Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
And that has what to do with what?


Everything. You eluding to some mysterious "hint." Also, your obvious lack of knowledge in marketing and ad revenues, because otherwise why would you ask?

It was posted on ESPN's website on around about July 29th the outlined schedule for the "30 for 30" programs. Henceforth, the SMU portion was already green lighted beforehand.
quote:
Originally posted by tudor rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
And that has what to do with what?


Everything. You eluding to some mysterious "hint." Also, your obvious lack of knowledge in marketing and ad revenues, because otherwise why would you ask?

It was posted on ESPN's website on around about July 29th the outlined schedule for the "30 for 30" programs. Henceforth, the SMU portion was already green lighted beforehand.


What? no link. Surly you can beat that.
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
quote:
Originally posted by tudor rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
And that has what to do with what?


Everything. You eluding to some mysterious "hint." Also, your obvious lack of knowledge in marketing and ad revenues, because otherwise why would you ask?

It was posted on ESPN's website on around about July 29th the outlined schedule for the "30 for 30" programs. Henceforth, the SMU portion was already green lighted beforehand.


What? no link. Surly you can beat that.


lmao...all the garbage you post, and you demand a link from somone else? classic. go ahead...ask me for one.
quote:
Originally posted by tudor rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
What? no link. Surly you can beat that.


http://www.espnmediazone3.com/...80%99-fall-schedule/

What now?


i sure hate to pile on...wait, no i don't.

link

btw...just to add a little salt to that crow...espn's heisman watch from the following week after moving "pony exce$$" to after the hesiman presentation, HAS MARK INGRAM AT #1.
quote:
Originally posted by adamryan1121:
quote:
Originally posted by tudor rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
What? no link. Surly you can beat that.


http://www.espnmediazone3.com/...80%99-fall-schedule/

What now?


i sure hate to pile on...wait, no i don't.

link

btw...just to add a little salt to that crow...espn's heisman watch from the following week after moving "pony exce$$" to after the hesiman presentation, HAS MARK INGRAM AT #1.


By clinging to tudos coattail you just made a fool of yourself too. Better go check his link.
quote:
Additionally, The Best That Never Was – about the rise, fall and comeback of running back Marcus Dupree - will move to Tuesday, Nov. 9, at 8 p.m., and Pony Excess – about how the SMU football program got the NCAA’s “Death Penalty” in 1987 – will now be the closing film of the series on Saturday, Dec. 11, at 9 p.m. following the 2010 Heisman Trophy presentation on ESPN. Both films are two hours long.



Now, as I said...you think ESPN is sending a HINT! Enough to CHANGE their programming that insiders dont even know about... Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
quote:
Originally posted by adamryan1121:
quote:
Originally posted by tudor rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
What? no link. Surly you can beat that.


http://www.espnmediazone3.com/...80%99-fall-schedule/

What now?


i sure hate to pile on...wait, no i don't.

link

btw...just to add a little salt to that crow...espn's heisman watch from the following week after moving "pony exce$$" to after the hesiman presentation, HAS MARK INGRAM AT #1.


By clinging to tudos coattail you just made a fool of yourself too. Better go check his link.


how so? his link proves that espn does their programming MONTHS in advance. like he/she said. mine proves that even when the change their programming...it is still done MONTHS in adance. keep trying.

better check mine. on 9/29/10--
"...Pony Excess – about how the SMU football program got the NCAA’s “Death Penalty” in 1987 – will now be the closing film of the series on Saturday, Dec. 11, at 9 p.m...."
quote:
Originally posted by adamryan1121:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
quote:
Originally posted by tudor rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
And that has what to do with what?


Everything. You eluding to some mysterious "hint." Also, your obvious lack of knowledge in marketing and ad revenues, because otherwise why would you ask?

It was posted on ESPN's website on around about July 29th the outlined schedule for the "30 for 30" programs. Henceforth, the SMU portion was already green lighted beforehand.


What? no link. Surly you can beat that.


lmao...all the garbage you post, and you demand a link from somone else? classic. go ahead...ask me for one.


