Printable View
They say it was a loan. It doesn't matter.
Clinton-Dix's violation was orders of magnitude worse than Redmond's. Getting paid by a coach vs getting paid by a rouge booster. There is NO comparison.
Redmond got EIGHTEEN GAMES!!! Buzz around the internet is that Clinton-Dix gets one to four games.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--...002539592.html
Stricklin, Keenum, FIRE BRACKY BRETT. NOW!!!
Hard to be a State fan sometimes
NCAA will go easy on Bama for publicity purposes. Bama is a golden child and the national media will cover the story. Because Clinton-Dix got his car broken into and stuff stolen, he will appear destitute, needy, desperate, and in a bind. That makes him a sympathetic character. That makes the coach look like the good guy father figure who helped out a kid in need. The NCAA doesn't want the bad publicity that comes with hammering someone for something like that. Everyone gets off easy.
While our stuff was also minor, it comes off to the public as a booster buying a player. A booster giving a guy benefits not because the player needed it, but rather because he wanted to buy the player. That is the public opinion, regardless if it is accurate or not. The NCAA is more willing to hammer you for that. Then it doesn't help when you voluntarily give yourself up.
How is what Clinton-Dix did worse than Redmond, exactly? It was a loan of less than $500, and it was repaid.
It's essentially the Kevin Fant deal, except it was a staff member rather than a booster.
And people want to bitch about Mullen's recruiting with this hack in our compliance department.
A school cannot control a rouge booster who gives impermissible benefits. There is NCAA precedent that acknowledges schools are at a huge disadvantage in trying to be responsible for boosters.
A school is directly 100% responsible when a coach gives a player an impermissible benefit. OSU got hit real hard not because tatoos are a big deal, but because coaches were involved with it.
Thats the difference.
Regardless of your opinion, there MSU very clearly penalized itself in a grossly disproportionate manner. Redmond get 18 games. Clinton-Dix is going to get a few games at most.
And don't tell me Redmond wasn't a sympathetic figure. Redmond's father was murdered and he was taken advantage of by a 7 on 7 coach who was pimping him around. MSU gets off light, while Redmond got the most harsh penalty I've ever heard of.
Name another player who got more than 18 games.
It is not worse than what we did. There was no advantage gained because Clinton-Dix was already signed and on campus, rather than the money convincing him to sign. The money was repaid before they were caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Now on the other hand, no booster has a contract prohibiting him from a giving money, nor has a recruit signed anything prohibiting him from accepting money. In the case at Bama, the coach has a clause in his contract prohibiting stuff like this, and the player has agreed in his scholarship papers not to accept money like this.
I think this Bama stuff is minor, but I also think our stuff was minor as well.
aQuote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Not much difference in the benefit. The huge difference is the benefit was paid by a coach vs paid by a rouge booster. World of difference there in terms of what the school is expected to control.
The point is that MSU grossly disproportionately penalized itself due to the incompetence of Bracky Brett. Other schools have lawyers and former NCAA compliance people in their compliance director position. We have a former high school employee.
Also consider that our coach was immediately fired, whereas Bama's coach is just on administrative leave.
Agree and disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlabLoser
I agree that we penalized ourselves too harshly. If I've got a car I would like to sell for $10,000 and guy walks up and makes me an offer of $12,000 without asking what I want for it, I'm going to take the $12,000. I think we offered the NCAA a harsher punishment than they would have given us.
I disagree on the suspension length, because I though that was the NCAA reinstatment committee, not MSU or the NCAA enforcement folks. Am I right or wrong? I didn't think we had anything to do with that. I honestly don't know, so someone feel free to correct me or clarify.
The net length of Redmond's suspension is on Bracky. Bracky suspended Redmond a full year. Brackey recommended an additional 6 games.
All of Redmond's punishment begins and ends with Bracky.
Bracky, Bracky, Bracky.
http://www.starkvilledailynews.com/s...t%20px%208.JPG
A coach was involved in ours as well. He didn't actually provide the benefit himself, but he facilitated it and had knowledge of it.
It's essentially the same thing. We fired the coach, Bama may do the same thing. But Clinton-Dix was already on campus and it was a repaid loan. Redmond was not on campus, and it was something given to him; it wasn't a loan.
