Auburn investigation continues

[soduck]

And Dunigan is out of our program as soon as we were made aware of the allegations. No doubt he would have helped our team a lot this year.. And Newton oh that's right they suspended him for one day. That is a huge difference between us and Auburn. But then they won didn't they.

[Duck07]

Showing an espn poll of what people feel doesn't correlate to AU having done something wrong, its simply those peoples own perceptions which Icculus is arguing is jaded.

As far as the "official letter," we currently (or so we think? i'm lost now) are under investigation for our BB team, in particular our former C Michael Dunigan, and as George Schroeder pointed out in today's Register Guard, the UO has not received that letter from the NCAA yet. He does bring up how schools hide behind FERPA laws so it could be that, or perhaps the ncaa is hamstrung by their own rules somehow once they've "officially begun" an investigation.

However you see it, it does seem out of place that neither AU or UO have received the "official letters" for what seems like obvious investigations that have occurred on some level. Then again, nobody's ever accused the ncaa of being consistent.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/si ... -ferpa.csp

I never purported to use the espn poll as evidence of anything except that we are not the only ones who believe that Auburn is a tainted program, it is the predominant view across the country. I did not not bring up the actual evidence again, it is printed all over the internet and needs not be rehashed for the upteenth time. If you still think O.J is innocent, then great. Most people don't. It doesn't really matter, it's almost a surety that they will be acquitted by the NCAA, especially if the ridiculous ruling on Cam's father is any indication.

I think it's silly to compare the investigations of Auburn and Oregon. Auburn used the (allegedly) ill-gotten players to win a championship. We don't know what the NCAA is investigating with Oregon, if anything at all. What allegations are there? Where are the numerous stories bubbling up? Where is the smoke indicating fire? Not even close to comparable.

Wasn't trying to compare them, just pointing out that in these two cases the official letters have not arrived or both the schools are choosing to not disclose that. It also seems a little suspicious from the ncaa's side to not have officially done anything yet on either matter and I wonder why that is?

[buckmarkduck]

Dunnigan was payed by an agent trying to get him the LEAVE UO, not payed to come to UO. Yes they could get us for lack of control, but this is nowhere near as bad as paying a kid 200k to come to school. Unlike AU fans, UO fans don't put our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen and defend the kid at every turn.

[AU4UO]

Or maybe we aren't sticking our heads in the sand, but refusing to buy into message board chatter and crap written by hack writers. The NCAA went over financial records on more than one occasion and found nothing. I don't know how much more needs to be proven to actually sway peoples' minds.

Also if he was being shopped around, you would think Oklahoma and Tennessee would have mentioned something about it too.

Are you familiar with the Albert Means case? The Newton case is very similar, however, money actually changed hands and there was proof of it.

[wheaton4prez]

You don't think that Cam Newton's father shopped him around?

[L Perry]

Sorry, that ship already sailed! He has already admitted it.

[AU4UO]

You don't think that Cam Newton's father shopped him around?

If he did, there's an astonishing lack of proof he did. Has it occurred to you that maybe he was approached by MSU boosters with the idea of paying him for Cam? Or at the very least this is an isolated event at MSU. Solicitation of one school isn't "shopping".

Remember how Auburn was recruiting Seastrunk pretty hard? However, he went to Oregon. Ducks must have paid more for him. See how easy that was?

I'm not accusing Oregon of paying Lache, but it's just as easy to sling baseless accusations when there's no facts supporting it. Especially with such a powerful benefactor such as Phil Knight.

This whole Reed/Robinson thing would be a non issue if it weren't for the Newton fiasco. You cannot honestly think that the coaches would be providing improper benefits to a recruit while the Newton case was spiraling.

Smoke does not always mean there's fire. If Auburn wasn't a national title contender at the time, this story would haven't made it a couple weeks in the national spotlight and this non story in Louisiana would fall in the "WGAF?" category.

But I digress, you may continue believing what you wish. I know I won't be changing many minds, but it would be nice if people would actually look at issues from more than one angle.

[AU4UO]

I think I'll take a break from this thread for now. Not because it frustrates me, but because I've talked this topic to death both here and elsewhere on many occasions with little or no breakthrough.