Adam...in all due respect...I would, but I'm afraid it would take me to a porn site.
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
quote:
Originally posted by adamryan1121:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
quote:
Originally posted by tudor rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
And that has what to do with what?


Everything. You eluding to some mysterious "hint." Also, your obvious lack of knowledge in marketing and ad revenues, because otherwise why would you ask?

It was posted on ESPN's website on around about July 29th the outlined schedule for the "30 for 30" programs. Henceforth, the SMU portion was already green lighted beforehand.


What? no link. Surly you can beat that.


lmao...all the garbage you post, and you demand a link from somone else? classic. go ahead...ask me for one.


Adam...in all due respect...I would, but I'm afraid it would take me to a porn site.


you're afraid of a lot of things. but thanks for clicking on it anyways.
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
I looked at the first scheduled program.. OK so a little over two months deserves the term..."MONTHS"?


well seeing that "months" is the plural of "month," and that span is MORE THAN ONE MONTH (in fact more than 2 monthS), yes.

point being, espn decided to show "pony exce$$" following the heisman presentation 10 weeks and 2 days BEFORE the actual heisman presentation. further more...when that decision was made, MARK INGRAM was at the top of their heisman watch list. in fact, that same week chris low (espn's sec beat writer) had Cam #3 in his sec heisman watch list.

btw, the decision was also made over a month before the "Cam Newton Scandal" broke.
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
The correct term would be 'weeks'. The Newton scandal broke in JULY...MONTHS before.


interesting that between april 29th and august 13th...espn doesn't have ONE story on Cam.

link

as much as you don't want to admit it, espn's first story on it is dated 11/5 (btw, that was when it was updated). a huntsville times artile dated 11/4 includes the phrase;

"For 10 days, he's been the biggest story in college football. And not just because he's the best player in college football."

hell, even on THIS FORUM, the first post about it was on 11/4.

and yes, i know what you're gonna say, "the ncaa knew of it in july." last time i checked, that isn't "breaking a story."
quote:
Originally posted by adamryan1121:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
The correct term would be 'weeks'. The Newton scandal broke in JULY...MONTHS before.


interesting that between april 29th and august 13th...espn doesn't have ONE story on Cam.

link

as much as you don't want to admit it, espn's first story on it is dated 11/5 (btw, that was when it was updated). a huntsville times artile dated 11/4 includes the phrase;

"For 10 days, he's been the biggest story in college football. And not just because he's the best player in college football."

hell, even on THIS FORUM, the first post about it was on 11/4.

and yes, i know what you're gonna say, "the ncaa knew of it in july." last time i checked, that isn't "breaking a story."



Oh...now you want to ADD..."breaking story". Who said that...you? I sure didn't.

The fact is...Auburn knew long before taking action.
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
The fact is...Auburn knew long before taking action.


If the "taking action" you're referring to was Auburn declaring Newton ineligible, that was just a FORMALITY. The NCAA made a ruling FIRST that Newton, because to the actions of HIS FATHER, was guilty of violating the NCAA's amateurism rules. Auburn declared him ineligible and immediately filed for reinstatement, which the NCAA granted on the grounds that there was no evidence he (Cam) or Auburn had any knowledge of Cecil's actions. Since no games were played by Cam during the period of ineligibility, no games were in danger of being vacated. Auburn was aware of the allegations and took action by looking into the matter. They, like the NCAA found no fault in Cam and, since the decision was theirs to make, decided Cam should play.
Dead horse, but...

A July 29 ESPN press release announced that "Pony Exce$$" would debut Tuesday Nov. 9. Another film, the final installment in the network's thought-provoking 30 for 30 series, was set for Dec. 11 in the post-Heisman time slot.
. . .
Instead, the network announced in a Sept. 30 press release, the Dupree film would debut in November and the SMU film, about the only program ever hit with the NCAA's death penalty, would first air after the Heisman.

