au21tigers 0 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 http://www.headtoheadradio.com/index.php/post/facts_and_opinion_re_recordings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToraGirl 5,498 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Great article; much appreciated! Thanks, AU21! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofhill1 2 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 That's very powerful stuff. I wonder what danny sheridan thinks about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurtonJ20 61 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I am going to BUMP this because it is not getting enough credit. This is HUGE coming from the Miss St camp. Too bad the media will ignore a valid opinion from someone who actually heard the tapes and knows the whole story. The truth just doesn't sell. Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auinmadison 0 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Great read and well thought out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujess07 4 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Wow. Bumping this again. Great article. Written with facts. Felt good to read something factual for a change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aucpe 0 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Sorry, this just can't be true. I didn't even see one mention of the Bag Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BirdofPrey76 0 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Is this the same Matt Wyatt that played QB for MSU and is from Prattville, AL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
au21tigers 0 Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 Is this the same Matt Wyatt that played QB for MSU and is from Prattville, AL? Think so. I'm pretty sure he wanted to come to Auburn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 im not sure i agree that miss st acted accordingly and protected themselves in a timely manner. but most of it is close to my way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigerbelle 5,299 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Good article. Not sure I totally agree that MSU was all 100% squeaky clean, because I still think Mrs. Mullen was a source for some rumors and it was not by accident. :-\ I also thought MSU was late in giving some documents to the NCAA???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Even according to the SEC office, moo state was 6 months late giving a response on the original questions to the conference office, because they we're dealing with other compliance issues. While it is an interesting article, I'm hard pressed to believe Mrs. Mullen was non-participatory. Don't buy it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger n Miami AU83 25 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 In summary, from the writers opinion, the voicemails, the factual timeline of both the calls and reporting to the SEC office, the following emerges... 1. MSU received a solicitation which they did not reciprocate with an offer or negotiation. In fact, they ignored the person who made the solicitation from that point onward (Rogers on behalf of Cecil). 2. MSU reported the solicitation to the SEC office. Further, MSU did not offer to pay anyone at any point. 3. AU was likely aware of the solicitation (as AU was recruiting Cam and the SEC had been made aware) and the fact it was not reciprocated in any way. It then stands to reason being that the SEC and AU were both aware of the solicitation, that no offer was ever made by any school or booster and no money ever exchanged hands and Cecil received nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger n Miami AU83 25 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Even according to the SEC office, moo state was 6 months late giving a response on the original questions to the conference office, because they we're dealing with other compliance issues. While it is an interesting article, I'm hard pressed to believe Mrs. Mullen was non-participatory. Don't buy it at all. Was MSU late in giving the SEC office additional information or reporting it in the first place? If it the former and the solicitation was reported during the recruitment as the writer claims, then his opinion makes sense as does the timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auclong 1 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Even according to the SEC office, moo state was 6 months late giving a response on the original questions to the conference office, because they we're dealing with other compliance issues. While it is an interesting article, I'm hard pressed to believe Mrs. Mullen was non-participatory. Don't buy it at all. Was MSU late in giving the SEC office additional information or reporting it in the first place? If it the former and the solicitation was reported during the recruitment as the writer claims, then his opinion makes sense as does the timeline. MSU was late responding to request for additional info after reporting a possible violation to the SEC. They dropped the ball after getting things set in motion. AU apparently was not notified on a timely basis of all of this. That is my understanding and such was admitted by the SEC . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Even according to the SEC office, moo state was 6 months late giving a response on the original questions to the conference office, because they we're dealing with other compliance issues. While it is an interesting article, I'm hard pressed to believe Mrs. Mullen was non-participatory. Don't buy it at all. Was MSU late in giving the SEC office additional information or reporting it in the first place? If it the former and the solicitation was reported during the recruitment as the writer claims, then his opinion makes sense as does the timeline. MSU was late responding to request for additional info after reporting a possible violation to the SEC. They dropped the ball after getting things set in motion. AU apparently was not notified on a timely basis of all of this. That is my understanding and such was admitted by the SEC . Sorry T in Miami, didn't see your follow up to my post. The Clarion Ledger archives from Jackson, Ms. is a really good source for info concerning this, they had many articles and did a good job of covering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaotic_zx 1,046 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Bump. Good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckTownTiger 0 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Even according to the SEC office, moo state was 6 months late giving a response on the original questions to the conference office, because they