Is it September yet?

[wheaton4prez]

You don't think that Cam Newton's father shopped him around?

If he did, there's an astonishing lack of proof he did. Has it occurred to you that maybe he was approached by MSU boosters with the idea of paying him for Cam? Or at the very least this is an isolated event at MSU. Solicitation of one school isn't "shopping".

Multiple sources have reported that Cecil Newton himself admitted to shopping Cam Newton.

http://college-football.blogs.cbssports ... 8/25807185

What additional evidence are you looking for?

"shopping" is just jargon. The way I've seen it used, it could mean that he solicited one school. Anyway, that is beside the point given that soliciting one school is just as much of a violation as soliciting multiple schools.

Remember how Auburn was recruiting Seastrunk pretty hard? However, he went to Oregon. Ducks must have paid more for him. See how easy that was?

I'm not accusing Oregon of paying Lache, but it's just as easy to sling baseless accusations when there's no facts supporting it. Especially with such a powerful benefactor such as Phil Knight.

You think that the Newton case is as baseless as making something up from thin air?

Multiple people have come forward with directly obtained information pointing to a problem. That means that there is a basis for people to make accusations. You can be skeptical and/or point out potential flaws. But, you can't claim that they have no basis. The basis is "witnesses have publicly stated that they were personally involved in the Newtons attempts at a pay-for-play scheme."

Smoke does not always mean there's fire. If Auburn wasn't a national title contender at the time, this story would haven't made it a couple weeks in the national spotlight and this non story in Louisiana would fall in the "WGAF?" category.

I think it could just as easily be the opposite case. Since Auburn was an NC contender, there were a lot of forces that didn't want to see the event marred by scandal.

But I digress, you may continue believing what you wish. I know I won't be changing many minds, but it would be nice if people would actually look at issues from more than one angle.

Drawing a conclusion doesn't mean that a person hasn't considered other angles.

Personally, I think I'm being generous to assume that Auburn wasn't complicit in this. However, it boggles my mind that Cecil Newton can admit that he solicited his son to play at MSU (after lying about it for a long time) and people believe that Cam wasn't aware of it. If that isn't a product of only considering one angle, I don't know what is.

[AU4UO]

You bring up some good points, Wheaton. I don't have an issue with anything you've posted. There is probably quite a bit about the whole thing that we are not privy to. If something comes out later down the line, then I'll eat my hat. For now, I believe that Auburn is innocent.

As far as the Cam "knowing and not knowing" predicament, I'm not sure. I'll just trust that the NCAA made their best judgment call. There's no way of either of us knowing the answer. If my father was dealing in shady business when I was young, then there's a chance I probably wouldn't have known either...unless I did some digging.

Thanks for approaching this discussion without coming off as a tool. A lot of people I've debated this with were desperate wastes of time. Oregon fans seem to be the least confrontational and difficult about it.

[woundedknees]

Don't tell the beavers... They want to believe Oregon fans are the biggest jerks in NCAA Sports!

[greenyellow]

Don't tell the beavers... They want to believe Oregon fans are the biggest jerks in NCAA Sports!

According to them, anytime Oregon does something well or gets something new, it's because the Ducks cheated or Phil Knight/Nike bought it.

[AU4UO]

Don't tell the beavers... They want to believe Oregon fans are the biggest jerks in NCAA Sports!

According to them, anytime Oregon does something well or gets something new, it's because the Ducks cheated or Phil Knight/Nike bought it.

That's how most, if not all SEC teams feel about us. I didn't know so many hated us until this past season. We've always been good to everyone, but I guess our family type atmosphere and community makes us bad people.

Our fanbases are strikingly similar, yet different in their own ways. I think that's what really drew me to the Ducks. Being a good representative of your school really goes a long way.

[woundedknees]

I'm a logger's kid, but still think poisoning those Oaks should get the guy horse whipped.

[AU4UO]

I'm a logger's kid, but still think poisoning those Oaks should get the guy horse whipped.

We're not very happy with ol' Harvey at the moment. That's putting it nicely. Rumor going around that the trees at his lake house were rolled after he got bailed out.

The outpouring of support from all over the country has been amazing.