit listening to his program. I'm so sick of hearing him stir the pot....

Well, the women's track team may receive a harsh penalty.

What Paul doesn't know - what very few do know - is which teams players were involved in getting extra test booklets and text books for classes they were enrolled in back in '05. Those names and teams were blacked out.

And, another unknown is how it is defined by the NCAA if a kid gets a book for a class that isn't necessarily required, but recommended.

Another area overlooked by many is the football players involved in this situation back in '07 were giving the books away to other students. If none of those students were members of the football team, say walk-ons as example, can you call it an extra benefit if they didn't receive any benefit from it?

NOW, for example again, if a walk-on was given a book that could be considered a violation. Simply because, a walk on is getting a benefit of a free book.

Bottom line, there isn't a soul out there that knows who because what was released didn't contain the finer details - as in names, teams, etc.

Bottom line. A lot is unknown. And, with that comes this automatically - anything stated by a media member is pure speculation. Or, in other words, a guess.

I've heard what's been speculated on from people around the Athletic Dept. And, it's about the same as what Brandon posted here about a month ago. Some have mentioned a different number, but it's still a small number at that.

But, then again, that is just us repeating what we've heard "speculated."

 

[porkchop]

I just came in, and now have to leave the house again in a few minutes, so I am only skimming entire thread. I apologize if I repeat something, but here is what I have on the matter.

Last time I heard, the Dothan Eagle was the ONLY paper printing this. To me, that speaks volumes alone.

Also, and Terry touched on this, we're not the only school who's t.v. contracts have ever been reviewed. In fact, I know of several posters on other forums that say this is standard procedure during NCAA investigations, and doesn't necessarily imply a televisions penalty.

There may be something to this and it may be big. But let's see what else comes out before we jump off the cliff together like a bunch of lemmings.

 

[TerryP]

Here's what I mentioned earlier in one of the first post of this thread.

This is "A Guide to the Summary Disposition Process." This is published by www.ncaa.org.

It explains how this works, and the different facets of the whole process.

NCAA resources file

Like I mentioned earlier, it is a standard request. It comes from an outline both schools and the NCAA follow.

In this case, it falls under "Background information on the school."

It's on page 25 so you'll have to scroll through (or use the find function if you know how)

 

[TerryP]

And, if I may add, if those three cited examples aren't enough to make any rivals STFU I don't know what else I can provide you.

 

[Kozlowski]

If you listen to Slimebaum most days all he can talk about is how Bama is gonna be slammed by the NCAA infractions committee because when the textbook thing happened we were still under the 5 year probationary period. I've just quit listening to his program. I'm so sick of hearing him stir the pot....

You clearly dont / havent listened to his program very much:nopity:

 

[TidePride50]

You clearly dont / havent listened to his program very much:nopity:

I was going to say that I have heard PF on several different occasions say to Auburn fans that the textbook thing is no big deal and they are getting their hopes up that Bama will be nailed for nothing.