🏈 Continuing the Andre thread (due to length, etc. of the 1st)

[TerryP]

The latest on the situation doesn't include any doubt as to agent involvement.

In fact, it was as many as two agents. One shunned, the other thought to be the family favorite.

It appears that UA was informed by the agent that wasn't the family favorite.

You've seen, and probably heard, the "insurance policy" story. It's important to understand a few things.

One, this is not a case of a policy being taken out against injuries during play, IE: Sugar Bowl. He's had one of those all year. JP has one...several players do in fact.

What is important to note is what credentials are required for any type of policy work to be dealt with. Whether it's life insurance, injury insurance in the NFL, financial planning, etc. An NFL agent is likely to carry all of the above.

Therein lies the "improper contact." It's what that person can do...and very well may still do.

There is still more to this story...and it'll likely be coming out soon, but maybe not as soon as you would like it to come out.

----------------

Link to the first 6-7 pages in the first thread...

http://www.crimsontusks.com/about35674.html

 

[Guest]

Re: Continuing the Andre thread (due to length, etc. of the

There is still more to this story...and it'll likely be coming out soon, but maybe not as soon as you would like it to come out.

Unless it's done, wrapped up and finished by today then nope it's not as soon as I would like.

Would you please enlighten us Terry (or anyone really) on why BHM News and maybe others are wasting ink by printing today that the door isn't closed for Andre' coming back and he hasn't made his final decision. Now, come on. I'm the most hopeful fan there is, but even I had little doubt before this came out...much less now.

Why even go with this angle at this time? There is so much other news to report right now. It's not like they have nothing better to do.

 

[Guest]

I am not sure what the rule is now, but going back to the Antonio Langham case, many said at the time that the correct way for the U of A to have handled it would have been to have suspended Antonio as soon as they knew about the allegation, investigated it and then appealed to the NCAA for his reinstatement. Based on the 1993 time frames he would have missed the opener against Vanderbilt and been reinstated for the rest of the season.

If the compliance folks have done their due diligence and believe that no violation has occurred then they could ask the NCAA for his reinstatement. This would protect us if the NCAA said yes, keep us out of their doghouse if they said no.

 

[Guest]

Re: Continuing the Andre thread (due to length, etc. of the

There is still more to this story...and it'll likely be coming out soon, but maybe not as soon as you would like it to come out.

Would you please enlighten us Terry (or anyone really) on why BHM News and maybe others are wasting ink by printing today that the door isn't closed for Andre' coming back and he hasn't made his final decision. Now, come on. I'm the most hopeful fan there is, but even I had little doubt before this came out...much less now.

Why even go with this angle at this time? There is so much other news to report right now. It's not like they have nothing better to do.

I've entertained myself with the thought of him coming back next year since this has happened. It's very VERY unlikely, and definitley not the smart move.

But maybe Andre's image at Alabama is something that is very important to him, and rightfully so. Maybe, he doesn't want to be remembered as the awesome LT who was suspended before his last game at Bama.

A lot of maybe's, I know, but IMO it's worth a thought.

 

[TerryP]

I am not sure what the rule is now, but going back to the Antonio Langham case, many said at the time that the correct way for the U of A to have handled it would have been to have suspended Antonio as soon as they knew about the allegation, investigated it and then appealed to the NCAA for his reinstatement. Based on the 1993 time frames he would have missed the opener against Vanderbilt and been reinstated for the rest of the season.

If the compliance folks have done their due diligence and believe that no violation has occurred then they could ask the NCAA for his reinstatement. This would protect us if the NCAA said yes, keep us out of their doghouse if they said no.

While the two cases are different, what you've said is exactly how I understand it.

Sandra, why the Bham News is reporting such? I can't not fathom a reason as to why. I'm not saying he won't seek a senior year, but I still don't see a reason why he should or even would. And that is something of an opinion that hasn't changed since August despite this story.

 

[alagator]

I am not sure what the rule is now, but going back to the Antonio Langham case, many said at the time that the correct way for the U of A to have handled it would have been to have suspended Antonio as soon as they knew about the allegation, investigated it and then appealed to the NCAA for his reinstatement. Based on the 1993 time frames he would have missed the opener against Vanderbilt and been reinstated for the rest of the season.

If the compliance folks have done their due diligence and believe that no violation has occurred then they could ask the NCAA for his reinstatement. This would protect us if the NCAA said yes, keep us out of their doghouse if they said no.

Right in concept, but wrong, I think and remember, on the length of any suspension.

Seems the suspension for Smith would be three-to-five games. I seem to remember Langham's would have been three games.

