View Full Version : Hey DeLorean
volimhtown
01-10-2005, 04:20 PM
I knew I could find something to dig on you about!!!
I know! I'm getting ready for it. I can sleep better at night knowing that Spurrier does run a clean program though. That is one thing I disdain the most. Cheating! I can't stand it.
Overall, USC has committed minor violations in it's history, but we pride ourselves as a school that has never "BUSTED" the rules just to win.
Don't even get me on Ohio State. If memory serves, I was telling a few friends that I thought Tressel was buying these players. He has earned a rep like that everywhere he's been.
You posted this reply in another thread. You have been openly vocal in the past saying that Tennessee runs a "dirty" program. If South Carolina "prides themselves" for not "busting" the rules, and is only guilty of "minor violations", then where's the smoking gun that differentiates Tennessee's program and South Carolina's??? Tennessee (to my knowledge) as well has only been convicted of "minor violations", so my question to you is.... If both schools are only guilty of "minor violations" then why in your mind does that make Tennessee "dirty" while you are "proud" of South Carolina's indiscretions???
PLEASE enlighten me!!!
Dude...I think you took that out of context....
I knew I could find something to dig on you about!!!
You posted this reply in another thread. You have been openly vocal in the past saying that Tennessee runs a "dirty" program. If South Carolina "prides themselves" for not "busting" the rules, and is only guilty of "minor violations", then where's the smoking gun that differentiates Tennessee's program and South Carolina's??? Tennessee (to my knowledge) as well has only been convicted of "minor violations", so my question to you is.... If both schools are only guilty of "minor violations" then why in your mind does that make Tennessee "dirty" while you are "proud" of South Carolina's indiscretions???
PLEASE enlighten me!!!
In that thread, we were discussing allegations of the Auburn program. I haven't been "openly" vocal about Tennessee that bad now. Some things that have occurred during Fulmer's watch has caused me to raise an eyebrow or two every now and then, but that doesn't translate into me thinking that they are breaking the rules all the time.
One thing I do know for certain is that Spurrier runs a clean ship. He's so clean, when he walks he squeaks. LOL! No where in the NCAA will you find violations committed by SOS in his coaching history.
The reason I scrutinize Tennessee a lot closer is because it seems like trouble follows Mr. Fulmer everywhere. Most of it is beyond his control, but sometimes it makes me really wonder. Everytime I turn around, it's like there's new allegations or a new scandal. Is anyone really that lucky so to speak?
Like the Tee Martin incident. I believe in my heart that Fulmer helped blow that one over. I mean, Martin admitted taking the money and he had the cleared checks as evidence. What more do you need? Now as for this stuff between UT and Bama. I have made my opinion WIDELY known and I will make it known here too.
"You cannot blame UT or Phillip Fulmer for the infractions that Alabama committed. It's Bama's responsibility to follow the rules, not UT's. To be honest, coaches shouldn't have to police other coaches. They all need to follow the rules.
As for the USC and UT comparisions. How many "incidents" or such have occurred at USC? How many times have we been investigated? How many times have we had people claiming that we were paying players? See what I'm getting at? We pride ourselves in not having all of that "Brew ha ha" that most other big schools have. To my knowledge, we have never "bought" players to win.
Personally, I don't have a problem with UT per say. They have never screwed me over directly, but I'm not fond of their recruiting practices to get recruits. For instance;
I know Robert Ayers personally. He was telling me that Mr. Fulmer told him that USC was going on probation that year and that's what convinced him to sign with UT. That crap isn't called for ya know? If Mr. Fulmer would have said that they were being investigated, that's one thing, but Mr. Fulmer sat there and lied to the man in his face.
I hope that answered your questions. I'm a little brain fried right now LOL so if you have more, just ask them a few at a time. :)
Dang dude...I type all of that out and then ya leave??? Man!
UTslaw
01-10-2005, 05:08 PM
Like the Tee Martin incident. I believe in my heart that Fulmer helped blow that one over. I mean, Martin admitted taking the money and he had the cleared checks as evidence. What more do you need? Now as for this stuff between UT and Bama. I have made my opinion WIDELY known and I will make it known here too.
The person who gave the money to Tee Martin was not a UT booster;therefore, there was no violation. If you cocks keep it up with this rumor mongering, you will be right up there with bama fans.
:eek:
The person who gave the money to Tee Martin was not a UT booster;therefore, there was no violation. If you cocks keep it up with this rumor mongering, you will be right up there with bama fans.
:eek:
By the way UT, I was asked for my opinion. I didn't offer it.
It didn't have to be a booster. Tee Martin received the money while playing football for UT. That's an infraction buddy. No matter how you shake, stir, whip, or spin it. That was a blatant violation of NCAA guidelines. It doesn't have to be an employee of the school for it to be a violation. It is against NCAA Guidelines to accept money, benefits or gifts from non NCAA sanctioned sources. Period!
volimhtown
01-10-2005, 05:39 PM
Naw...I'm still here!!! You make valid points...I'm just giving you a hard time.
I do want to respond to one thing you said, though....you said that "trouble seems to follow Fulmer around" while South Carolina has avoided that "brew ha ha". Don't you think (and I know that this is going to ruffle all of the Cocks' feathers) that the reason we hear about every Tennessee cough and burp is because they're Tennessee and considered the top SEC program nationally?? I mean, we don't hear about every indiscretion at Vandy OR Kentucky either yet I'm sure similar stories exist, so why is that. I believe everybody takes shots at the top and that's why we've heared so much about Tennessee. The same has happened to Nebraska when they were on top, to Miami, to Ohio St (granted, some may actually be substantiated), Oklahoma......
The point being, who would care about infractions at South Carolina that has netted them a sub .500 record since joining the SEC where as that would be "Big News" for a Tennessee program and would be in the mind of our rivals, how Tennessee got on top!!! I know that's going to piss you off and you're going to get defensive, but I believe it to be true. I promise you one thing, though....if Spurrier gets South Carolina to the level you believe he will, and the Cocks become "one of the big boys" in the East, you will be amazed at how it seemingly will occur in conjunction with all kinds of accusations and claims of violations. That's the nature of being on top!!
USAFGAMECOCK
01-10-2005, 05:41 PM
By the way UT, I was asked for my opinion. I didn't offer it.
It didn't have to be a booster. Tee Martin received the money while playing football for UT. That's an infraction buddy. No matter how you shake, stir, whip, or spin it. That was a blatant violation of NCAA guidelines. It doesn't have to be an employee of the school for it to be a violation. It is against NCAA Guidelines to accept money, benefits or gifts from non NCAA sanctioned sources. Period!
Well said!! :D
Naw...I'm still here!!! You make valid points...I'm just giving you a hard time.
I do want to respond to one thing you said, though....you said that "trouble seems to follow Fulmer around" while South Carolina has avoided that "brew ha ha". Don't you think (and I know that this is going to ruffle all of the Cocks' feathers) that the reason we hear about every Tennessee cough and burp is because they're Tennessee and considered the top SEC program nationally?? I mean, we don't hear about every indiscretion at Vandy OR Kentucky either yet I'm sure similar stories exist, so why is that. I believe everybody takes shots at the top and that's why we've heared so much about Tennessee. The same has happened to Nebraska when they were on top, to Miami, to Ohio St (granted, some may actually be substantiated), Oklahoma......
The point being, who would care about infractions at South Carolina that has netted them a sub .500 record since joining the SEC where as that would be "Big News" for a Tennessee program and would be in the mind of our rivals, how Tennessee got on top!!! I know that's going to piss you off and you're going to get defensive, but I believe it to be true. I promise you one thing, though....if Spurrier gets South Carolina to the level you believe he will, and the Cocks become "one of the big boys" in the East, you will be amazed at how it seemingly will occur in conjunction with all kinds of accusations and claims of violations. That's the nature of being on top!!
Oh yeah...When you're on the top of the mountain, there are tons of people trying to knock you off. That is a FACT! You've known me for quite a while. I try to be honest and fair and I will not dispute history because you can't. With that, history proves that it's easy to get to the top. The problem is staying at the top. When you're at the top, walking on eggshells is a BIG understatement.
Don't tell me about Nebraska. I already know what you are saying and you are absolutely correct.
As for USC, I believe CarolinaVol and I were talking about this very same topic and she said the same thing. I told her I was ready for it. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if we were investigated next year if we start winning. Wouldn't surprise me not one bit.
Well said!! :D
Thank you.
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 06:43 PM
By the way UT, I was asked for my opinion. I didn't offer it.
It didn't have to be a booster. Tee Martin received the money while playing football for UT. That's an infraction buddy. No matter how you shake, stir, whip, or spin it. That was a blatant violation of NCAA guidelines. It doesn't have to be an employee of the school for it to be a violation. It is against NCAA Guidelines to accept money, benefits or gifts from non NCAA sanctioned sources. Period!
You are dead wrong (what else is new). If the person giving the money was a friend of the athlete, and that friendship existed prior to the athlete signing with a school, it is perfectly legal. Diane Sanford and Wayne Rowe were both friends of the Martin family and that friendship began during Martins highschool, years. Don't take my word for it, read the NCAA guidelines under preexisting relationships.
You are dead wrong (what else is new). If the person giving the money was a friend of the athlete, and that friendship existed prior to the athlete signing with a school, it is perfectly legal. Diane Sanford and Wayne Rowe were both friends of the Martin family and that friendship began during Martins highschool, years. Don't take my word for it, read the NCAA guidelines under preexisting relationships.
Whatever Vol. You are going to dispute any and every bit of wrongdoing by UT. Everyone knows the Tee Martin situation was swept under the rug.
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 06:52 PM
You mistated the rule, if you arent' familiar with the rules, you shouldn't act as if you are. The NCAA and the SEC investigated the Martin case and both found UT in compliance. Also please refresh my memory, what wrongdoings have I disputed? I have had two disputes with you, this one, and you are clearly wrong, and the BS rumor you posted on the front page. BTW, I notice you added that there was nothing new about the rumor. There is plenty new, you said it would appear in todays Miami Herald, it didn't. Guess you forgot to add that little tidbit.
UTslaw
01-10-2005, 06:53 PM
Whatever Vol. You are going to dispute any and every bit of wrongdoing by UT. Everyone knows the Tee Martin situation was swept under the rug.