we're dealing with other compliance issues. While it is an interesting article, I'm hard pressed to believe Mrs. Mullen was non-participatory. Don't buy it at all. Was MSU late in giving the SEC office additional information or reporting it in the first place? If it the former and the solicitation was reported during the recruitment as the writer claims, then his opinion makes sense as does the timeline. MSU was late responding to request for additional info after reporting a possible violation to the SEC. They dropped the ball after getting things set in motion. AU apparently was not notified on a timely basis of all of this. That is my understanding and such was admitted by the SEC . If this is true, it appears to me that MSU had a plan where they hoped another team would take the deal and then they would get that team busted. Not saying Auburn fell for it but that would explain the onslaught of dirt coming from their camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 no. i think they were still hoping to sign cam and would sweep it all under the rug. when they lost on cam they changed plans. it would not surprise me if there was people trying to coordinate a payment to kr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdgen 2 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Even according to the SEC office, moo state was 6 months late giving a response on the original questions to the conference office, because they we're dealing with other compliance issues. While it is an interesting article, I'm hard pressed to believe Mrs. Mullen was non-participatory. Don't buy it at all. Was MSU late in giving the SEC office additional information or reporting it in the first place? If it the former and the solicitation was reported during the recruitment as the writer claims, then his opinion makes sense as does the timeline. MSU was late responding to request for additional info after reporting a possible violation to the SEC. They dropped the ball after getting things set in motion. AU apparently was not notified on a timely basis of all of this. That is my understanding and such was admitted by the SEC . If this is true, it appears to me that MSU had a plan where they hoped another team would take the deal and then they would get that team busted. Not saying Auburn fell for it but that would explain the onslaught of dirt coming from their camp. I don't think msu is that slick. I think the guy who reported to the AD thought something had gone down that was shady. Back then the msu folks were saying cecil had been given more work through his trucking business for cam. Which even most of their people didn't believe at the time. But someone in the AD's office or one of the coaches realized msu was up to their eyeballs in trouble if what they did got out. So that 6 month period between first reporting and then when they finally gave clarification was a time they used to get their story straight. Frankly, I don't believe their former qb. I just think he is trying to cover their rear end by trying to get this to go away. Even if the public is continually blasting auburn the ncaa isn't that single minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwspringer 0 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 no. i think they were still hoping to sign cam and would sweep it all under the rug. when they lost on cam they changed plans. it would not surprise me if there was people trying to coordinate a payment to kr. We don't what happened. Could be Rogers got some money from MSU booters and kept it for himself after Cecil backed off of Rogers/MSU. Could be a lot of things. But you know what, we don't know what went on with a lot of our players recruitment's or the recruitment of high profile players that our rivals recruited either... you can't worry too much about what you don't know because you likely won't ever know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgalegend 0 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I wish more people would realize this. Auburn was informed by the sec before they signed cam. Maybe not to its entirety but they new something was going on. You would have to be an idiot to pay for someone after knowing the sec is already looking into violations on that person. I also believe this is the reason it took so long to name cam the starter. Auburn pays alot of money to staff members and lawers who know every angle of the ncaa rule book and understand what you can and cant do. More information came out later from miss st, but that has nothing to do with auburn. The media will not let this go because alot of them have there reputation on the line based on allegations, not facts. None of them are going to write an article saying, sorry auburn for misleading the public on information I heard from a guy that knows a guy that knows another guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aucpe 0 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I wish more people would realize this. Auburn was informed by the sec before they signed cam. Maybe not to its entirety but they new something was going on. You would have to be an idiot to pay for someone after knowing the sec is already looking into violations on that person. I also believe this is the reason it took so long to name cam the starter. Auburn pays alot of money to staff members and lawers who know every angle of the ncaa rule book and understand what you can and cant do. More information came out later from miss st, but that has nothing to do with auburn. The media will not let this go because alot of them have there reputation on the line based on allegations, not facts. None of them are going to write an article saying, sorry auburn for misleading the public on information I heard from a guy that knows a guy that knows another guy. You would also have to be an idiot to pay that much money for an unproven commodity -- one that is not even being recruited by that many teams. If Auburn was willing to pay that much for Cam, they must have a debt ceiling matching that of the entire U.S. to pay for each recruiting class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1TexasTiger 55 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Bump Great Read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war eagle 99 0 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 http://www.headtoheadradio.com/index.php/post/facts_and_opinion_re_recordings were i live i unfortunatly have listened to his show a couple of times and he is not any better than the rest of the morons out there, he is a secret updyke and always insults Auburn when he talks about them, so good or bad dont listen to anything he says, he is still butthurt because auburn didnt want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.