The two are night and day in terms of intent. One was intended to give a gift to persuade a kid to sign. The other was a loan to, I suppose, help the kid out for a little while. There was no real benefit gained.
Just as we were ticked that Fant was suspended at all (and I assume we would have been even if it was a coach who did it, because who cares?), I don't think it's a big deal that Clinton-Dix won't get much.
Redmond should get more, though I agree that 18 games is far too many. I'm just not sure how much of that Bracky Brett was responsible for.
I'm not a Bracky Brett fan. But I don't know enough (and essentially everyone on here is in the same boat) to pin everything on him, and I'm a little uncomfortable with doing that. It just seems like an easy scapegoat. Saying Mullen doesn't have the ability to recruit because we have Bracky Brett? That seems like easy excuse-making.
Doug Buckles from Madison Central turned us in for giving him twenty dollars on an official visit. I'm still glad they didn't give us the death penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Danko
There's always a silver lining!
It's why we love college football.
What about my post, specifically, did you take such issue with?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlabLoser
Shouldn't we at least appeal to...ourselves I guess...and try to reinstate Redmond's redshirt season? That way he will have served half a season suspension and still have 3 to play. What would it hurt to try?
Man, don't see much hope for you if don't see the difference between someone who is EMPLOYED by the university handing out money versus some random MSU fan on the street handing out money. Its not a "what Clinton-Dix did was worse than Redmond" its all about where the source of the money came and institutional control.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Shouldn't they get just a little worse than what we got for fant?
It's the same thing except with them a coach did it.
http://images.wikia.com/glee/images/...n_THIS_Gif.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
Is that what happen? I thought he asked the guy who sold him the tires to hold the check until his mom put the money into the account. Goes to show how sometimes you memory is tanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
And that's how ONE compliance/PR department is light years ahead of the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo Darville
Guessing these people that "come off as the public" never watched Undefeated and saw where and what Will Redmond has come from.... because if ANYONE had a sympathy card, it was us.
But we were too busy eating our own to play it...and that is on Bracky.
I thought someone else paid the money for the tires then his
Mom paid them back shortly after. You're right... Been a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lambert
No. A 'booster' bought the tires, and Fant paid him back a little while later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lambert
You're only focusing on one aspect, coach vs. booster.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
The problem with the comparison is, they weren't the same act. Different people did different things. We had a booster hand out money to Redmond, which an assistant had knowledge of. A Bama AC gave a loan to Clinton-Dix.
I could easily say the same thing...don't see much hope for you if you don't see the difference between a loan and a gift.
I agree with this, for the record. Fant got a game, so Clinton-Dix should probably get anywhere from 2-4.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheewgumm
Although, you could also make the case that the act on his part is the same as Fant's. It is the coach that should be punished more harshly.
Fant got a game... MSU got hammered. And that was as big of deal as practically anything they had on us
It only became a loan after they got caught. I bet before that it was a payment.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Quit splitting hairs. Bad, not as bad, worse, coach, booster...who gives a shit.
We get comparitively WAY worse than similar cases at other schools. 18 games for Redmond is unthinkable by any standard. Our leadership has to be held accountable. Our leadership has to change its approach - or our leadership much be changed out.
I don't like putting his personal stuff out there, but Will lost his father early in life. He's a great, great person that's driven himself to succeed. His mom works constantly to put her kids through college and struggles to make ends meet. She's a damn saint. She could give up and fall into the system, but she doesn't. Not only does Will need some positive influences in his life, he deserves to have some good things happen to him for working his ass off in high school to do well academically, succeed in football, and be an all-world track star... despite the odds.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakePlissken
That's what I would like to know. I'd be willing to bet that someone else on the staff got wind of it and made C-D pay it back BEFORE they publicly brought it forward to their compliance. And, its a minor point, but a family friend of Fant (who apparently was considered a "booster") HELD the tires that Fant needed on his credit card until his Mother could arrive to pay for them. Fant certainly never had any cash handed to him. That whole incident was ridiculous and was only allowing for the shop to start working on getting his tires on while waiting on the Mother. Only Snoop Dog Bracky would have seen fit to even report such a thing to begin with.
And I don't really care if we had a coach on staff who supposedly knew about what was going on with Redmond and failed to take the initiative to report it, that's still a long way from taking your wallet out and paying a kid yourself. There are a TON of coaches out there turning a blind eye but there aren't many forking over money.