Latest From Clay Travis

[Elephant Tipper 430]

   

[AUenginerd 16]

The difference between Suitgate and Camgate is proof.  A picture really is worth a thousand words.  Or in this case a 5 -10 new suit(s)? 

Adjusted for inflation.

No, you only get a loaner suit.  That was the excuse that turds were using on Rivals to justify all this. Loaner suits?!?!?!?!?  That are custom tailored.  Right!!!!!!  Some of them also said they could have been rented by the unibercity.  They're a bright bunch that wear crimson, I tell you what!  WDE!

[mustache eagle 2,402]

even if it was a loan, it still has value which would be a violation.  and if it were repeatedly done by multiple folks, not isolated, then rut roh raggy!

i also like the way the line of bama talk is going ... went from "nothing wrong here and you can stick it" to "well maybe it was done this way or that way"

[auburntiger77 0]

It is not the crime, but the coverup

[mustache eagle 2,402]

It is not the crime, but the coverup

this will lead to my absolute favorite political pundit saying ... "What did he/they know and when did he/they know it"

[Ed_ 3]

I posted this as a comment on CT's latest article but I'd be interested to hear any thoughts from other AE member about my logic here.

So the NCAA regs that are applicable to this are as follows per my understanding:

12.5 PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

12.5.2 Nonpermissible.

12.5.2.1 Advertisements and Promotions After Becoming a Student-Athlete.

After becoming a student-athlete, an individual shall not be eligible for participation in intercollegiate athletics if the individual:

(a) Accepts any remuneration for or permits the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind;

Now as I read that, first off it doesn't even matter if Julio was getting free suits for signing any of this stuff.  Just signing the items with the knowledge that it would be used to promote a service (a store in this case) would be a violation though I'm not sure if that would be a primary or secondary violation.  So now the question becomes did they know that the items were being used to promote the store?  Well unlike the items that were being sold from a kiosk elsewhere in the mall (I still think they would have noticed the stuff that they were signing being offered for sale at the kiosk but that's another issue) all they would have to do is look around the store at all the memorabilia and see the advertising that links the football program (and thus the players) to the store and they would have to realize that what they were signing would at least be used to promote the store.

So at best it would seem like they would be looking at a massive amount of secondary violations (assuming each item was a separate violation). And at more than likely would be looking at the NCAA asking why they didn't report this as soon as they found out about it.

Anyone see any holes in my logic?

[AUenginerd 16]

It is not the crime, but the coverup

this will lead to my absolute favorite political pundit saying ... "What did he/they know and when did he/they know it"

Define the word "it." 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

The difference between Suitgate and Camgate is proof.  A picture really is worth a thousand words.  Or in this case a 5 -10 new suit(s)? 

Adjusted for inflation.

No, you only get a loaner suit.  That was the excuse that turds were using on Rivals to justify all this. Loaner suits?!?!?!?!?  That are custom tailored.  Right!!!!!!  Some of them also said they could have been rented by the unibercity.  They're a bright bunch that wear crimson, I tell you what!  WDE!

Loaner suits + autograph = eBay $$$$$$$$ 

WDE !!!

[AUenginerd 16]

Anyone see any holes in my logic?

Your logic is what I've thought the whole time.  It doesn't matter if they got the suits for free or at a discount, or were paid for their autographs.  The store owner and the kids all knew they were using the items to promote his store.  How you could deny that is beyond me, and obviously above the logic of a turd, as they keep saying there were no "benefits." 

[CammyCamJuice1345162966 0]

Unfortunately the NCAA would need to prove that this suit fella has indeed exchanged suits or money for the autographs, or in the case of this photo paid for the meal. And I doubt they'll be able to. If the shoe were on the other foot, everyone would be crying a foul claiming "he doesn't need to prove he didn't pay for the meal, they have to prove he did pay for the meal."

[AUGRAD86 0]

Where's Pete Thamel? 

Jumping off a cliff?

Lying in a fetal position sucking his thumb?

[Ed_ 3]

Unfortunately the NCAA would need to prove that this suit fella has indeed exchanged suits or money for the autographs, or in the case of this photo paid for the meal. And I doubt they'll be able to. If the shoe were on the other foot, everyone would be crying a foul claiming "he doesn't need to prove he didn't pay for the meal, they have to prove he did pay for the meal."

My reading of the statute (yellow section in my post at the top of the page) seems to imply that money need not change hands.  If part of this guy's marketing strategy is showing some kind of relationship between the program and his store and the athletes sign the memorabilia knowing it will be displayed as part of that marketing in the store that would seem to be a violation. Now extra benefits would obviously be worse but this combined with Bama not reporting it could still be a major issue (see GT)

[Newbomb 193]

Unfortunately the NCAA would need to prove that this suit fella has indeed exchanged suits or money for the autographs, or in the case of this photo paid for the meal. And I doubt they'll be able to. If the shoe were on the other foot, everyone would be crying a foul claiming "he doesn't need to prove he didn't pay for the meal, they have to prove he did pay for the meal."

No personal offense but you are incorrect.  Players cannot advertise for businesses.  Nick was in this business also.  As Nick is chief compliance officer for the FB program all that needs to be tied together is if Nick was on the premises at the same time as the players.  Easily done with time stamp.  Then this would fall into the same category as sweater vest with failure to monitor and Lack of Instutional Control.

I will also add that the compliance dept was aware of this or their would be no need for the Cease and Desist.  More LoIC.

[aupops2 8]

Update @ 2:30 PM today;  CT just said on "The 3 hour lunch" that the "mushroom cloud is getting bigger and bigger".

[aucpe 0]

No, you only get a loaner suit.  That was the excuse that turds were using on Rivals to justify all this. Loaner suits?!?!?!?!?  That are custom tailored.  Right!!!!!!  Some of them also said they could have been rented by the unibercity.  They're a bright bunch that wear crimson, I tell you what!  WDE!

So if a "loaner" suit is OK, I guess a "loaner" car and a "loaner" house are OK too?  How about just a "loan"?  You know, until I get paid in the NFL 

[auriptide 0]

Update @ 2:30 PM today;  CT just said on "The 3 hour lunch" that the "mushroom cloud is getting bigger and bigger".

[AU60 0]

The bammers probably just compared a few suits with a Charger and decided that suits weren't enough to qualify as a benefit.

[BirdofPrey76 0]

Where's Pete Thamel?   

I asked him why he wasn't touching this on twitter earlier, just as I thought, the little punk coward hasn't responded back. Thamel wears pink panties.

That's cause he's a little guurrrl!

[BirdofPrey76 0]

It is not the crime, but the coverup

this will lead to my absolute favorite political pundit saying ... "What did he/they know and when did he/they know it"

Define the word "it."   

Hi, Bill. How's Hillary?

[around4ever 4,139]

It is not the crime, but the coverup

this will lead to my absolute favorite political pundit saying ... "What did he/they know and when did he/they know it"

Define the word "it."   

Hi, Bill. How's Hillary?

Bill:  Who??  Oh, her.  I don't know.  I haven't seen her.   

[AUenginerd 16]

It is not the crime, but the coverup

this will lead to my absolute favorite political pundit saying ... "What did he/they know and when did he/they know it"

Define the word "it."   

Hi, Bill. How's Hillary?