When you make unfounded accusations about UT cheating then you should expect most true UT fans to stand up for their university. The NCAA found that there were no violations in regards to Tee Martin. I would rather take their word for it instead of a bunch of bama conspiracy theorists who follow Tommy "Night School" Gallion around and take every word he says as the gospel.
southrngmck
01-10-2005, 06:54 PM
I don't like the rumors either. I was the one who called the Miami Herald yesterday to dispel the rumor. I hate the rumors that fly during recruiting season and other times. I don't care if they are about USC, UT, UF, or even Clemson. If they're rumors, let 'em die.
If you cocks keep it up with this rumor mongering, you will be right up there with bama fans.
:eek:
You mistated the rule, if you arent' familiar with the rules, you shouldn't act as if you are. The NCAA and the SEC investigated the Martin case and both found UT in compliance. Also please refresh my memory, what wrongdoings have I disputed? I have had two disputes with you, this one, and you are clearly wrong, and the BS rumor you posted on the front page. BTW, I notice you added that there was nothing new about the rumor. There is plenty new, you said it would appear in todays Miami Herald, it didn't. Guess you forgot to add that little tidbit.
Oh Mr. Recruiter are ya huh? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the NCAA Guidelines bud.
I don't like the rumors either. I was the one who called the Miami Herald yesterday to dispel the rumor. I hate the rumors that fly during recruiting season and other times. I don't care if they are about USC, UT, UF, or even Clemson. If they're rumors, let 'em die.
Oh that's right. You're the one that actually called them and expected a response. Your attempt at validation was humorous at best. :D
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 07:03 PM
Oh Mr. Recruiter are ya huh? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the NCAA Guidelines bud.
I have Mr. Cub Reporter. You obviously don't have a clue or you wouldn't have misstated the rule. BTW, I am not a recruiter, nor am I a rumor mongerer. How about you?
When you make unfounded accusations about UT cheating then you should expect most true UT fans to stand up for their university. The NCAA found that there were no violations in regards to Tee Martin. I would rather take their word for it instead of a bunch of bama conspiracy theorists who follow Tommy "Night School" Gallion around and take every word he says as the gospel.
Yep...You will defend your school without the benefit of intellect. Your blinding love for UT is evident. So evident that I bet you think your farts don't stink?
southrngmck
01-10-2005, 07:05 PM
They did not do the story today. As I recall, you said they would. My attempt may be humorous, but their response was correct, unlike your post. I would say that my information appears to be more valid than yours.
Oh that's right. You're the one that actually called them and expected a response. Your attempt at validation was humorous at best. :D
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 07:08 PM
Yep...You will defend your school without the benefit of intellect. Your blinding love for UT is evident. So evident that I bet you think your farts don't stink do ya?
IAnd that passes as intellecual? I'm guessiang you are about 14 years old, other wise there is no excuse for such a lame retort.
I have Mr. Cub Reporter. You obviously don't have a clue or you wouldn't have misstated the rule. BTW, I am not a recruiter, nor am I a rumor mongerer. How about you?
Yep..sure... I own 75% of Microsoft and I have a Unicorn in my backyard. :rolleyes:
I find it funny that all the experts come out just at the right time. :rolleyes:
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 07:10 PM
They did not do the story today. As I recall, you said they would. My attempt may be humorous, but their response was correct, unlike your post. I would say that my information appears to be more valid than yours.
Thanks for making the phone call. BTW, you will never fit in here, you are to open minded.
IAnd that passes as intellecual? I'm guessiang you are about 14 years old, other wise there is no excuse for such a lame retort.
Ow...That one hurt. :rolleyes:
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 07:13 PM
Yep..sure... I own 75% of Microsoft and I have a Unicorn in my backyard.
I find it funny that all the experts come out just at the right time.
EYou just can't admit you were wrong can you? No, I don't consider myself an expert about the NCAA rulebook, but I obviously know a hell of a lot more about it than you.
They did not do the story today. As I recall, you said they would. My attempt may be humorous, but their response was correct, unlike your post. I would say that my information appears to be more valid than yours.
Let me ask you something? How do you know if it is or isn't true?
Look at it this way, how do you know who your daddy is? Because your mother told you so that's why.
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 07:19 PM
Ok, I got it, when you run out of intellectual gas, you resort to personal insults. The fact is, Soutrmgmck posted yesterday that he phoned the Miami Herald and they told him that they weren't doing the story. We wake up this morning, go to the Herald web site, no story. He has a heck of a lot more credibility than you, hey maybe you can get him to write you front page articles. He actually does a little research.
Ok, I got it, when you run out of intellectual gas, you resort to personal insults. The fact is, Soutrmgmck posted yesterday that he phoned the Miami Herald and they told him that they weren't doing the story. We wake up this morning, go to the Herald web site, no story. He has a heck of a lot more credibility than you, hey maybe you can get him to write you front page articles. He actually does a little research.
That's not an insult. That's not how it was intended. That was a question that pertained to this situation. How do you know? Sometimes you have to let things sail for a little bit before you judge them.
Ok, I got it, when you run out of intellectual gas, you resort to personal insults. The fact is, Soutrmgmck posted yesterday that he phoned the Miami Herald and they told him that they weren't doing the story. We wake up this morning, go to the Herald web site, no story. He has a heck of a lot more credibility than you, hey maybe you can get him to write you front page articles. He actually does a little research.
Can you honestly tell me that the newspaper would tell you over the phone what they were working on? :D
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 07:23 PM
Asking him how he knew whom is daddy was isn't an insult?
Asking him how he knew whom is daddy was isn't an insult?
It was not intended that way. He read it how he wanted to.
The question still stands.
How do you know if it's real or not? :D
southrngmck
01-10-2005, 07:26 PM
Where I come from in South Carolina, you don't say something about someone unless you know for sure it is true. You don't take something you hear and spread it without verifying it as best as possible. Now, I took what you said, checked it the best way I knew how (calling the Miami Herald), and believed the guy working in their sports department. And he was right. No story broke today.
Hey, one day UT may get busted for recruiting violations. I'm not saying it won't happen. Any team could. But until I hear it from a reputable source, I ain't gonna spread that rumor about them. I didn't like it when the newspapers down in Augusta, Georgia did that to us while Derek Watson was on the team. I didn't like it when Clemson fans did it by publishing false reports that Spurrier wasn't coming to USC. I don't like it when it happens to the Vols on message boards.
Let me ask you something? How do you know if it is or isn't true?
Look at it this way, how do you know who your daddy is? Because your mother told you so that's why.
Where I come from in South Carolina, you don't say something about someone unless you know for sure it is true. You don't take something you hear and spread it without verifying it as best as possible. Now, I took what you said, checked it the best way I knew how (calling the Miami Herald), and believed the guy working in their sports department. And he was right. No story broke today.
Hey, one day UT may get busted for recruiting violations. I'm not saying it won't happen. Any team could. But until I hear it from a reputable source, I ain't gonna spread that rumor about them. I didn't like it when the newspapers down in Augusta, Georgia did that to us while Derek Watson was on the team. I didn't like it when Clemson fans did it by publishing false reports that Spurrier wasn't coming to USC. I don't like it when it happens to the Vols on message boards.
If you don't like it...Quit coming here. No one is making you stay. :D
You aren't the only one from SC either. :p
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 07:29 PM
How do you know if it's real or not?
You got it backwards sonny. You don't ask the reader to prove that a rumor is a lie, it is up to the author to prove that it is true. You have failed miserably, and you don't have the nads to admit it.
You got it backwards sonny. You don't ask the reader to prove that a rumor is a lie, it is up to the author to prove that it is true. You have failed miserably, and you don't have the nads to admit it.
That's just it....You don't have to prove a RUMOR! Keyword....RUMOR.
A rumor is what it is. An allegation, accusation, etc, etc.
You got it backwards sonny. You don't ask the reader to prove that a rumor is a lie, it is up to the author to prove that it is true. You have failed miserably, and you don't have the nads to admit it.
If I'm so far off base, you would not be giving this that much attention.
GatorNation
01-10-2005, 07:35 PM
Don't you think (and I know that this is going to ruffle all of the Cocks' feathers) that the reason we hear about every Tennessee cough and burp is because they're Tennessee and considered the top SEC program nationally??
Um....no. But thanks for playing. :D
http://www246.pair.com/autoybkh/albums/funnies_/slap.gif
http://www246.pair.com/autoybkh/albums/funnies_/thanks.jpg
Volmeister
01-10-2005, 07:35 PM
Hey DeLorean
That's it. You've used your 3 strikes.
southrngmck
01-10-2005, 07:36 PM
I can take the heat. The way I see it my being here keeps other fans from around the SEC who happen upon this board from believing rumors. It helps 18 year-old recruits who stumble upon this site find information rather than disinformation so that they can make an informed decision about their education future.
Now why is it you're here?
If you don't like it...Quit coming here. No one is making you stay. :D
I can take the heat. The way I see it my being here keeps other fans from around the SEC who happen upon this board from believing rumors. It helps 18 year-old recruits who stumble upon this site find information rather than disinformation so that they can make an informed decision about their education future.
Now why is it you're here?
That's because I like it here. You don't see me complaining everytime someone says something I don't like. You automatically think that I'm doing this out of fun and it's not like that. You don't know anything about me. :)
The NCAA and the SEC investigated the Martin case and both found UT in compliance.
Isn't that when the super honest SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer was in charge? :rolleyes:
GatorNation
01-10-2005, 08:02 PM
Where I come from in South Carolina, you don't say something about someone unless you know for sure it is true. You don't take something you hear and spread it without verifying it as best as possible. Now, I took what you said, checked it the best way I knew how (calling the Miami Herald), and believed the guy working in their sports department. And he was right. No story broke today.
Hey, one day UT may get busted for recruiting violations. I'm not saying it won't happen. Any team could. But until I hear it from a reputable source, I ain't gonna spread that rumor about them. I didn't like it when the newspapers down in Augusta, Georgia did that to us while Derek Watson was on the team. I didn't like it when Clemson fans did it by publishing false reports that Spurrier wasn't coming to USC. I don't like it when it happens to the Vols on message boards.
This is ridiculous. Some of you guys are pretending to be holier-than-thou fb fans who pride themselves on always avoiding gossip and rumor. I don't believe it. If it was a rumor about USC or UGA or UF or LSU, you'd be posting like madmen. Del hasn't done anything wrong; so, get off his case. It was a rumor that some of us independently heard a few days ago....we said it was only a rumor....and no one knows if it's true. But it HAS prompted some vigorous and interesting posts, which are not too frequent on this site.
