Toggle sidebar

HaHa reinstated

JD95 said:
I'm very glad it's over for Ha Ha. I'll be more glad if we get confirmation that there are no outstanding issues for UA. The fact remains that we used an ineligible player in the first 4 games.
Click to expand...

Alabama isn't going to suspend him for 2 games and then play him without the NCAA approving it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Yeah, the NCAA had the call on this even so far as forfeiting the games he participated in previously. It would have been unprecedented mid-season but who knows how this goes down the line (like the bookgate)
 
RTR91 said:
Alabama isn't going to suspend him for 2 games and then play him without the NCAA approving it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

The NCAA has cleared Ha Ha to play. But I've seen nothing that says Alabama is clear or will not face discipline, either for this or for the Fluker stuff. Those are still open questions.
 
Cowzrul said:
I'm sorry, but I find this silly. Coach Saban HAS an agent, not just ties to one. Should he be "nipped in the bud quick" as well? I doubt you can find a coach or football staff member that doesn't have some sort of ties to an agent, seeing as how many of the coaches have agents, and even the trainers have probably come across them and are familiar with some of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. Perfect parallels. If the trainer didn't know the permissible benefits rules then he needs to go. Call it silly. Dismiss it. Something tells me CNS wasn't pleased.
 
JD95 said:
I'm very glad it's over for Ha Ha. I'll be more glad if we get confirmation that there are no outstanding issues for UA. The fact remains that we used an ineligible player in the first 4 games.
Click to expand...

Just saying but in 2010 auburn played an Ineligible player for 9 games. No issues there
 
The resolution to the Fluker situation remains to be seen, we don't know Fluker's side of the story, at the moment.
But, the HaHa situation is likely closed. I haven't seen precedent for forfeited games provided the player in question was suspended the season of his ineligibility.

Also, Ole Miss played an ineligible player last year, and didn't forfeit any games, despite the player not being suspended last year.
 
JD95 said:
Turns out no one connected with Auburn paid Cam any money (that could be proved anyway). A member of the athletic staff admittedly gave money to Ha Ha. Sort of a different deal.
Click to expand...
If the NCAA wanted to make this as serious as you're acting, Ha Ha would not have been reinstated or practicing with the team.
 
RTR91 said:
If the NCAA wanted to make this as serious as you're acting, Ha Ha would not have been reinstated or practicing with the team.
Click to expand...

Hope you're right. But as someone else mentioned, remember the textbook case. The players served their suspensions and were cleared to play. Months later UA got hammered.
 
JD95 said:
Hope you're right. But as someone else mentioned, remember the textbook case. The players served their suspensions and were cleared to play. Months later UA got hammered.
Click to expand...

Because in that event, Alabama was accused of failing to monitor the textbook program and not acting quickly enough when it uncovered a problem.

In the Clinton-Dix case, Alabama uncovered the violation, immediately punished the offending staff member and then consulted with the NCAA on what the appropriate punishment would be for the player. The gold standard for violations such as this is 2-4 games and Clinton-Dix got the smaller end of that range, so that should tell you what you need to know. The NCAA is not going to issue an "all-clear" on a simple player eligibility case if that's what you're waiting on. There's no reason at this point to expect any further action relating to Clinton-Dix.

The Fluker situation is a bit different. But again, teams that discover player eligibility issues after a player has left the institution -- and quickly reports findings, and investigates players still in school who might be affected (like Ed Stinson) -- rarely have any issue downstream. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "but what about Reggie Bush", I could retire, as that's the outlier in this situation. The problem with Bush was a school that was uncooperative with an NCAA investigation, and covered up findings that were later exposed when receipts were found for certain expenditures. Nothing about that case so far is in any way similar to what went on with Fluker and Luther Davis.

I'd also like to note the difference in UA compliance in 2013 and UA compliance in 2007. The textbook graft went back into the Mike Shula years. This is six years later, and UA compliance's relationship with the NCAA is not what it was. The NCAA isn't what it was back then, either.
 
Last edited:
JessN said:
Because in that event, Alabama was accused of failing to monitor the textbook program and not acting quickly enough when it uncovered a problem.

In the Clinton-Dix case, Alabama uncovered the violation, immediately punished the offending staff member and then consulted with the NCAA on what the appropriate punishment would be for the player. The gold standard for violations such as this is 2-4 games and Clinton-Dix got the smaller end of that range, so that should tell you what you need to know. The NCAA is not going to issue an "all-clear" on a simple player eligibility case if that's what you're waiting on. There's no reason at this point to expect any further action relating to Clinton-Dix.

