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

[BigAl]

What if CoaCH Saban already knows that these 2 are eligible. Why advertise that to VT and make their job that much easier to prepare for us. It don't matter if a few Alabama fans get a little antsy and worried. I think they play or else they wouldn't have taken all these reps in practice. But that's just my opinion. For all we know the NCAA could have cleared these guys a month ago.

 

[PointnLaugh]

How reliable is the bleacher report? They are reporting NCAA gave ok for Ingram and Jones to play.

 

[JoshB]

How reliable is the bleacher report? They are reporting NCAA gave ok for Ingram and Jones to play.

i just saw that too but idk the guy that reported it so who knows and he gave no source.

 

[Nate]

i just saw that too but idk the guy that reported it so who knows and he gave no source.

there was a blurb on ESPN as well

 

[Crimson13Tide]

Just got a txt confirming it! They're clear!:a:

 

[capooth]

In Terry we trust!! :bow:

 

[Brandon Van de Graaff]

Like Terry said, they're playing...

http://blog.al.com/tide-source/2009/09/headline.html

 

[BamaDelta]

Roll Tide! Made my night. :a:

 

[joeman546]

yay, i still think they wouldve played, but i am happier that its a moot point now.

 

[JoshB]

maybe yall can exit meltdown mode now lol

 

[shipley00]

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

Big difference. The mafia gets the facts straight BEFORE they put out a hit.

 

[alagator]

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. (emphasis added)

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.

Ignoring the ego of quoting oneself, it appears I missed the ball completely on the issue of UA having not prior declared Jones and Ingram ineligible and thus seeking reinstatement.

I gleamed from all the public reports, and from my long-time friend who works in the UA Athletic Dept., that the UA had not taken that step. Seems I was waaaaaaay off base.

In my best Emly Latella voice, "Well, nevermind." Where can I find one of those 'do-over' buttons? :headscratch:

I think though, this information pours cold water on the idea that UA would have played the two absent word from the NCAA.

 

[TerryP]

Ignoring the ego of quoting oneself, it appears I missed the ball completely on the issue of UA having not prior declared Jones and Ingram ineligible and thus seeking reinstatement.

I gleamed from all the public reports, and from my long-time friend who works in the UA Athletic Dept., that the UA had not taken that step. Seems I was waaaaaaay off base.

In my best Emly Latella voice, "Well, nevermind." Where can I find one of those 'do-over' buttons? :headscratch:

I think though, this information pours cold water on the idea that UA would have played the two absent word from the NCAA.

There was never any doubt the NCAA would sign off on this. None.

 

[tidenumber1]

I knew it all along.:rofl:

 

[joeman546]

I dunno, the NCAA's ruling was really confusing. They said we were right, but we still somehow commited a violation (of what i see some bloggers asking)

I dont recall Alabama ever declaring them ineligible either.

Oh well, I am clueless.

I am thinking the NCAA stayed up late the night before getting drunk, and then halfassed their work for the following day.

 

[alagator]

There was never any doubt the NCAA would sign off on this. None.

Perhaps so, but my comment was limited to the idea we would play the two without the NCAA first resolving the situation to the NCAA's satisfaction.

To slightly change the topic, at some point in time the discussion of these matters needs to change from 'the NCAA will decide on the issue' to '(Insert Name of Person employed by the NCAA) will decide on the issue.' The secretive nature and identity of the individual(s) who hold sway over these issues needs to be made public.'

 

[BECandGrits]

Hopefully this will not be another Derrick Rose type case.

 

[TerryP]

Perhaps so, but my comment was limited to the idea we would play the two without the NCAA first resolving the situation to the NCAA's satisfaction.

To slightly change the topic, at some point in time the discussion of these matters needs to change from 'the NCAA will decide on the issue' to '(Insert Name of Person employed by the NCAA) will decide on the issue.' The secretive nature and identity of the individual(s) who hold sway over these issues needs to be made public.'

I could only hope.