If you vol fans are so sure about your beloved Fulmer, stop sweating the discussion. You give Bama fans ammo when you run around posting like idiots, ranting and raving about UT's perception and the rumor mill, etc. Just let it go. If it's all bunk, you'll be vindicated soon enough.
carolinavol
01-10-2005, 09:19 PM
This is ridiculous. Some of you guys are pretending to be holier-than-thou fb fans who pride themselves on always avoiding gossip and rumor. I don't believe it. If it was a rumor about USC or UGA or UF or LSU, you'd be posting like madmen. Del hasn't done anything wrong; so, get off his case. It was a rumor that some of us independently heard a few days ago....we said it was only a rumor....and no one knows if it's true. But it HAS prompted some vigorous and interesting posts, which are not too frequent on this site.
If you vol fans are so sure about your beloved Fulmer, stop sweating the discussion. You give Bama fans ammo when you run around posting like idiots, ranting and raving about UT's perception and the rumor mill, etc. Just let it go. If it's all bunk, you'll be vindicated soon enough.
Yeah, vindicated when? Two days AFTER signing day? These 'rumors' have a clear purpose, to impact UT recruiting. If you will notice, Gallion went on Finebaum last year a few weeks before signing day, and just before UT had a lot of Blue Chippers in for official visits, with purely fabricated BS, that nothing was said about after signing day. Coincidence in the timing, well, if you believe that.... Anyhow, this current rumor was fueled by Miami fans who see their program going down the toilet, and see UT beating them for recruits in their own backyard, but it was started by a lunatic 'expert' on a Bama Recruiting site. Clearly this is just another attempt to fuel a stereotype of Fulmer and UT. I don't think any VOL fan should have to explain why we don't simply wait until the 'dust settles', or one day after recruiting season is over, to attack this BS.
Also, as for the Rule on Tee Martin, it is correct that athletes can get money from people so long as they are not agents or actors from the respective schools. For example, would it be a violation for Archie Manning to send his sons money every month or so, just as a lot of college parents and students do? Of course not. Now, kids without parents can get support to, so long as the support does not come from an interest of the University, and that the source of the support was based on a preexisting relationship. This was found to be the case in the Tee Martin case, and thus, not a violation.
volimhtown
01-10-2005, 09:24 PM
Hey GatorNation, do you also have film of Gaffney's (I think it was him) phantom catch in the end-zone in Knoxville from a few years ago??? Funny how what goes around comes around!!!
volimhtown
01-10-2005, 09:25 PM
Geez, DeLorean....didn't mean to give you THAT much grief....thanks for your honest response, though (if I can remember that far back after reading all of this)!!!
Ironica
01-10-2005, 09:45 PM
By the way UT, I was asked for my opinion. I didn't offer it.
It didn't have to be a booster. Tee Martin received the money while playing football for UT. That's an infraction buddy. No matter how you shake, stir, whip, or spin it. That was a blatant violation of NCAA guidelines. It doesn't have to be an employee of the school for it to be a violation. It is against NCAA Guidelines to accept money, benefits or gifts from non NCAA sanctioned sources. Period!
Receiving money while playing football at an NCAA institution is not a defacto violation. The issue is did the money come from someone connected to the university. Agree with it or not, the ruling in the Tee Martin case was that the source of the cash was a family friend of Tee's prior to Tee's athletic potential being known. Think of it this way. You go to USC on a football scholarship. Your family doesn't have resources and you need cash for a car repair. There is a family friend that has known you since you were 10 and he sends you some money to help out. He is not a USC booster (e.g. has never contributed to USC nor a USC alum). This is not a NCAA violation. This is essentially the core of the Tee Martin case. The issue of concern is that allegations were made that a known booster (some women in Mobile) gave the money to the family friend to give to Tee. The NCAA said no evidence of that.
Hell, I don't know if it was a booster or not but the point remains, college athletes can receive all kinds of money from people if they are not connected to the school.
Ironica
01-10-2005, 09:57 PM
Receiving money while playing football at an NCAA institution is not a defacto violation. The issue is did the money come from someone connected to the university. Agree with it or not, the ruling in the Tee Martin case was that the source of the cash was a family friend of Tee's prior to Tee's athletic potential being known. Think of it this way. You go to USC on a football scholarship. Your family doesn't have resources and you need cash for a car repair. There is a family friend that has known you since you were 10 and he sends you some money to help out. He is not a USC booster (e.g. has never contributed to USC nor a USC alum). This is not a NCAA violation. This is essentially the core of the Tee Martin case. The issue of concern is that allegations were made that a known booster (some women in Mobile) gave the money to the family friend to give to Tee. The NCAA said no evidence of that.
Hell, I don't know if it was a booster or not but the point remains, college athletes can receive all kinds of money from people if they are not connected to the school.
I posted this prior to reading the whole thread not realizing this had been covered already.
The point still stands - check the NCAA rules before deciding what is and isn't a violation. I don't know if the sources of cash really are family friends but do know that cash from family friends is okay with NCAA provided they are not acting on behalf of the university in question -- check the facts.
Another example - Gallion and company cite the case of Peyton against the trainer (Jamie something) as more evidence of the NCAA looking the other way. The allegation is sexual harrassment which Peyton denies. However, even if Peyton was guilty as sin - nothing in the case is an NCAA violation! The same holds true on tutor-gate. Historically, this type of thing is avoided by the NCAA as it gets to academic rules within the university. As a graduate of UT, I am embarrassed and appalled if these allegations are true. However, once again they are at best borderline NCAA issues. Check the rules. Bottomline, UT has some question marks - not to excuse it but many schools do. However, it is wrong to say the NCAA is looking the other way. Bottomline, if these allegations are true (an if) these still do not constitute NCAA violations.
What is shown in this thread is the power of rumor and misinformation.
I'm not shooting at you Delorean but in another thread you explained the steroid thing at USC as not being an NCAA violation at the time and blown out of proportion. The same could be said with the Tee Martin thing, no? Why not give the benefit of the doubt (innocent till proven guilty)?
QuackAttackVan
01-10-2005, 11:53 PM
That's because I like it here. You don't see me complaining everytime someone says something I don't like.
:eek: :rolleyes:
I'm not shooting at you Delorean but in another thread you explained the steroid thing at USC as not being an NCAA violation at the time and blown out of proportion. The same could be said with the Tee Martin thing, no? Why not give the benefit of the doubt (innocent till proven guilty)?
I can tell you didn't read my responses at the beginning of the thread, but it's ok. :)
Geez, DeLorean....didn't mean to give you THAT much grief....thanks for your honest response, though (if I can remember that far back after reading all of this)!!!
Well it's like I said dude, I try to be honest and fair. :)
Hell, I don't know if it was a booster or not but the point remains, college athletes can receive all kinds of money from people if they are not connected to the school.
Correction....
NCAA By-Law 16.12.2 Non-Permissible Benefits
16.12.2.1 General Rule: The student athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term "Extra Benefit" refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution's athletics interests (Boosters, Allumni and Fans) to provide the student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.
NCAA By-Law 16.12.2.3 Other Prohibited Benefits
A: A loan of money.
B: A guarantee of bond.
C: An automobile or use of an automobile.
D: Transportation except where permitted by in 16.10.1-e.
E: Signing or co-signing a note with an outside agency to arrange a loan.
Now how can you spin that???? :)
Um....no. But thanks for playing. :D
http://www246.pair.com/autoybkh/albums/funnies_/slap.gif
http://www246.pair.com/autoybkh/albums/funnies_/thanks.jpg
Good one Gator...Very nice!!! :)
JBryant12
01-11-2005, 06:22 AM
dern i wish i could get some pics like that. those are hilarious.
dern i wish i could get some pics like that. those are hilarious.
They are aren't they???? :D
Ironica
01-11-2005, 08:34 AM
I can tell you didn't read my responses at the beginning of the thread, but it's ok. :)
I did read them - perhaps I took them the wrong way. In case my point wasn't clear, I'm referring to the view that says because Tee took money this is an NCAA violation. I see where you posted NCAA bylaws and I guess my only spin would be 1) does the language exclude all financial benefits or just the ones specifically listed and 2) does the list refer to some sources (e.g. institutional agents/actors as defined in the above bylaw. In essence, it's a bit like the tax code. Look at the recent example where UA misunderstood the ''grayshirt" rule. In the Tee case, the NCAA themselves said the money was permissable according to their own rules.
Back to the point of my post - you defended an incident at USC by saying it was not an NCAA issue at the time - the analogy is that while on the surface it looked like one to the general public, a closer look revealed that it was not technically a violation. The same holds in this case. I'm not the one who said the money was not a violation. The NCAA did in their report! They didn't find that money wasn't provided, they found that it did not violate their own rules.
I'm not accusing you of anything but your early posts indicate you think the Tee thing was/is fishy. Others thought the same thing about the steroid thing at USC but you correctly posted that while questionable, it was not a violation thus USC didn't get away with anything.
Bottomline, all this isn't a big deal. In the short time I've been here - I've noticed that you tend to take a devil's advocate role - I'm doing the same. If I've misinterpreted your comments again - my bad.
I read in another thread you were just made admin - Congrats!
I did read them - perhaps I took them the wrong way. In case my point wasn't clear, I'm referring to the view that says because Tee took money this is an NCAA violation. I see where you posted NCAA bylaws and I guess my only spin would be 1) does the language exclude all financial benefits or just the ones specifically listed and 2) does the list refer to some sources (e.g. institutional agents/actors as defined in the above bylaw. In essence, it's a bit like the tax code. Look at the recent example where UA misunderstood the ''grayshirt" rule. In the Tee case, the NCAA themselves said the money was permissable according to their own rules.
The By-Laws that I copied were in the section titled: "Benefits, Gifts and Services." According to the By-Laws posted, there is no "gray" area. Each section of the By-Laws handle different things. For instance:
Agents and such fall under the "Amateurism" section By-Law 12.1 General Regulations 12.1.1
Back to the point of my post - you defended an incident at USC by saying it was not an NCAA issue at the time - the analogy is that while on the surface it looked like one to the general public, a closer look revealed that it was not technically a violation. The same holds in this case. I'm not the one who said the money was not a violation. The NCAA did in their report! They didn't find that money wasn't provided, they found that it did not violate their own rules.!
