🏈 Nick Saban on Julio and Ingram: "That is up to the NCAA"

[joeman546]

Alabama coach Nick Saban said this morning that it wouldn't be his decision if receiver Julio Jones and running back Mark Ingram don't play Saturday night against Virginia Tech.

http://blog.al.com/bamabeat/2009/09/saban_on_julio_and_ingram_that.html

Stolen from Bama news bot, but I wanted to point out something he said to reassure others on what some in the know have said.

That is, what he said was him passing the ball to the NCAA. He said, in so many words, that the NCAA is going to decide if they cannot play. Meaning if the NCAA doesnt rule against them playing, they will be playing.

So if the NCAA cant reach a conclusion and doesnt say anything, Id expect them to be suited up.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Unfortunately, I don't read it the same way you do - I think that if we hear nothing by kickoff, they'll be sitting.

grrrr

 

[RollinInPcola]

I have to agree with crimsonaudio on this

I don't think Saban can make the assumption that no response from the NCAA by kickoff means they are cleared to play.

It could impact the entire season if he plays them against VT and then the NCAA comes down and says they weren't eligible.

 

[252BAMA]

Bama's only hope with the NCAA is that one day their dealings with Bama will cost the Mafia a ton of money. And this is the type of issue in which that could happen. When it does the NCAA discrimination against Bama will end.

 

[capooth]

You'll have to trust me on this.

They'll play.

No offense to everyone, but I am going to take Terry's word over everyone's interpretation of the situation

 

[bama4life]

No offense to everyone, but I am going to take Terry's word over everyone's interpretation of the situation

What he said.

 

[BamaCore]

What he said.

What he said about what he said.

 

[Nate]

What he said about what he said.

I'm agreeing with the guy who said what he said about about tthe other guy said that TerryP was quoted on saying

 

[252BAMA]

Forget what I said! WTH was I thinking? The NCAA is the mafia!

 

[Nate]

Forget what I said! WTH was I thinking? The NCAA is the mafia!

The NCAA wishes... the mafia is way too cool

 

[BamaDelta]

No offense to everyone, but I am going to take Terry's word over everyone's interpretation of the situation

Yeah, but is there new information to cause Terry to change his original stance? I don't know. It just seems more negative in most of the slants I read today vs. yesterday or last week. Maybe it's what Saban did or didn't say today.:headscratch:

 

[BECandGrits]

I would rather Julio and Mark sit than have the NCAA come back and say they are ineligible. There is too much risk involved for them to play uncleared.

 

[psychojoe]

I think that the way to parse this is that Coach Saban is saying he personally will not be making the decision.

Three things can happen:

1. NCAA says they can play

2. NCAA says they can't play.

3. NCAA is silent and someone on the administrative side decides whether they can play or not.

CNS will not be the decision maker.

 

[BAMA74]

plain and simple wait till game time....we don't need to depend on certain players to be in a game....ya if they don't play...ya it'll hurt my feelings but we got to stop depending on certain players to determine a outcome and let other players step up in the time of need:td:GO BAMA:a:

 

[alagator]

I would rather Julio and Mark sit than have the NCAA come back and say they are ineligible. There is too much risk involved for them to play uncleared.

At this point, from what is public and some things that are not, UA has NOT declared the two players ineligible.

And UA has communicated everything it knows about everyone involved to the NCAA and explained why the two players have not been declared ineligible by the institution and not seeking reinstatement. And the NCAA has thus far NOT ruled the two players ineligible in spite of the inaction by UA.

The conclusion by UA is the man involved was not a booster or representative or fan of UA and thus the institution has no issue. UA does not believe this creates any 'extra benefits' issue and thus the players have no culpability. Nothing wrong to report, nothing wrong requiring the seeking of absolution.

Thus, I really cannot see where the NCAA as YET has a voice in the situation. There has in reality been not been an infraction (per UA) and therefore the NCAA has no foundation to make a ruling one way or the other.

Now. IF UA choses to play the two in question absent an affirmation from the NCAA, UA had better be DAMN CERTAIN their information is 200% factual and that every stone has been unturned and dug up and examined with a microscope. Because, if later something is learned that does rise to the level of an infraction and the NCAA deems this information something UA should have known prior to the two players participating (meaning an incomplete or ineffective or dishonest internal investigation and interpretation), then we (meaning UA) are in for a world of hurt.

And justly so.

 

[alagator]

I think that the way to parse this is that Coach Saban is saying he personally will not be making the decision.

Three things can happen:

1. NCAA says they can play

2. NCAA says they can't play.

3. NCAA is silent and someone on the administrative side decides whether they can play or not. (emphasis added)

CNS will not be the decision maker.

And usually the Compliance Director will make the recommendation to the Athletic Director that the institution should either play the athlete in question or hold him/her out. Then the Athletic Director will make the ultimate decision, weighing the facts known with the facts unknown and the consequences of each option.

Are you comfortable with our current Athletic Director making a correct decision a situation such as this with so many uncertainties involved?

This is just another reason I have grave concerns about the future of our athletic programs. And why someone with wisdom and experience and judgment is far more important sitting in that chair than someone able to glad hand a few boosters with stories of what it was like to work under Coach Bryant and raise a little cash.

Of course, our current Athletic Director can pass the buck (again) and re-assign an underling if/when the decision blows up in our face AGAIN.

 

[porkchop]

And usually the Compliance Director will make the recommendation to the Athletic Director that the institution should either play the athlete in question or hold him/her out. Then the Athletic Director will make the ultimate decision, weighing the facts known with the facts unknown and the consequences of each option.

Are you comfortable with our current Athletic Director making a correct decision a situation such as this with so many uncertainties involved?

This is just another reason I have grave concerns about the future of our athletic programs. And why someone with wisdom and experience and judgment is far more important sitting in that chair than someone able to glad hand a few boosters with stories of what it was like to work under Coach Bryant and raise a little cash.

Of course, our current Athletic Director can pass the buck (again) and re-assign an underling if/when the decision blows up in our face AGAIN.

So, you're saying Mal is doing a bang up job as AD. :lol:

 

[PointnLaugh]

What is the difference in this situation and the Jeff Berger hunting trip back during Dye's tenure? Have rules changed? All Dye did was hold Berger out for the first play from scrimmage. Also, Berber went with a boog booster, Julio and Mark didn't go with a Bama booster. So what's the problem?

 

[UAgrad93]

I have confidence that the right call will be made. I believe with the Berger thing under Dye, it was plagarism. The hunting trip was last season with Colt McCoy at texas if I'm correct.

 

[PointnLaugh]

I have confidence that the right call will be made. I believe with the Berger thing under Dye, it was plagarism. The hunting trip was last season with Clot McCoy at texas if I'm correct.

Jeff Berger went on a hunting trip. Was sat out the first play of the game. 100% sure about that.