That date matters. It was weeks before Newton's back-to-back performances against Arkansas (Oct. 16) and LSU (Oct. 23) made him the Heisman front-runner. It was more than a month before the first ESPN.com story (Nov. 4) about his recruiting at Mississippi State.

. . .
"Pony Exce$$" is a riveting look at how SMU recruited its way into national prominence in the 1980s - by systemic cheating, apparently - but anyone who watched that film and made a connection to Auburn football in 2010 has been reading too many message boards.

http://www.al.com/sports/index...n_didnt_pile_on.html
quote:
Originally posted by Tomme73:
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:
The fact is...Auburn knew long before taking action.


If the "taking action" you're referring to was Auburn declaring Newton ineligible, that was just a FORMALITY. The NCAA made a ruling FIRST that Newton, because to the actions of HIS FATHER, was guilty of violating the NCAA's amateurism rules. Auburn declared him ineligible and immediately filed for reinstatement, which the NCAA granted on the grounds that there was no evidence he (Cam) or Auburn had any knowledge of Cecil's actions. Since no games were played by Cam during the period of ineligibility, no games were in danger of being vacated. Auburn was aware of the allegations and took action by looking into the matter. They, like the NCAA found no fault in Cam and, since the decision was theirs to make, decided Cam should play.

Roll Eyes
Cecil admitted to it with games left to play......
Can you say:
con·ven·ient (kn-vnynt)
adj.
1. Suited or favorable to one's comfort, purpose, or needs: a convenient time to receive guests; a convenient excuse for not going.
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5818116

Fromer NCAA compliance officer and current Ohio professor agrees that Auburn did the right thing playing Cam Newton....but I'm sure he's just a "barner", or he's in on the big conspiracy the NCAA concocted to protect Cam right??? lol


Key term in your reply is "former NCAA compliance officer." This is just an OPINION piece. He said himself that he didn't know all the facts of the case to make an informed decision.

This is why most of the college sports world is outraged:
http://www.al.com/sports/index...ays_cecil_newto.html

Let me say this, Cam Newton will be the least of your worries in the coming year.
The guy said straight up, that even if Cecil asked for money, if no money was received then Cam should play. He said there has never been any conviction of a player based on solicitation alone. Especially when the solicitation was in the recruitment at another school. Solicitation is used as evidence when an improper benefit is actually received, but is not used as the primary reason for ineligibility. The NCAA got it right, and the only reason you guys don't think so is because it's an Auburn player. It's really that simple.

And that's an old report and doesn't have anything in it that states I should be worried about anything in the coming year.

Ya'll can get excited about something possibly happening to Auburn all you want...but just remember how ya'll acted the next time Bama receives a letter of inquiry from the NCAA. The University of Alabama is on their repeat offenders list as we speak....I figured if any fanbase would lean towards being mum on this, it would be Bama fans. I don't celebrate Bama getting in NCAA trouble because I know it can happen at any school at any time.... Ya'll should keep that in mind as well.
Repeat offenders doesn't mean squat. I know you are implying "death penalty". If the NCAA was going to give that type of punishment down, they would have done it already. I do not see them ever doing that to ANYONE ever again unless things are just sooo out of control that it it necesary.
They pretty much hurt you just as bad with scholarship reductions.
Do you honestly think Cecil asked MSU for that $$$ and then turned around & went to AU out of the goodness of his heart?!? Heck no, AU (Lowder, DYE, and others) know how to cover-up things....but like I said, Cam will just be the tip of the iceberg that is coming.
No, I wasn't implying the death penalty. The NCAA would never do that again.

And once again, you are going on wild speculation.... how about this...

Do you honestly think that Jerrell Harris "just" got a laptop, and that Julio and Ingram got NOTHING ELSE but the cost of the fishing trip??? HECK NO!!... see... it's real easy to just post rhetorical questions based on zero facts ain't it? lol
I am not speculating...where I live & where I work allows me to come into contact with influential people that are close to certain situations. it will come out in time.