In fact, one of the reasons Stallings and Ingram refused to immediately declare Langham ineligible was the two knew that by doing so Langham would not have taken the risk of either no reinstatement or a suspension for about 25% of the season and just remain in the NFL draft. So no immediate suspension was made in the hope they could ride it out undetected.

To me, this reads like Smith saw the Barnhart article yesterday and is doing a little PR dance to try to restore his image to the UA fans. Now, when the NCAA sees he has committed to an agent and either refuse to reinstate him or do so with about a half-season suspension (to which he would be foolish to return), he can lay the blame at the feet of the NCAA - knowing that UA fans will immediately blast the NCAA as furthering their vendetta against poor ol' Alabama. I am not buying this latest spin.

 

[Guest]

To me, this reads like Smith saw the Barnhart article yesterday and is doing a little PR dance to try to restore his image to the UA fans. Now, when the NCAA sees he has committed to an agent and either refuse to reinstate him or do so with about a half-season suspension (to which he would be foolish to return), he can lay the blame at the feet of the NCAA - knowing that UA fans will immediately blast the NCAA as furthering their vendetta against poor ol' Alabama. I am not buying this latest spin.

Interesting take on it. I don't claim to know more than I do when it come to players, coaches, etc. But I'd like to think that Andre wouldn't do something like this, based on interviews I've seen and what I've read about him. I wouldn't rule it out, though, considering the blow his image has taken in the past few days. Sad story altogether.

 

[TerryP]

Sometimes in life we run across people and find out they get mixed up in things that shock us.

Often, you hear people saying, "they're too smart for that." But, just as often, they're smart enough to think they can get away with it as well.

 

[TerryP]

I am not sure what the rule is now, but going back to the Antonio Langham case, many said at the time that the correct way for the U of A to have handled it would have been to have suspended Antonio as soon as they knew about the allegation, investigated it and then appealed to the NCAA for his reinstatement. Based on the 1993 time frames he would have missed the opener against Vanderbilt and been reinstated for the rest of the season.

If the compliance folks have done their due diligence and believe that no violation has occurred then they could ask the NCAA for his reinstatement. This would protect us if the NCAA said yes, keep us out of their doghouse if they said no.

Right in concept, but wrong, I think and remember, on the length of any suspension.

Seems the suspension for Smith would be three-to-five games. I seem to remember Langham's would have been three games.

In fact, one of the reasons Stallings and Ingram refused to immediately declare Langham ineligible was the two knew that by doing so Langham would not have taken the risk of either no reinstatement or a suspension for about 25% of the season and just remain in the NFL draft. So no immediate suspension was made in the hope they could ride it out undetected.

To me, this reads like Smith saw the Barnhart article yesterday and is doing a little PR dance to try to restore his image to the UA fans. Now, when the NCAA sees he has committed to an agent and either refuse to reinstate him or do so with about a half-season suspension (to which he would be foolish to return), he can lay the blame at the feet of the NCAA - knowing that UA fans will immediately blast the NCAA as furthering their vendetta against poor ol' Alabama. I am not buying this latest spin.

Like I mentioned in the first thread, this comes back to a group in Florida that has been involved in things like this before. Also, this isn't something the NCAA is going to step into. They are well aware of the situation and it is an Alabama matter, not an NCAA matter.

 

[runswithscissors]

BOL has quotes from the CNS presser, CNS saying this will not be an NCAA deal and not to worry about any possible sanctions from them. this is strictly institutional.

 

[alagator]

Like I mentioned in the first thread, this comes back to a group in Florida that has been involved in things like this before. Also, this isn't something the NCAA is going to step into. They are well aware of the situation and it is an Alabama matter, not an NCAA matter.

Confess that I missed what Florida group you mentioned in the 'first thread.' Give me an update and I might can do some checking with some contacts down here. (Shoot me a PM if you need to.)

Also, wanted to clarify. I did not mean to imply that this is something the NCAA might chew on The University over. My mention of that organization was only in the context they would be the ultimate authority over whether Smith could be reinstated and the length of his ultimate suspension should he be so. Seeing that the NCAA would not approve anything less than three games, Smith could then say he wanted to return but could not justify doing so with such a suspension term - thus trying to pass the blame for his final decision to go pro on the mean ol' NCAA. MANY Alabama fans would gulp up that story.

 

[TerryP]

From what I understand, at this point, the decision on reinstatement, etc., is in the University's hands. So far, the NCAA has been kept abreast of all the details but they are also acknowledging that UA is handling it correctly.

Therefore, institutional matter....if that makes sense.

 

[AlabamaAubKiller]

How far is it to Scottsdale, Arizona?