Mr. Martin lied to the NCAA during their investigation of the allegations of wrongdoing. Only after the NCAA closed their investigation did Mr. Martin come forward and admit that he accepted money. By then, the UT Athletic Dept. conducted an internal investigation and found no wrongdoing. The NCAA never reopened the case even after he lied to investigators to begin with. So we have a guy here admitting guilt and has proof, but no violations were found? C'mon! I would rather believe in the "Single Bullet Theory" before I buy that no violation crap.
I'm not accusing you of anything but your early posts indicate you think the Tee thing was/is fishy. Others thought the same thing about the steroid thing at USC but you correctly posted that while questionable, it was not a violation thus USC didn't get away with anything.
The so called "Steroid" scandal at USC was blown out of proportion at the behest of Clemson University. Two players were taking steroids illegally and as soon as it was discovered, they were disciplined and kicked off the team. There were no NCAA Guidelines at the time governing steroids.
Bottomline, all this isn't a big deal. In the short time I've been here - I've noticed that you tend to take a devil's advocate role - I'm doing the same. If I've misinterpreted your comments again - my bad.
I read in another thread you were just made admin - Congrats!
Thanks! As you can tell...I've been here for a while. (Post count) Yes I like to play devil's advocate a lot because it makes for good debate. Am I right or wrong??? LOL! As VolTown will tell you. I'm an honest and fair person. When someone asks my honest opinion, I will give it to them.
I can honesty look in the mirror and be proud of USC. They seem to take the moral high road over winning all the time. For instance;
According to NCAA records, USC hasn't had a major infraction with the NCAA since 1967. That's 38 years! Even though us "USC" fans wanna win at all costs, we're not about to circumvent (Cheat) the rules to win.
Ironica
01-11-2005, 09:25 AM
The By-Laws that I copied were in the section titled: "Benefits, Gifts and Services." According to the By-Laws posted, there is no "gray" area. Each section of the By-Laws handle different things. For instance:
Agents and such fall under the "Amateurism" section By-Law 12.1 General Regulations 12.1.1
Mr. Martin lied to the NCAA during their investigation of the allegations of wrongdoing. Only after the NCAA closed their investigation did Mr. Martin come forward and admit that he accepted money. By then, the UT Athletic Dept. conducted an internal investigation and found no wrongdoing. The NCAA never reopened the case even after he lied to investigators to begin with. So we have a guy here admitting guilt and has proof, but no violations were found? C'mon! I would rather believe in the "Single Bullet Theory" before I buy that no violation crap.
The so called "Steroid" scandal at USC was blown out of proportion at the behest of Clemson University. Two players were taking steroids illegally and as soon as it was discovered, they were disciplined and kicked off the team. There were no NCAA Guidelines at the time governing steroids.
Thanks! As you can tell...I've been here for a while. (Post count) Yes I like to play devil's advocate a lot because it makes for good debate. Am I right or wrong??? LOL! As VolTown will tell you. I'm an honest and fair person. When someone asks my honest opinion, I will give it to them.
Since there is no "gray" area in the bylaws then isn't the gift of cash by definition acceptable (depending on the source)? It is not specifically listed. :) (e.g. loan, car, co-sign, etc.)
I read through the NCAA report and they indicated that the money came from someone whose relationship with Tee pre-dated the knowledge of Tee's athletic potential (I haven't scanned the bylaws but I'm sure this type of thing is in there since the NCAA used specific language).
I'm not arguing that this was or wasn't a violation - the question in my mind is whether the source was kosher. It was thought that the money was funneled through the family friend by a booster - Sanford. What I'm arguing is the contention that money from a non-family member is a defacto NCAA violation. There are any number of kids on scholarship from all sorts of family situations such as single parent or no parent homes. In many of these cases long-time family friends (who are not legal guardians) can support the athlete's education.
I'm at least skeptical that the Tee thing is totally clean (due to questions about the source - not the act of getting $) but I'm even more skeptical that the NCAA saw a major violation there and ignored it for other reasons.
Since there is no "gray" area in the bylaws then isn't the gift of cash by definition acceptable (depending on the source)? It is not specifically listed. :) (e.g. loan, car, co-sign, etc.)
I read through the NCAA report and they indicated that the money came from someone whose relationship with Tee pre-dated the knowledge of Tee's athletic potential (I haven't scanned the bylaws but I'm sure this type of thing is in there since the NCAA used specific language).
I'm not arguing that this was or wasn't a violation - the question in my mind is whether the source was kosher. It was thought that the money was funneled through the family friend by a booster - Sanford. What I'm arguing is the contention that money from a non-family member is a defacto NCAA violation. There are any number of kids on scholarship from all sorts of family situations such as single parent or no parent homes. In many of these cases long-time family friends (who are not legal guardians) can support the athlete's education.
I'm at least skeptical that the Tee thing is totally clean (due to questions about the source - not the act of getting $) but I'm even more skeptical that the NCAA saw a major violation there and ignored it for other reasons.
Question 1: Correction....
NCAA By-Law 16.12.2 Non-Permissible Benefits
16.12.2.1 General Rule: The student athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term "Extra Benefit" refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution's athletics interests (Boosters, Allumni and Fans) to provide the student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.
NCAA By-Law 16.12.2.3 Other Prohibited Benefits
A: A loan of money.
B: A guarantee of bond.
C: An automobile or use of an automobile.
D: Transportation except where permitted by in 16.10.1-e.
E: Signing or co-signing a note with an outside agency to arrange a loan.
Now how can you spin that???? :)
Question 2: During the NCAA investigation Mr. Martin initially said that it came from a family friend, but then recended that statement upon graduating and being drafted. He later stated that it came from a UT Alumni/booster.
Question 3: You are thinking the same thing I am.(See we think alike ;)) I think that there may be an argument here. Why didn't they reopen the investigation? Could it be that they were too busy targeting Alabama? I would say that's a strong possibilty because Alabama was slapped with sanctions shortly after UT's altercation with the NCAA.
Could the "Tide" fans have a possible gripe about this? I can see where they could possibly see a link between the two. It's a classic misdirection play that the FED's play all of the time. (BTW: I know because I'm a former FED)
You tell us such and such and we will let this incident "slide".
If you were to make a dateline of events, they are pretty dang close. :)
Just my 0.02
Ironica
01-11-2005, 02:18 PM
[QUOTE=DeLoreanfan1]Question 1:
If you read what is in bylaw it specifically defines an extra benefit as those coming from certain types of sources (e.g. alumni, etc.). Since there is no gray - how can you say it excludes benefits coming from other sources not mentioned (e.g. family and friends).
In the second part of the bylaw it specifically mentions certain benefits as not being allowed - what is not mentioned is gifts of money. You might argue this is implied but if so why not specifically mention it since even more specific examples are mentioned?
I'm not trying to spin this but I believe the only answer is to consult a contract lawyer familiar with NCAA bylaws. Just as the tax code specifically includes or excludes - isn't it reasonable to assume the same holds here? My original point is that receiving cash as a student athlete is not a defacto NCAA violation. The bylaw you presented does not contradict that point especially if there is to be no gray area in the interpretation.
For the sake of others who have to wade through our posts, I'll try to make this my last word on the topic :)
[QUOTE=DeLoreanfan1]Question 1:
If you read what is in bylaw it specifically defines an extra benefit as those coming from certain types of sources (e.g. alumni, etc.). Since there is no gray - how can you say it excludes benefits coming from other sources not mentioned (e.g. family and friends).
In the second part of the bylaw it specifically mentions certain benefits as not being allowed - what is not mentioned is gifts of money. You might argue this is implied but if so why not specifically mention it since even more specific examples are mentioned?
I'm not trying to spin this but I believe the only answer is to consult a contract lawyer familiar with NCAA bylaws. Just as the tax code specifically includes or excludes - isn't it reasonable to assume the same holds here? My original point is that receiving cash as a student athlete is not a defacto NCAA violation. The bylaw you presented does not contradict that point especially if there is to be no gray area in the interpretation.
For the sake of others who have to wade through our posts, I'll try to make this my last word on the topic :)
Hey! This is good reading material and you know it. :)
Ironica
01-11-2005, 02:29 PM
Here's some research I did:
16.12.1.3 Loan from Established Family Friend. A student-athlete may receive a loan from an
established family friend without such arrangement constituting an extra benefit, provided:
(Adopted: 1/11/94)
(a) The loan is not offered to the student-athlete based in any degree on his or her athletics ability or
reputation;
(b) The individual providing the loan is not considered a representative of the institution’s athletics
interests; and
(c) The relationship between the individual providing the loan and the student-athlete existed prior
to the initiation of the student-athlete’s recruitment by the member institution.
Whether or not you agree that this is what really happened in the Tee Martin case - this is the ruling that the NCAA made and it does show that student athletes can receive $, loans and a host of other benefits under certain conditions.
Here's some research I did:
16.12.1.3 Loan from Established Family Friend. A student-athlete may receive a loan from an
established family friend without such arrangement constituting an extra benefit, provided:
(Adopted: 1/11/94)
(a) The loan is not offered to the student-athlete based in any degree on his or her athletics ability or
reputation;
(b) The individual providing the loan is not considered a representative of the institution’s athletics
interests; and
(c) The relationship between the individual providing the loan and the student-athlete existed prior
to the initiation of the student-athlete’s recruitment by the member institution.
Whether or not you agree that this is what really happened in the Tee Martin case - this is the ruling that the NCAA made and it does show that student athletes can receive $, loans and a host of other benefits under certain conditions.
Okay..let's say you are correct for a moment. Then why did Mr. Martin come forward after graduating saying that it was an allumi/Booster that gave him the money?
Another thing that puzzles me is why this paying Alumni/Booster went through a third party to give Mr. Martin the money.
Ironica
01-11-2005, 02:43 PM
Were kind of talking apples and oranges here.
The original point was that yes athletes can receive financial benefits from certain sources and that is what the ruling was in the Tee case. I think that's pretty well established. There were posts in this thread claiming that receiving money is a violation. It may or may not be depending on the situation.
The other issue is was the ruling correct or was there funny business going on in the Tee case. Neither one of us can answer that for sure. It is then an even further step into speculation to say that 1) it was a violation and 2) it was intentionally ignored as a quid pro quo for dirt on Bama. All of that may be true. It's just as we walk further and further away from known facts into speculation about how events we didn't observe fit together - we get on shakier ground. For example it could be that 1) it wasn't a violation, 2) it was a violation and the NCAA missed it, 3) it was a violation but the NCAA was otherwise distracted (had a bigger fish on the hook), 4) it was a case of quid pro quo, 5, 6 ,7 8.... Over and over in these threads I've admitted that it could be a violation but the real point I've been trying to make (obsessively :) ) is that benefits can be given to players and that is what the ruling was in this case. Whew!