When did Jerrell Harris steal a laptop? Oh wait he didn't. AU booster was nice enough to give it to him & take them all fishing.

You didn't answer my question about Cecil...don't dodge now! I know all AU fans can't be that naive but I get proved wrong everyday. I guess ignorance really is bliss.
I ain't dodgin the question.. I pointed out that you asked a rhetorical question with no factual foundation. Just as I asked you a rhetorical question with no factual foundation. My point was... it's a pointless question with no answer. There are several reasons anyone could state why Cam signed with Auburn. Unless you reside in the mind of Cam, then you don't know the real reason, and neither do I. Just because you only focus on negative means nothing...you hate Auburn. If the shoe was on the other foot you'd be defending the player and Bama.
I'm not naive...I've stated many times, if every player(or someone on their behalf) that solicited or received improper benefits came out, the SEC would look like the Division 3 Championship game I just watched. You are the hater zeroing in ONLY ON AUBURN. I know it happens...sad that it does... but it happens EVERYWHERE THERE IS A WINNER! Whether it happened with Cam or not... I have no clue. But if it did, I hope Auburn doesnt get busted for it. Just like you don't know if something like this happened with any of Bama's top recruits over the last few years...and if it did, you hope they don't get busted for it. That's objectivity in case you couldnt recognize it. LOL
No, I am not naive nor will I blindly defend somebody I don't even know. If the shoe was on the other foot...I would be scared. I can objectively at things even if it is my fav. team. I have only ran across a few AU fans who will admit that something is fishy with the whole deal. Like I said, Cam will just be a small piece of things in the future.

Let's go back to the Albert Means case:
1.)Did Dubose know? No, that wasn't proven
2.) Did Fat Albert know? No, & I can't even remember if his family benefitted. I know his coaches did.
3.) Kentucky also got probabtion over this deal too.
4.) Bama got hammered and I still dont think they proved the actual money trail.

Kinda similar but anyway.

Like I stated before, I dont think cheating is as prevalent as in the past or, teams/boosters are better at hiding it. It would be all over the media...too many people watching now.
The Means case is somewhat relavant in that it was a solid paper trail from a booster/boosters to a coach/coaches from Means' past. But in the end, that was Bama boosters and a player who ended up being eligible at another D-1 school. To me it appears Miss St is this situations Bama, and Auburn is Memphis I believe it was. Very unlikely that if all of this comes out after Cam signs with Miss St that he gets reinstated. But as of now, and this is the part that keeps getting left out, there are absolutely zero improper ties between Cam(or anyone representing him) and Auburn University or anyone affiliated with Auburn. If something comes up later, then fine, ya'll crow all ya'll want. But with facts present, there is nothing bad goin on besides hater speculation. That Means deal spread out over multiple teams... if everyone knew Cam was going to be this once in a generation talent, where are all the smoking guns from Oklahoma and Tennessee?

I'll give you a sensible explanation. Miss State is a middle of the pack SEC West team. This 8 win team which was good enough for 5th in the division, is a GREAT season for them. They have a mediocre stadium, and not a lot of winning tradition. For them to get Cam would be a big time thing, so maybe Cecil decided he'd try to cash in on it. Then he realized he f'ed up big time talking to a guy like Rogers. So he starts pumping Auburn... Auburn is a constant contender in the West every year. They've had what, 3 losing seasons in the last 18 years, and have a long....LONG list of guys playing on Sundays. They have one of the best campuses and stadiums in the nation, and a great offensive coordinator where Cam could succeed. To try to avoid problems with his screw up, he wants Cam to go to Auburn, which is also much closer to home. Also, though Cam loves Mullen, he is also smart enough to see that Auburn was a senior heavy team that overachieved without him last year, so he has to think his chances of winning are much better at AU than MSt. That all seems sensible enough, but is not a stance haters would want to even consider. Only the sensationalized scandal blows their skirt up.

could something shadey have happened... absolutely. But could this scenario I just brought up have happened... absolutely. Just try the balanced approach, it works better everytime.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×