Crimson&WhiteGecko
Member
Does lying to Saban and complaince count as two?
Does to me
Does lying to Saban and complaince count as two?
I recall the impermissible contact as the only one but my memory on this is a little vague.They shouldn't. I'm way too gun shy about this stuff after 2000. Didn't he have 2 different instances for non-compliance while here?
If Saban wants him back, and he made indications that he did when Roach was hired, then he should be hired back (regardless of any objections from compliance at this point).
I recall the impermissible contact as the only one but my memory on this is a little vague.
It wasn't an "accidental bump" like we've seen with other situations. This was a booster who'd set up a meeting with not one, but four prospects. In my view that's a conscious decision to skirt the rules—not a good thing in any world.
Lying to Saban, UA compliance, and the NCAA? I don't know at what point I'd say "all's forgiven." I'd say being the key there.
One hell of a recruiter, that's for sure.
Give me an example where Saban has dealt with the school, the SEC, or the NCAA and lied about one of the basic tenants of NCAA rules in regards to recruiting. Give me a rumor where he's done so.Has Saban never lied or hidden things from Alabama, the SEC, or NCAA? If you say no to that, you're not being true to yourself.
Why should compliance allow him back?
In some cases it has been. See Lance Thompson (a re-hire I certainly disagreed with Saban making.) However, Lance's situation is different. Saban doesn't have an issue with "whore dogs."Sometimes a prolonged break is good enough to wipe a slate clean.
Give me an example where Saban has dealt with the school, the SEC, or the NCAA and lied about one of the basic tenants of NCAA rules in regards to recruiting. Give me a rumor where he's done so.
There's a good chance Bo would have kept his job at Bama if he'd told the truth: the program avoided sanctions by firing Bo.
In some cases it has been. See Lance Thompson (a re-hire I certainly disagreed with Saban making.) However, Lance's situation is different. Saban doesn't have an issue with "whore dogs."
Sports by Brooks fan, right?It's all in the past now and nothing we can get in trouble for with NIL, but the whole Tom Albetar thing. Saban knew first hand athletes were selling him their jerseys, rings, awards etc. I can't speak to him actually lying because I've never been in the room for a conversation between him and any of the others, but he knows of EVERYTHING that goes on within his program and if he ever has said he did not have knowledge or that something did not happen he wasn't being truthful. I have no doubt he has been asked atleast once about that situation. If he had told the truth I have no doubt we would have gotten in big trouble over it, but nonetheless it went away and we never did see any punishment.
As far as recruiting, I've heard some stories, but that is third hand, so I cannot say that and speak to the facts of it. Recruiting visits that came with benefits we'll say.
So all speculative...?It's all in the past now and nothing we can get in trouble for with NIL, but the whole Tom Albetar thing. Saban knew first hand athletes were selling him their jerseys, rings, awards etc. I can't speak to him actually lying because I've never been in the room for a conversation between him and any of the others, but he knows of EVERYTHING that goes on within his program and if he ever has said he did not have knowledge or that something did not happen he wasn't being truthful. I have no doubt he has been asked atleast once about that situation. If he had told the truth I have no doubt we would have gotten in big trouble over it, but nonetheless it went away and we never did see any punishment.
As far as recruiting, I've heard some stories, but that is third hand, so I cannot say that and speak to the facts of it. Recruiting visits that came with benefits we'll say.
So all speculative...?
It's all in the past now and nothing we can get in trouble for with NIL, but the whole Tom Albetar thing.
Who do you choose to believe here?So all speculative...?
Who do you choose to believe here?
UA's compliance contacted Tom three times asking him to quit.
The school investigated the situation and found no evidence of extra benefits: just Tom using name and likeness in his store.
Those results were forwarded to the SEC and with no evidence found it wasn't forwarded to the NCAA.
Did it look bad? Damn straight.
The choice is yours. Believe what that random Internet site posted and the speculation that followed or believe what compliance found when investigated.
I know you agree Saban is a really smart person and great coach, since we are speculating, why would he allow something he knows could derail his program to continue if indeed it was proveable and he knew as you imply. That part does not add up. Could he have been suspicious and coached the players to avoid this person sure.... But to know and not take action? Would not be smart.Keep your Crimson colored glasses on all you want, but are you that foolish to think all of those autographs in his store were either fake or signed for free? You think all of that gameday worn stuff was not paid for that he happily displays in his store? Go ask any of those players and they will tell you. I've done my research and know, and that's why I would never buy from him. He has some pretty amazing items that cannot be found, but he is a snake. Go ahead and dare I say check out the college memorabilia market and see what you find.
I'm not trying to bury anybody here, just not going to act like Alabama didn't know what the hell was going on here and play stupid all while looking stupid. Do I care? No. I don't like players being paid like a contract by the school or NCAA, but I don't mind them making some money off their name and achievements.
You think Bo Davis was the only impermissible benefit that has traded hands under Saban's watch?
I know you agree Saban is a really smart person and great coach, since we are speculating, why would he allow something he knows could derail his program to continue if indeed it was proveable and he knew as you imply. That part does not add up. Could he have been suspicious and coached the players to avoid this person sure.... But to know and not take action? Would not be smart.
Impermissible contact arranged by a booster for four players/recruits: then lied about the whole thing on three separate occasions and caught.You think Bo Davis was the only impermissible benefit that has traded hands under Saban's watch?
No one is suggesting perfect. The issue I see happening within this thread are the assertions that,He ain't perfect. No one is. It's only provable if people talk to the authorities investigating.
@mando is right here. We're discussing what was proven versus what was speculated.
I guess this comes back to whether or not you trust the compliance office (who, coincidentally, laid the hammer down on books being given away.)
The letter to Tom:Why do we think Alabama disassociated with Tom? If nothing was proven, why take those steps?
This never went to the NCAA. It stopped at the SEC offices when the reports were filed.It was not proven by the NCAA, but Saban knew about his players and Tom.
I like how this sounds . Do not get that much I am going to savor it....@mando is right here.
The letter to Tom:
“ You have potentially placed the university and its student-athletes at risk. This risk includes exposing our student-athletes to potential NCAA investigations or sensationalized journalism based on the assumptions that wrongdoing has taken place. Both can result in temporary suspensions of student athletes while additional inquiries are conducted.”
This never went to the NCAA. It stopped at the SEC offices when the reports were filed.
It's a bit confounding to think they knew of players getting paid for their memorabilia and did nothing but on the other hand suspended players, starters mind you, for giving away text books and notebooks. There were seven suspended then, right? We're talking 11 with Tom.
Both of these situations fall under the same bylaws; impermissible benefits. Why suspend for one but not the other?