Ahhhh The plot thickens......Check out this *official* UT Athletics webpage.
A Guide for Athletic Representives
The University of Tennessee is responsible for the actions of the student-athletes, coaches, staff, alumni, friends, and boosters/donors. Together and in compliance with NCAA and SEC legislation we can ensure The University of Tennessee will remain at the forefront of integrity and sportsmanship.
Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with three important rules. If you have any questions regarding the information presented or any other question, please contact the compliance office at (865) 974-3871 or www.utsports.com
For a two page print-out of the UT Guide Click Here--> UT GUIDE For Athletic Representives
What is a Representative of Athletic Interests (boosters/donors)?
NCAA rules indicate that all alumni, friends, and employees of the University are categorized as "representatives of athletics interests." The NCAA stipulates that once an individual has been identified as a representative or "booster/donor" of the University's athletics programs, he or she retains this status forever even if the individual is no longer associated with the athletics program.
Furthermore, the NCAA states that it is possible to be a representative of athletics interest at more than one university at the same time.
A representative of athletics interest is anyone who has ever:
1. Made any type of contribution to the athletics department or to the booster club
2. Joined the institution's booster club or any sport specific support group
3. Provided or helped arrange employment for a student-athletic
4. Provided benefits to enrolled student-athletics or their families
5. Assisted in any manner in the recruitment of prospective student-athletics
6. Promoted the institution's athletics program in any manner.
http://www.smokeys-trail.com/News/ncaa-bylaws.html
VollyParton
01-11-2005, 07:49 PM
Cause that made it ok for those Florida players to take money from a sports agent. Spurrier was tough - he told 'em "You'd better watch it!"
Cause that made it ok for those Florida players to take money from a sports agent. Spurrier was tough - he told 'em "You'd better watch it!"
Volly,
When players are going to enter the draft, they usually sign with an agent. That agent usually gives them a loan up front until the NFL Draft. Signing with an agent makes you no longer eligible. The moment you sign the contract with the agent, you are free and clear of the NCAA. Good Try though. :)
UTslaw
01-11-2005, 08:03 PM
Ahhhh The plot thickens......Check out this *official* UT Athletics webpage.
A Guide for Athletic Representives
The University of Tennessee is responsible for the actions of the student-athletes, coaches, staff, alumni, friends, and boosters/donors. Together and in compliance with NCAA and SEC legislation we can ensure The University of Tennessee will remain at the forefront of integrity and sportsmanship.
Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with three important rules. If you have any questions regarding the information presented or any other question, please contact the compliance office at (865) 974-3871 or www.utsports.com
For a two page print-out of the UT Guide Click Here--> UT GUIDE For Athletic Representives
What is a Representative of Athletic Interests (boosters/donors)?
NCAA rules indicate that all alumni, friends, and employees of the University are categorized as "representatives of athletics interests." The NCAA stipulates that once an individual has been identified as a representative or "booster/donor" of the University's athletics programs, he or she retains this status forever even if the individual is no longer associated with the athletics program.
Furthermore, the NCAA states that it is possible to be a representative of athletics interest at more than one university at the same time.
A representative of athletics interest is anyone who has ever:
1. Made any type of contribution to the athletics department or to the booster club
2. Joined the institution's booster club or any sport specific support group
3. Provided or helped arrange employment for a student-athletic
4. Provided benefits to enrolled student-athletics or their families
5. Assisted in any manner in the recruitment of prospective student-athletics
6. Promoted the institution's athletics program in any manner.
http://www.smokeys-trail.com/News/ncaa-bylaws.html
I don't see how the plot thickens. This is what we have been saying the whole time. Maybe you should improve on your reading comprehension.
VollyParton
01-11-2005, 08:04 PM
Volly,
When players are going to enter the draft, they usually sign with an agent. That agent usually gives them a loan up front until the NFL Draft. Signing with an agent makes you no longer eligible. The moment you sign the contract with the agent, you are free and clear of the NCAA. Good Try though. :)
You do know Tank Black gave Florida players cars while they were still playing for UF, don't you? It didn't come out until they had left school. The NCAA determined Spurrier probably didn't know about it. He banned the alumns from coming back to use UF facilities. Don't pretend nothing happened here.
And Tee didn't get money from an alumnus or booster. The woman didn't go to UT & the NCAA said she didn't qualify as a booster. Maybe you can prove she was a sports agent. Oh, wait, you think that's ok.
No...you do because you need to read the WHOLE thread before commenting on it. Pssst....Tee Martin...:)
That's not what Tee said...
Saying she's not a booster is like saying...
Laura Bush isn't a Republician because she doesn't donate to the R. party.:)
VollyParton
01-11-2005, 08:08 PM
about the Tank Black mess. And as a bonus, there's an article on the same page about Derek Watson's little marijuana problem:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/16/Sports/Kearse__Rutledge_test.shtml
about the Tank Black mess. And as a bonus, there's an article on the same page about Derek Watson's little marijuana problem:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/16/Sports/Kearse__Rutledge_test.shtml
Ok..since you wanna talk about the behavior of athletes...lol! Here it goes:
Mondre Dickerson - The former Tennessee Vol defensive back has been charged with raping a 30-year-old woman he met at a Knoxville nightclub earlier in 2004. Dickerson was suspended from the Vols' team last November after being accused of rape. No charges were filed in that case.
Daniel Brooks - A complaint was filed with the Knoxville City Police Department on Wednesday, December 2, 2004 that stated the Vol linebacker had punched another UT student in the face and bloodied him. It was reported by the TENNESSEAN that 20 other UT players were present at the 2 AM bar room brawl and that other Vol football players may have been involved in the fight. Coach Phil Fulmer said the matter was under investigation, but there would be no suspentions for the SEC Championship game vs. Auburn.
Dan Federmann - The former University of Tennessee basketball player was charged in November 2004 with stealing $17,500 from his employer - the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts - and is plead guilty to the charge. Under an agreement with the special prosecutor, Federmann repaid the $17,500 and was sentenced to six months in the Hamilton County Justice Center.
Jamal Lewis - The former UT running back was indicted on federal drug charges in 2004. Lewis was released on $500,000 bond after being charged with conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine. In 2001, his second year in the NFL, ran afoul of the league's drug policy and sat out four games.
Travis Henry - Tennessee's career rushing leader, pled guilty to attempted sexual misconduct with a 15-year-old girl in 2001. His lawyer called Lewis' crime, "an error in judgment."
Dwayne Goodrich - The defensive MVP of the 1999 Fiesta Bowl, in which UT won a national title. In August 2002, Goodrich was convicted of criminally negligent homicide after he struck and killed two Good Samaritans in his BMW and then drove away. The victims had been trying to pull out another motorist from his burning car. Goodrich meanwhile had been driving home from a topless bar. He was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.
Leonard Little – The former Vol linebacker in 1998 got drunk at a party, drove home and struck and killed a 47-year-old woman, after running a red light. (For this he got 90 days in jail and community service.). Also was charged and arrested for communicating threats and making harassing calls in 1999 to a former girlfriend.
Dale Carter – The former Vols defensive was placed on indefinite suspension from the NFL in 2003 for violating the league's drug policy. The four-time Pro Bowl cornerback also found himself in trouble for a litany of offenses, including drugs, assault, gun possession and driving under the influence. He also filed for bankruptcy three years after signing a four-year $28 million contract with the Denver Broncos.
John Shumaker - The University of Tennessee President served from 1995 to 2002 and resigned under fire for his spending practices. The former University of Louisville president was under scrutiny from Tennessee officials, the university and the news media since questions arose about whether he used a university airplane and a university credit card for personal reasons.
Tony Robinson - A knee injury cut his senior season short during the 80's and a few months later police arrested him on cocaine charges. The former UT quarterback was arrested for the sale of cocaine in 2000 and later made a plea agreement with the State of Tennessee for First Degree Kidnapping.
Jason Respert - The Parade High School All-American was charged with simple battery and trespassing an occupied area in an incident that occurred at the University of Florida. He pleaded no contest and was given a sentence of 40 hours of community service and two years of probation.
Locke, Eric - The UT receiver was caught withdrawing $2,400 from the ATM account of another student without the student's permission. No charges were filed, and Locke agreed to pay back the money.
Peyton Manning - The subject of a sexual harassment suit against both him and the University of Tennessee in 1996. A female trainer, after suffering his continual acts of sexual harassment, had enough when Manning exposed his naked buttocks to her and nearly sat on her face. Mannings behavior was viewed by legal authorities as bordering on the legal definition of rape. The suit was settled for a sum of $300,000 in 1997. In 2002, the trainer sued again after Manning, in a father-son biography, claimed he was mooning another athlete that day and noted that the trainer had a "vulgar mouth." Jamie Naughright's defamation of character suit was settled in 2003, the details sealed by the court.
Onterrio Smith - The University of Tennessee running back was arrested on a misdemeanor count of battery after a passing Sacramento, CA police officer reportedly saw him strike a young woman which was the mother of his then two year old child. They were at a new local hip-hop club prior to the incident.
Antwan Stewart - Accused of raping a 16 year old girl in a dormitory room in 2003. Tennessee football coach Phillip Fulmer and his attorney Jeff Hagood met with a 17-year-old friend of the rape victim and her mother and another adult relative. Fulmer said he was trying to “ uncover the truth about the incident “, not influence a possible witness or impede the investigation. Stewart remained on the team but was disciplined for showing bad judgment by allowing the girl in his dorm room.
Montrell Jones - The Tennessee receiver was charged in 2002 with marijuana possession. Jones was stopped on Aug. 2, 2002 near downtown Louisville while driving a 1996 Jeep Cherokee with the headlights off. The officer smelled a "strong odor of marijuana,'' and found marijuana and paraphernalia in the Jeep during a search. This was the 2nd time that Jones was stopped on similar chargers.
Kacy Rodgers, Dewayne Dotson and Keith Jeter were investigated on a charge of sexual assault in October of 1990. The three are reinstated to the Tennessee football team after the woman drops her complaint.
Latina Davis - The former Lady Vol basketball player and a first year girls' basketball coach in 2003 at Watauga (NC) High School was arrested on two charges of committing a sex act with a 14 year old female student.