The Fluker situation is a bit different. But again, teams that discover player eligibility issues after a player has left the institution -- and quickly reports findings, and investigates players still in school who might be affected (like Ed Stinson) -- rarely have any issue downstream. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "but what about Reggie Bush", I could retire, as that's the outlier in this situation. The problem with Bush was a school that was uncooperative with an NCAA investigation, and covered up findings that were later exposed when receipts were found for certain expenditures. Nothing about that case so far is in any way similar to what went on with Fluker and Luther Davis.

I'd also like to note the difference in UA compliance in 2013 and UA compliance in 2007. The textbook graft went back into the Mike Shula years. This is six years later, and UA compliance's relationship with the NCAA is not what it was. The NCAA isn't what it was back then, either.
Click to expand...

All points well taken and I very much hope it turns out as everyone seems to think. It's tough enough to win the BCS championship -- let alone 3 straight and 4 out of 5 -- without all these distractions!
 
JessN said:
Because in that event, Alabama was accused of failing to monitor the textbook program and not acting quickly enough when it uncovered a problem.

In the Clinton-Dix case, Alabama uncovered the violation, immediately punished the offending staff member and then consulted with the NCAA on what the appropriate punishment would be for the player. The gold standard for violations such as this is 2-4 games and Clinton-Dix got the smaller end of that range, so that should tell you what you need to know. The NCAA is not going to issue an "all-clear" on a simple player eligibility case if that's what you're waiting on. There's no reason at this point to expect any further action relating to Clinton-Dix.

The Fluker situation is a bit different. But again, teams that discover player eligibility issues after a player has left the institution -- and quickly reports findings, and investigates players still in school who might be affected (like Ed Stinson) -- rarely have any issue downstream. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "but what about Reggie Bush", I could retire, as that's the outlier in this situation. The problem with Bush was a school that was uncooperative with an NCAA investigation, and covered up findings that were later exposed when receipts were found for certain expenditures. Nothing about that case so far is in any way similar to what went on with Fluker and Luther Davis.

I'd also like to note the difference in UA compliance in 2013 and UA compliance in 2007. The textbook graft went back into the Mike Shula years. This is six years later, and UA compliance's relationship with the NCAA is not what it was. The NCAA isn't what it was back then, either.
Click to expand...

I wish I could have had this yesterday. Gotta steak this!


Sent from my iPhone
 
JessN said:
Because in that event, Alabama was accused of failing to monitor the textbook program and not acting quickly enough when it uncovered a problem.

In the Clinton-Dix case, Alabama uncovered the violation, immediately punished the offending staff member and then consulted with the NCAA on what the appropriate punishment would be for the player. The gold standard for violations such as this is 2-4 games and Clinton-Dix got the smaller end of that range, so that should tell you what you need to know. The NCAA is not going to issue an "all-clear" on a simple player eligibility case if that's what you're waiting on. There's no reason at this point to expect any further action relating to Clinton-Dix.

The Fluker situation is a bit different. But again, teams that discover player eligibility issues after a player has left the institution -- and quickly reports findings, and investigates players still in school who might be affected (like Ed Stinson) -- rarely have any issue downstream. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "but what about Reggie Bush", I could retire, as that's the outlier in this situation. The problem with Bush was a school that was uncooperative with an NCAA investigation, and covered up findings that were later exposed when receipts were found for certain expenditures. Nothing about that case so far is in any way similar to what went on with Fluker and Luther Davis.

I'd also like to note the difference in UA compliance in 2013 and UA compliance in 2007. The textbook graft went back into the Mike Shula years. This is six years later, and UA compliance's relationship with the NCAA is not what it was. The NCAA isn't what it was back then, either.
Click to expand...
What interested me in that situation was that at least a couple of dozen other schools had exactly the same system, meaning many players were theoretically ineligible. All those schools quietly scrambled to install better controls in place. None reported themselves. The NCAA was well aware of this. I could only conclude that, there were so many schools using the same software and lax system, the fallout would have been catastrophic. So, the NCAA decided just to use Bama as an example (and did they ever!) to induce all schools to reform...
 
JD95 said:
Hope you're right. But as someone else mentioned, remember the textbook case. The players served their suspensions and were cleared to play. Months later UA got hammered.
Click to expand...
I get that you're a bit gun-shy about all this, but you have to remember that our compliance dept is generally regarded as one of (if not the) best in the country - a far cry from what it was pre-CNS.

IOW, our history with these sorts of issues doesn't translate to now - we've got the most proactive folks in the business dealing with these issues.
 
News flash this is good news!

i would respectfully like to change my score prediction to 52 Bama 0- Hogs.

the WAY Ha Ha conducted himself thru this whole mess has impressed CNS I think so he plays until the 3rd team comes in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back