Serously. i wanna know.
It's 6:30 in the morning on national hangover day....
i'm still clobberd..... :drk
i've got a full tank of gas, a 1/2 a pack of smokes, a roll of duck take anda base ball bat some where....if i can find it this drunk. amd i'll be wearing sun glasses.
If i leave right now i can drive to Scottsdale to LMM Sports Management and break both legs of Eric Metz and Ethan Lock. ^^UGLY and still be home in time to watch Bama win the sugar bowl. (without Smitty. :sp ) I'm sure we have a good UA grad lawyer here on the fourms that would defend me. i could even scratch out a dollar for the retainer. ^^SPEN have to pay'em something. (a lwyer not charging a fee well...that would be unethical.) :lol:

So....what are my chances of pulling off a Lisa Nowak $%CR and getting out alive? Or at the very least with out any prison time.

Thouhgts.....

 

[TerryP]

In honor of your post...

Instead of dark glasses, wearing one of these...

 

[JoshB]

Re: How far is it to Scottsdale, Arizona?

Serously. i wanna know.
It's 6:30 in the morning on national hangover day....
i'm still clobberd..... :drk
i've got a full tank of gas, a 1/2 a pack of smokes, a roll of duck take anda base ball bat some where....if i can find it this drunk. amd i'll be wearing sun glasses.
If i leave right now i can drive to Scottsdale to LMM Sports Management and break both legs of Eric Metz and Ethan Lock. ^^UGLY and still be home in time to watch Bama win the sugar bowl. (without Smitty. :sp ) I'm sure we have a good UA grad lawyer here on the fourms that would defend me. i could even scratch out a dollar for the retainer. ^^SPEN have to pay'em something. (a lwyer not charging a fee well...that would be unethical.) :lol:

So....what are my chances of pulling off a Lisa Nowak $%CR and getting out alive? Or at the very least with out any prison time.

Thouhgts.....

if OJ got away with it (once) so can u!

 

[DirtFarmer]

Re: How far is it to Scottsdale, Arizona?

Serously. i wanna know.
It's 6:30 in the morning on national hangover day....
i'm still clobberd..... :drk
i've got a full tank of gas, a 1/2 a pack of smokes, a roll of duck take anda base ball bat some where....if i can find it this drunk. amd i'll be wearing sun glasses.
If i leave right now i can drive to Scottsdale to LMM Sports Management and break both legs of Eric Metz and Ethan Lock. ^^UGLY and still be home in time to watch Bama win the sugar bowl. (without Smitty. :sp ) I'm sure we have a good UA grad lawyer here on the fourms that would defend me. i could even scratch out a dollar for the retainer. ^^SPEN have to pay'em something. (a lwyer not charging a fee well...that would be unethical.) :lol:

So....what are my chances of pulling off a Lisa Nowak $%CR and getting out alive? Or at the very least with out any prison time.

Thouhgts.....

Don't forget the depends.

:lol:

 

[AlabamaAubKiller]

44 ounce Soda fountain cup will work nicely.
That's a truck drivers porta potty :wink: lol

Serously....i can go a long time with out going.
Used to it. Kinda like pilots. No where to go in the cockpit.....same thing in the cab of a Perterbuilt.

I wonder what the look on the jerks face would be like???

He's all leaning over the desk..flirting with Sally the big boob recptionist.....gold medalion hanging over his hairy cheast with his shirt un buttoned....

then look up and see 92,000 pounds of Crimson and white painted big truck speeding though the his parking lot @ 80mph making a beeline for the lobby...

*Sigh* I'd give anything to see that.
wonder what his last thoughts would be as the UA Logo on the front plates hits him in the forehead....

"gee maybe i should have went after Tebow instead"

 

[shipley00]

Like I mentioned in the first thread, this comes back to a group in Florida that has been involved in things like this before. Also, this isn't something the NCAA is going to step into. They are well aware of the situation and it is an Alabama matter, not an NCAA matter.

So, given all the ifs and assuming its a Florida based agency, does the Alabama AG go after then? I'm unclear on the statute. Does the transgression have to occure within state borders?

 

[AlabamaAubKiller]

Whatchoo talkin bout Willis?
A Florida Agency!? hell that's awsome....mean i don't have to drive as far to dish out the pain and i'll even have time to throw a pig in the ground before the game! woot! :lol:

Serously...i'm not sure if they can after them for a Class B felony with an Alabama warrant on a crime that was commited in the state of Florida.(due process and all)
However if the crime was commited on Alabama soil....
then hell yes they can go after them. And my uncle worked closely with the AG's office as an investigator. (just retired a month ago) He says the guy who's looking into it is a bulldog, when he bites in he won't let go. That being said....if they can prosecute they will.

 

[Guest]

Terry are you saying UA might let Andre play? Or would that be too much of a risk?