Phillip Fulmer - The graduation rate for UT football players who entered school in 1995 was just 8 percent, the second lowest in the SEC. Tennessee routinely ranks near the bottom of Division 1-A schools for graduation rates. Coach Philip Fulmer usual litany of excuses: (1) Lots of Tennessee players become professionals and delay their graduation, (2) The statistics don't accurately reflect the academic achievements of the players, and (3) Players who transfer and graduate from another institution still count against us. While five of the 15 UT football freshmen who entered in 1995 did eventually play professional football, if all the others had earned degrees UT would have had a 67% graduation rate. Eight percent is far short of that. Fulmer's excuses are disingenuous. The NCAA uses the same formula for all schools and some of them are as good at sending players to the pros as Tennessee.
Leslie Ratliffe The UT offensive tackle was charged with assaulting his girlfriend last Wednesday. The alleged victim, Antoinett Huntley, said Ratliffe also accepted money from a Tennessee booster. Due to these allegations, which potentially involve loss of eligibility, Ratliffe was held out of Tennessee's 62-37 loss to Florida last Saturday. 1995
Victor McClure - Arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest in 2004 on the UT campus. Two months later he was involved in a domestic dispute where he was reported to have pushed his girlfriend into a wall.
Britton Colquitt - The freshman UT punter was arrested for the third time in less than seven months in 2004 for underage possession of alcohol. According to reports, Colquitt attempted to flee was apprehended. He was issued a misdemeanor citation. Colquitt was charged earlier on two different occasions with underage consumption and for driving under the influence.
Brandon Johnson - In 2004 he fired a gun into the air near the Knoxville campus according to police reports. Johnson was arrested and charged with felony reckless endangerment after shooting the gun outside the apartment of tailback Cedric Houston. Junior defensive back Chris Heath, who was in school on a medical scholarship but not playing, was charged with misdemeanor unlawful carrying of a firearm.
Nilo Silvan - The Volunteer wide receiver was arrested and charged with raping a 17-year-old in 1995. He was the nation's top kickoff returner.
Leslie Ratliffe - The Volunteer offensive lineman was charged with assaulting his girlfriend in 1995. The alleged victim, Antoinett Huntley, said Ratliffe also accepted money from a Tennessee booster.
Don't forget about the Bar fight and the athlete that was discharging a pistol on campus.:)
VollyParton
01-11-2005, 08:13 PM
Saying she's not a booster is like saying...
The NCAA said she wasn't a booster, and it's the NCAA that determines what an NCAA violation is, you know?
Laura Bush isn't a Republician because she doesn't donate to the R. party.:)
What?
Don't throw rocks if you live in a "glass" house.:)
The NCAA said she wasn't a booster, and it's the NCAA that determines what an NCAA violation is, you know?
What?
The alleged "Booster", her father and husband are big time donors and along with her I believe, alumni of UT. Because she didn't directly donate to the athletic fund, she was not considered a donor. Sorta like considering Laura Bush not a Republican b/c she doesn't directly contribute to the RNC!!!!
She was a "friend" of the "University" and she "provided benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their Families." The fact she provided benefits to Tee and his Mom made her a "friend" of the University. This is a no-no according to none other than:
http://www.smokeys-trail.com/News/ncaa-bylaws.html
VollyParton
01-11-2005, 08:19 PM
That's pretty pathetic. I think you've revealed why you're so irrational in this thread, you just hate UT and can't see reason, lol. Yer little list does show one thing - Fulmer throws problem players off the team. Lou Holts gives his guys chance after chance after chance until they finally run out of eligibility.
VollyParton
01-11-2005, 08:22 PM
The alleged "Booster", her father and husband are big time donors and along with her I believe, alumni of UT. Because she didn't directly donate to the athletic fund, she was not considered a donor. Sorta like considering Laura Bush not a Republican b/c she doesn't directly contribute to the RNC!!!!
She was a "friend" of the "University" and she "provided benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their Families." The fact she provided benefits to Tee and his Mom made her a "friend" of the University. This is a no-no according to none other than:
http://www.smokeys-trail.com/News/ncaa-bylaws.html
Tell it to the NCAA, you're just blowing smoke here!
That's pretty pathetic. I think you've revealed why you're so irrational in this thread, you just hate UT and can't see reason, lol. Yer little list does show one thing - Fulmer throws problem players off the team. Lou Holts gives his guys chance after chance after chance until they finally run out of eligibility.
I hate UT? You're the one that came on here and was hostile with me. I actually welcomed you here even though you are a UT fan. :rolleyes:
The irrational one is you. You go criticizing a USC player for getting kicked off the team for smoking grass (Not hurting anyone but himself) and so I retort by publishing a BOOK on UT (Rapists, Drug dealers, murderers) football criminals and you say it doesn't apply? :rolleyes:
Whatever... :D
Ironica
01-11-2005, 08:44 PM
The alleged "Booster", her father and husband are big time donors and along with her I believe, alumni of UT. Because she didn't directly donate to the athletic fund, she was not considered a donor. Sorta like considering Laura Bush not a Republican b/c she doesn't directly contribute to the RNC!!!!
She was a "friend" of the "University" and she "provided benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their Families." The fact she provided benefits to Tee and his Mom made her a "friend" of the University. This is a no-no according to none other than:
http://www.smokeys-trail.com/News/ncaa-bylaws.html
To get into the hair splitting contest - I believe you are misinterpreting the "friend of the university" definition. If you read the bylaws regarding extra benefits and then read the bylaws regarding pre-existing relationships you can see the distinction. The rules in the link you provide - the guidance from the university - apply to someone who DOESN'T have the pre-existing relationship. For example, if I'm a Knoxville resident and I give Tee or his family some money - I start to look like a friend of the university. If I've known Tee since he was 5 and I'm not connected to the university, I can give him or his family assistance.
Of course at debate is which category Diane Sanford fits into. Of more specifically, if I remember correctly what was alleged is that Sanford gave the money to someone else who then gave it Tee. So the questions are 1) was money funneled from Sanford to Tee and if so which category does Sanford fit into and 2) was the money directly from the other guy (not funneled) and which category does he fit into.
I know which category you think they fall into ;)
Quite the list of shame you've compiled for UT. Did you find that elsewhere? I would imagine that with thorough research similar lists could be constructed for most of the SEC :(
Tell it to the NCAA, you're just blowing smoke here!
Blowing smoke???
It's on UT's webpage and I'm blowing smoke? LOL!!!! :)
To get into the hair splitting contest - I believe you are misinterpreting the "friend of the university" definition. If you read the bylaws regarding extra benefits and then read the bylaws regarding pre-existing relationships you can see the distinction. The rules in the link you provide - the guidance from the university - apply to someone who DOESN'T have the pre-existing relationship. For example, if I'm a Knoxville resident and I give Tee or his family some money - I start to look like a friend of the university. If I've known Tee since he was 5 and I'm not connected to the university, I can give him or his family assistance.
Of course at debate is which category Diane Sanford fits into. Of more specifically, if I remember correctly what was alleged is that Sanford gave the money to someone else who then gave it Tee. So the questions are 1) was money funneled from Sanford to Tee and if so which category does Sanford fit into and 2) was the money directly from the other guy (not funneled) and which category does he fit into.
I know which category you think they fall into ;)
Quite the list of shame you've compiled for UT. Did you find that elsewhere? I would imagine that with thorough research similar lists could be constructed for most of the SEC :(
You are going to continue to try to spin it as much as you can. When I bring up statements on UT's webpage, you try to disprove that??
BTW: That was an absolutely brilliant assessment! Kudos.
As fans, and as clear thinking Vols men and women. I respect your deep love and passion for your university. That I shall not question, nor your characters. I will go on record again saying that I believe your school to be an excellent choice for an education, and that your football tradition and pageantry are up there. However, there is a wide and deep distrust and hatred of your Football program amongst fans of the SEC, many other league fans, and the national media. I've often heard your own fans on message boards and sports blogs asking, "Why does everybody hate us? Why the focus and attention on rumors and scandal? Is the media out to get us?" Well, in a word, YES. I think there has been a stench of dishonesty and self-serving bull crap that has eminated from your program since Fulmer has been there. Your fans always deflect these criticisms by saying, "But there's been no proof!" Well, that's like saying, the garbage don't stink because you can't see it in the trash bag. Cummon. Where there's smoke...there's fire.
And why did it take so long for Fulmer to come out and talk about Alabama's recruiting methods? He must have known for some time since he said he was "tired" of it. Sounds like he was ready to spill the beans when it served him most. Did he not suspect other teams in the SEC? Why Alabama? Maybe because that's been Tennessee's chief rival historically??? Maybe because Alabama was starting to shut down Fulmer's corridor of players from that state? The whole thing stinks, right down to Fulmer secretly taping conversations.
There are schools out there that generally get raised eyebrows when it comes to talking about "Not caring about the players", "Players' dismal character issues", and "Just caring about winning and nothing else"....they are:
Florida State
Miami
Tennessee
Ah, yes...are we starting to see a pattern here? Certain schools get the "bad" rap...I wonder why that is? Maybe these school's football programs really do care about the players they recruit, care about their grades, care about their livelyhoods, their backgrounds. Doubt it. Some coaches will sell their souls to the devil for wins, or at least sell it to the boosters to do it for them.
Ironica
01-11-2005, 09:38 PM
You are going to continue to try to spin it as much as you can. When I bring up statements on UT's webpage, you try to disprove that??
BTW: That was an absolutely brilliant assessment! Kudos.
As fans, and as clear thinking Vols men and women. I respect your deep love and passion for your university. That I shall not question, nor your characters. I will go on record again saying that I believe your school to be an excellent choice for an education, and that your football tradition and pageantry are up there. However, there is a wide and deep distrust and hatred of your Football program amongst fans of the SEC, many other league fans, and the national media. I've often heard your own fans on message boards and sports blogs asking, "Why does everybody hate us? Why the focus and attention on rumors and scandal? Is the media out to get us?" Well, in a word, YES. I think there has been a stench of dishonesty and self-serving bull crap that has eminated from your program since Fulmer has been there. Your fans always deflect these criticisms by saying, "But there's been no proof!" Well, that's like saying, the garbage don't stink because you can't see it in the trash bag. Cummon. Where there's smoke...there's fire.
And why did it take so long for Fulmer to come out and talk about Alabama's recruiting methods? He must have known for some time since he said he was "tired" of it. Sounds like he was ready to spill the beans when it served him most. Did he not suspect other teams in the SEC? Why Alabama? Maybe because that's been Tennessee's chief rival historically??? Maybe because Alabama was starting to shut down Fulmer's corridor of players from that state? The whole thing stinks, right down to Fulmer secretly taping conversations.
There are schools out there that generally get raised eyebrows when it comes to talking about "Not caring about the players", "Players' dismal character issues", and "Just caring about winning and nothing else"....they are:
Florida State
Miami
Tennessee
Ah, yes...are we starting to see a pattern here? Certain schools get the "bad" rap...I wonder why that is? Maybe these school's football programs really do care about the players they recruit, care about their grades, care about their livelyhoods, their backgrounds. Doubt it. Some coaches will sell their souls to the devil for wins, or at least sell it to the boosters to do it for them.
Well I thought I was done with this thread but clearly its got a hold of me.
First, that's a pretty strong condemnation - selling souls for wins, not caring for players. Where is the long list of players that feel used by the university? Why do so many love the university? No use in arguing an extreme statement such as this.
I'll take the issues one at a time. First the bylaws - maybe I'm missing it but I think you are mixing a discussion of when a player CAN receive benefits with a view where I say for a fact that there were no violations in the Tee case. All along I've been showing - I think correctly - why the bylaws you present are not contradictory with my position. The issue of whether or not the Tee thing was actually a violation is a separate issue (or at least I've been trying to separate them)
I think you are not correctly reading the bylaws. Look at it this way, say you were from a disadvantaged family in Kentucky. You go to USC. A friend of your family gives some money to your family to help them buy a new refrigerator - BUSTED. They gave money to the family of athlete - that makes the a friend of the university and thus this is a inappropriate benefit. You see where I'm going. The rules you posted are meant to stop the giving of "extras" to athletes. For example, assume I run a dry cleaner and am a huge Vol fan. I've never given any money to the university and never attended. If I give an athlete free or discounted dry cleaning then I become "connected" to the university. Think of the pre-existing relationship as a loophole that allows the provision of benefits to athletes and their families. If this loophole didn't exist, anyone who's kid was an athlete couldn't take anything from anyone anywhere. There has to be a way for a family's "network" to help. For example, I have college fund for my goddaughter. She may go to a school on a scholarship - under your interpretation - I cannot provide her with financial assistance or I become connected to the school she attends and my money is an illegal benefit.
As I stated before - I'm separating issues here. You are quoting bylaws and making sweeping statements regarding their scope and meaning - I'm showing that I don't believe your interpretation is correct.
As for the denial part - I don't believe I'm in denial any more than most fans. Through many posts on various threads that have brought up various allegations against USC, your response has been consistent downplaying of the events. You provide rationalizations why they were blown out of proportion or no big deal. Go back and reread my posts and you'll several instances where I acknowledge 1) there could be more to the Tee thing, 2) the academic problems are embarrassing, 3) and various other acknowledgements that not all is squeaky clean.
Finally, I'm not disputing the list you compiled. I heard of most of those things but as the occurred over 10+ years I had forgotten many or most. My point about doing a similar list for other schools is that the same phenomena applies to fans of other schools. If you scan all the local papers in Columbia and those for every location where one of the players eventually went on to, my guess is that you would be surprised to see the list.
The advantage for those that want to do this with respect to the Vols is that you have a legal team doing research for the last 2 years in an effort win a lawsuit. Let's put those resources to work against 1) UK, 2) UA, 3) Aub, 4) UF, 5) LSU, 6) USC etc and see what happens. This is not a "well everyone else is doing it" argument. But I think you are in denial if you think the only problems associated with athletes at USC are one guy smoking pot and 2 guys taking steroids. We all have various colored glasses when viewing our teams.
I've continued in this thread believing that most of your posts were just meant to play the other side. Your last post indicates that you have a pretty entrenched position of disregard for UT or at least Fulmer's version of UT. That being the case, we'll just be back and forth. It's like a liberal and conservative arguing. I'm not in this for a fight. BTW, I too tire of UT fans claiming the media dissing them - once again though, this is not a trait limited to some vol fans.
I'm just tired of things that are in "black and white" while in the NCAA Rulebook and being posted on UT's webpage being spun. People spin them to fit their agenda.
With the posts from the By-Laws and UT's Compliance Webpage, there is no ambiguity. It's "pitch black on white paper". As for USC's football violations, USC hasn't had one since 1967? To top it off, they have had only "1" major violation since the NCAA's inception in 1953. I can count on one hand how many times the NCAA has knocked on USC's door. Can UT do the same thing? You can deny it if you want, but USC's record with the NCAA is admirable.
Since you say I'm looking at this through "Garnet colored glasses", you tell me how many times;
USC has been accused or investigated of academic fraud?
USC has been accused or investigated for "ratting" out other schools?
USC has been accused or investigated for "buying" players?
USC has been accused or investigated for cheating?
When you answer those in your mind, then you will have my answer.
The previous poster was questioning Lou Holtz's dismissal of a player that was arrested and charged with marijuana possession. Since that poster felt the need to be a judge on character, I simply retorted and asked her to judge the following UT players.
Talking about "Apples and Oranges". Unless your goddaughter goes to school on an athletic scholarship, you can give her everything she could want and then some.
Here's some interesting quotes I found;
“The ability of organized sports like college football to teach life lessons and build character, especially to those from troubled backgrounds, has long been a self-serving myth. But there are few places where that myth orbits farther from reality than at UT.“
Matt Pulle
March 3, 2004
The Nashville Scene
"Players will do what coaches ask because the coach controls what players want most: playing time. The dismal graduation rate of the Tennessee football team suggests to me that academic performance is not really important to Coach Fulmer and his staff, no matter what they say in public."
Jeffrey Kovac
October 7, 2002
University of Tennessee Professor
NCAA Official
All I'm saying is like I said before. I honestly believe that Tennessee broke NCAA Guidelines with the "Tee Martin" incident and Mr. Fulmer helped sweep it under the rug. I couldn't care less about anything else he's being accused of. Something smells and it doesn't smell good.
Ironica
01-11-2005, 10:26 PM
Why is my argument spin? I completely disagree that if my goddaughter went to a school on an athletic scholarship any financial aid I gave her would be a violation. Show me where it says that. The language does not preclude that scenario. The language in other bylaws (for example the one I posted) does say that people fitting certain criteria can give benefits. That's in black and white as well - are you spinning that? (something I have not accused you of). There are 500 plus pages in the bylaws. To quote one set and say that definitely precludes some activities is ridiculous. Especially when another set provides examples of when those activities are allowed.
As we've discussed your devil's advocate role - when you do it you are showing another perspective - when I do it, I am in denial and spinning. Why the change in rules?
You strongly dislike Fulmer and UT - your post clearly shows that. Fine. Why does that turn my alternative opinion into spin?
For example, I have college fund for my goddaughter. She may go to a school on a scholarship - under your interpretation - I cannot provide her with financial assistance or I become connected to the school she attends and my money is an illegal benefit.
Talking about "Apples and Oranges". Unless your goddaughter goes to school on an athletic scholarship, you can give her everything she could want and then some.
That keyword right there "UNLESS". Why is that so hard to understand? If she goes on a grant or academic scholarship that's fine. If she goes on an athletic scholarship, it's better to keep your money to yourself.
As we've discussed your devil's advocate role - when you do it you are showing another perspective - when I do it, I am in denial and spinning. Why the change in rules?
Because you are attempting to circumvent and delegitimize the rules that are in "black and white" on both the NCAA & UT Compliance webpages. You are shooting off useless "what-if" scenarios that are not revelant to this situation. That's why it could be considered spinning. :)
As I stated earlier, there is no ambiguity when it comes to infractions. Only people looking to by-pass the rules would have a keen eye for noticing loopholes.
Ironica
01-11-2005, 10:47 PM
Take off the glasses D.
http://www.gamecockssuck.com/GamecockCriminals.html
Seems other schools have rap sheets too! Doesn't excuse the behavior of the Vols but does reinforce my point, no?
Take off the glasses D.
http://www.gamecockssuck.com/GamecockCriminals.html
Seems other schools have rap sheets too! Doesn't excuse the behavior of the Vols but does reinforce my point, no?
I never said we didn't have criminals. Maybe you should read more closely. Where in the post below did I say we didn't have any bad apples???
The previous poster was questioning Lou Holtz's dismissal of a player that was arrested and charged with marijuana possession. Since that poster felt the need to be a judge on character, I simply retorted and asked her to judge the following UT players.
Ironica
01-11-2005, 10:53 PM
Scenarios are exactly the way to explain laws - at least it was in the courses I took.
The two sets of bylaws show precluded benefits and allowable benefits - what's so hard to understand about that? It is relevant because that was the initial ruling in the case. The NCAA quoted their own rules! I've continually stated that I don't know what really happened but it is crystal clear that there are circumstances where benefits can be given. It is in black and white in the bylaws.
Ironica
01-11-2005, 10:57 PM
I'm just pointing out that the accusation of being in denial is not limited to the Volnation. You provided a "book" of problems at UT. Just showing the accompanying volume for USC.
I'm just pointing out that the accusation of being in denial is not limited to the Volnation. You provided a "book" of problems at UT. Just showing the accompanying volume for USC.
Whatever....spin, slosh, stir, simmer do whatever you want. Believe whatever you want. Well, just like the old saying, the garbage don't stink because you can't see it in the trash bag. :D
No one can see the "fire" of the Tee Martin incident because of all the smoke.
I'm going to end my contribution with that. :D
carolinavol
01-11-2005, 11:11 PM
Delorean, come on, with all do respect (literally), what is with the UT hate. First and foremost, there is absolutely no, let me repeat NO, allegations that have been levied against UT that will hold up. The Tee Martin case? Try this, should give you some insight. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:VUX6PmESxekJ:www.oakridger.com/stories/010903/spo_0109030009.html+%22Tee+Martin%22+NCAA+investig ation&hl=en
Now, as far as the laundry list of 'offenses' you dug up. Once you narrow down all of the subjects that have had off the field problems AFTER they have left UT, you are left with about 1/3 of what you started with. The Schumaker scandal was blown way out of proportion, however, he was dismissed for any impropriety, which is a point of pride that UT and the Board of Trustees are serious about ethics and accountability. Victor McClure was proven to have a serious mental illness, and needed psychiatric care along with regular medication. Once he medicates, he's fine. This is personal with me, I have a family member that is menatlly ill in similar circumstances (becomes paranoid w/out proper meds, which could lead to violent impulses) so lay off that. McClure youll be happy to know has sought and is continuing treatment from my latest understanding. Manning/Sexual Harassment? Well we all know that every female who cries sexual harassment is telling the truth now dont we? Believe that, ill sell you the rock straight out of death valley. Even if substantiated, from what I remember he mooned her, big freakin deal.
You also made a comment about UT being hated/disrespected across the SEC. Probably so, if I were on the losing side of most of the series UT plays, Im sure Id hate UT as well. Bottom line, UT is actually one of the tightest run programs in the SEC. The players on that list you had above who had serious infractions against team rules were kicked off the team, and out of school with half the number of chances that Derek Watson got for his PUBLICIZED transgressions against society. I don't knock Holtz for keeping DW around, matter of fact, I respected Holtz for trying to get him to straigten up. Further, Fulmer drops the hammer on some of UT's most valuable players (James Banks, Brandon Johnson). As I said yesterday, success breeds contempt, just don't let any of your own contempt for UT whatever it may be motivated by drag you into posting ridiculous and repeatedly discredited and baseless accusations towards my alma mater.
Ironica
01-11-2005, 11:27 PM
I'll end with this. You've accused me a few times of not reading your posts properly. Perhaps you should take the same advice. I have not stated that there is nothing to the Tee Martin allegation (or the others for that matter). I have presented contradictory evidence to your statements about NCAA bylaws and the response is that I'm spinning.
You interpret that as an argument that there were no violations in the Tee Martin case. I have not said that. You say I and other Vol fans are in denial and as evidence you provide a list of problems with players from the university along with a harsh condemnation. I suggest that such a list might be compiled for others and I get more of the spin and denial argument. The implication is that UT is among the worst offenders in CFB (you list them UM and FSU) while alternatively, USC doesn't recruit problems and is more akin to a model program. I produce such a list and I get admonished for not reading your posts properly. You've yet to show that the bylaw I posted is being interpreted wrongly. To say it one more time. That bylaw directly describes a situation where a player can receive benefits from someone other than a family member. No spin there. The NCAA quoted this bylaw as the reason why UT was not found to be in violation. No spin there (at least from me). There are many additional bylaws like this one that outline "allowable" benefits to players from persons other than family members. In fact, there's a whole section there. No spin there. What these statements do have in common is that they are not talking about the same situations that are described in the bylaws you presented both from the NCAA and recreated on the Vol website.
When you can't counter the argument, resort to generalizations about the poster. Nice tactic.
Carolina,
I will respond to you because I have spoken to you before and you will not try to "twist" things to make them fit.
I didn't wanna start judging players. One of your fellow Vol fans opened that can of worms. Nowhere have I ever said that USC didn't have it's bad apples. Every school has bad apples. I just took offense to the fact that a Vol fan is passing judgement on a 18 yr old kid when Tennessee really has no room to judge the character of players given their history of "bad apples". Do you see where I'm coming from? That is pure hypocracy at it's peak and definition.
You and I talked for quite a while the other day and we both were in agreement. Why is that? It's because we didn't try to "conform" or "contort" rules or words to fit our agendas. Some people believe in "gray" areas and I firmly believe that the only people that notice "gray" areas are the ones that will exploit them.
Like I've said a hundred times, I don't have a problem with UT or Mr. Fulmer except for my experience with their recruiting tactics and the "Tee Martin" incident. Other than that, I'm more worried about a cloudy day than what UT is up to. I will always believe in my heart that the "Tee Martin" incident was swept under the rug. You are not and will not convince me otherwise. I mean honestly can you say that you have seen me "hate mongering" on Tennessee since you've been here? Have you seen me call him "Fat Phil" or crass names like that? You haven't because he is older than I am and he deserves respect for being my elder.
As you have noticed, I'm an honest and fair person. When I'm asked for my opinion, I'm going to give the full uncensored version of it. Plain and simple.
If I have offended you Carolina, then I am sincerely sorry. :( That was not my intentions and my intentions were not contrived from malice.
I just wish that most people would use intellect before responding and stop with the "schoolhouse" misdirection plays. It insults my intellgence and it questions my integrity.
carolinavol
01-12-2005, 12:18 AM
Carolina,
I will respond to you because I have spoken to you before and you will not try to "twist" things to make them fit.
I didn't wanna start judging players. One of your fellow Vol fans opened that can of worms. Nowhere have I ever said that USC didn't have it's bad apples. Every school has bad apples. I just took offense to the fact that a Vol fan is passing judgement on a 18 yr old kid when Tennessee really has no room to judge the character of players given their history of "bad apples". Do you see where I'm coming from? That is pure hypocracy at it's peak and definition.
You and I talked for quite a while the other day and we both were in agreement. Why is that? It's because we didn't try to "conform" or "contort" rules or words to fit our agendas. Some people believe in "gray" areas and I firmly believe that the only people that notice "gray" areas are the ones that will exploit them.
Like I've said a hundred times, I don't have a problem with UT or Mr. Fulmer except for my experience with their recruiting tactics and the "Tee Martin" incident. Other than that, I'm more worried about a cloudy day than what UT is up to. I will always believe in my heart that the "Tee Martin" incident was swept under the rug. You are not and will not convince me otherwise. I mean honestly can you say that you have seen me "hate mongering" on Tennessee since you've been here? Have you seen me call him "Fat Phil" or crass names like that? You haven't because he is older than I am and he deserves respect for being my elder.
As you have noticed, I'm an honest and fair person. When I'm asked for my opinion, I'm going to give the full uncensored version of it. Plain and simple.
If I have offended you Carolina, then I am sincerely sorry. :( That was not my intentions and my intentions were not contrived from malice.
I just wish that most people would use intellect before responding and stop with the "schoolhouse" misdirection plays. It insults my intellgence and it questions my integrity.
Whew, thats a loaded post to respond to Delorean, as well as a pretty good one. I'll be blunt for the sole purpose of saving space. One, I have personally met D. Watson, even before he went to USC. I really wanted to see the kid succeed down there. I also know enough to know that many of the situations he was ostricized for, were blown way out of proportion by an overanxious and deplorable media that has the audacity to spew it's garbage across our great state (I assume you are from SC, if not, well give you honorary citizenship). I know of so many instances, CU is very bad about things like this, where players get away without any recourse for similar actions DW was involved in, simply because the coaches bail them out of jams, and sweep the neg. publicity under the rug. That being said, CPF could have easily covered up J. Banks failed drug tests, and allowed a valuable and very talented athlete to continue playing. Thats not what he did, he booted Banks, did the right thing, yet no person seems to give the man any credit for it. I certainly would not question your integrity or honesty, and I certainly respect your right to your opinion on the T. Martin deal. We will simply agree to disagree over the Tee Martin situation. The big thing with me was the laundry list posted earlier of transgressions, like you said above, we are dealing with 18 yo kids here, they cannot be monitored 24/7. What can be done is to lay out strong rules and expect them to be followed. When you have a laundry list of documented transgressions, it means that the coaches are setting and upholding strict team rules, rather than sliding them under the rug and covering them up. This leads me to believe that the dirty programs, the ones that are covering for malicious behavior, are the ones who have no traceable problems in their programs that have been documented. So I think both Holtz, and Fulmer deserve quite a bit of credit for their transparency, and their unenviable task of trying to be Coach/Parent/Disciplinarian all at the same time. I certainly never meant in anyway to accuse you of having malicious intent, hope you didn't take it that way. :) On Edit: Forgot one thing, I wasn't offended, you would have to work really hard to offend me, nor do I think your intent was unfair, even though I may have thought the message may have been. Im hard to offend, yet very sensitive in my attempts not to offend.
I certainly never meant in anyway to accuse you of having malicious intent, hope you didn't take it that way. :)
Yes I was born and raised in Columbia and now I am living just outside of Charlotte, NC.
No I wasn't thinking that you were accusing me of malicious intent. I just wanted you to know that there wasn't any.:)
carolinavol
01-12-2005, 12:27 AM
Yes I was born and raised in Columbia and now I am living just outside of Charlotte, NC.
No I wasn't thinking that you were accusing me of malicious intent. I just wanted you to know that there wasn't any.:)
Ah, Charlotte, love the place. Im Upstate, not too far from there, but way too close to the evil empire of agriculture. I think we probably both have a mutual enemy, we should get a thread going on that sometime. :cool:
Ah, Charlotte, love the place. Im Upstate, not too far from there, but way too close to the evil empire of agriculture. I think we probably both have a mutual enemy, we should get a thread going on that sometime. :cool:
I'm glad you like Charlotte. :) I hate it! :mad:
It sucks here. The only thing here are banks and rich white bankers. It makes me wanna puke. I had more fun in Anchorage than here in Charlotte.
The taxes are extremely high with nothing to show for it except NBA arenas and a pitful excuse of an airline. (US Airways)
carolinavol
01-12-2005, 12:48 AM
I'm glad you like Charlotte. :) I hate it! :mad:
It sucks here. The only thing here are banks and rich white bankers. It makes me wanna puke. I had more fun in Anchorage than here in Charlotte.
The taxes are extremely high with nothing to show for it except NBA arenas and a pitful excuse of an airline. (US Airways)
Ouch, sorry about that. Guess it represents the difference in you living there, and myself just visiting. Kind of puts a damper in my future plans of possibly moving to Charlotte, ill be rethinking that idea. As far as the taxes go :mad: , get back over the border into SC, Gov Samford appears to be ready to start slashing and burning anything possibly construed as waste, and is rewarding the good and overly taxed citizens of this state with quite the tax cut. :D Worse than Anchorage? Geez, I may never go back then.
UTslaw
01-12-2005, 01:00 AM
"She has said she's been to several Tennessee games, but does not hold season tickets and did not attend the school.
Sanford said she met Martin when he was in high school and remains friends with his mother, Marie Martin. Sanford employed Marie Martin as a housekeeper."
I don't see any smoke here. Seems to me that she had a previous relationship with Martin's family. Also, she was not a season ticket holder nor an alumni. I don't see any problems at all and neither did the NCAA.
What about this tidbit... South Carolina has only won 49.2% of their games. Now that's a cold, hard fact. :cool:
In all honesty, I have never had any grudges against South Carolina or their fans. However, De Lorean's obsessions with UT's alleged indiscresions does somewhat bother me.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.