Dye and Ramsey

[Bathel 50]

He just told them how to get money

https://web1.ncaa.or...NOT BE REPEATED

During the

spring of 1990, the director of athletics/head football coach and the student-athlete discussed a

possible loan on two occasions. On April 23, 1990, the young man requested the head coach's

assistance. The head coach later reported to the student-athlete that he had contacted the

representative and had asked him to meet with the young man. On April 24, the student-athlete

met with the representative and was provided a loan

The director of athletics/head football coach met with football student-athletes to warn the young

men not to sign contracts with sports agents prior to the completion of their NCAA eligibility,

and instead, he recommended that they obtain loans if they needed money. The head coach

referred at least three student-athletes to a representative of the institution's athletics interests at a

local bank for the possibility of obtaining a loan. He knew it was a violation of NCAA legislation

for student-athletes to obtain loans based upon their payback potential as professional athletes,

but he did not inform the student-athletes of applicable NCAA legislation and he did not ask the

student-athletes or the representative about the outcome of his referral to the bank.

Did you read the link you posted?

Here is what it says was found :

The institution and the involved coaches admitted a number of violations as major violations,

and the Committee on Infractions found the following major violations within the football

program had occurred:

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of cash payments, including bonuses for game

performance, to a student-athlete by a representative of the institution's athletics interests.

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of cash payments to a student-athlete by an assistant

football coach.

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of repeated and regular cash payments to a studentathlete

by an athletics department administrative assistant.

Provision of preferential treatment to a student-athlete by a representative of the institution's

athletics interests in order for the student-athlete to obtain a loan.

* Failing to exercise appropriate institutional control and monitoring of the institution's

intercollegiate football program.

* Unethical conduct by an assistant football coach.

* Unethical conduct by an athletics department administrative assistant.

* Erroneous certification during the 1989-90 and 1990-91 academic years that the institution's

athletics program was in compliance with NCAA rules.

* Permitting student-athletes who had not met all eligibility requirements to compete in athletics

contests. [Page 7] * Exceeding the number of permissible grants-in-aid in football during the

1988-89 and 1990-91 academic years.

If you think Dye was just tryting to "help" needy players ge loans, you're are mis-informed... at least that's not what they admitted to. Now, having said that... I don't doubt for one minute that what was going on was common practice at other institutions.... just couldn't be proven as easily as it was for Auburn with those tapes. So, if we can forgive Dye and name the field after him, I think wwe can forgive Petrino for what he has done in the past given he has changed his ways and IF hired holds himsel to the standard set forward by the University.

I really don't care what Dye did nor do I care what Petrino has done. I don't even know if Petrino is a good coach or not. What I do know is that this team we currently have isn't performing like it should. In my limited experience and knowledge I would pin that on the Head Coach, although it may not be his fault. What ever the issue is, it needs to be fixed...

[Autigers71 0]

He just told them how to get money

https://web1.ncaa.or...NOT BE REPEATED

During the

spring of 1990, the director of athletics/head football coach and the student-athlete discussed a

possible loan on two occasions. On April 23, 1990, the young man requested the head coach's

assistance. The head coach later reported to the student-athlete that he had contacted the

representative and had asked him to meet with the young man. On April 24, the student-athlete

met with the representative and was provided a loan

The director of athletics/head football coach met with football student-athletes to warn the young

men not to sign contracts with sports agents prior to the completion of their NCAA eligibility,

and instead, he recommended that they obtain loans if they needed money. The head coach

referred at least three student-athletes to a representative of the institution's athletics interests at a

local bank for the possibility of obtaining a loan. He knew it was a violation of NCAA legislation

for student-athletes to obtain loans based upon their payback potential as professional athletes,

but he did not inform the student-athletes of applicable NCAA legislation and he did not ask the

student-athletes or the representative about the outcome of his referral to the bank.

Did you read the link you posted?

Here is what it says was found :

The institution and the involved coaches admitted a number of violations as major violations,

and the Committee on Infractions found the following major violations within the football

program had occurred:

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of cash payments, including bonuses for game

performance, to a student-athlete by a representative of the institution's athletics interests.

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of cash payments to a student-athlete by an assistant

football coach.

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of repeated and regular cash payments to a studentathlete

by an athletics department administrative assistant.

Provision of preferential treatment to a student-athlete by a representative of the institution's

athletics interests in order for the student-athlete to obtain a loan.

* Failing to exercise appropriate institutional control and monitoring of the institution's

intercollegiate football program.

* Unethical conduct by an assistant football coach.

* Unethical conduct by an athletics department administrative assistant.

* Erroneous certification during the 1989-90 and 1990-91 academic years that the institution's

athletics program was in compliance with NCAA rules.

* Permitting student-athletes who had not met all eligibility requirements to compete in athletics

contests. [Page 7] * Exceeding the number of permissible grants-in-aid in football during the

1988-89 and 1990-91 academic years.

If you think Dye was just tryting to "help" needy players ge loans, you're are mis-informed... at least that's not what they admitted to. Now, having said that... I don't doubt for one minute that what was going on was common practice at other institutions.... just couldn't be proven as easily as it was for Auburn with those tapes. So, if we can forgive Dye and name the field after him, I think wwe can forgive Petrino for what he has done in the past given he has changed his ways and IF hired holds himsel to the standard set forward by the University.

I really don't care what Dye did nor do I care what Petrino has done. I don't even know if Petrino is a good coach or not. What I do know is that this team we currently have isn't performing like it should. In my limited experience and knowledge I would pin that on the Head Coach, although it may not be his fault. What ever the issue is, it needs to be fixed...

Of course I read it, I was being sarcastic

[ausburn 159]

He just told them how to get money

https://web1.ncaa.or...NOT BE REPEATED

During the

spring of 1990, the director of athletics/head football coach and the student-athlete discussed a

possible loan on two occasions. On April 23, 1990, the young man requested the head coach's

assistance. The head coach later reported to the student-athlete that he had contacted the

representative and had asked him to meet with the young man. On April 24, the student-athlete

met with the representative and was provided a loan

The director of athletics/head football coach met with football student-athletes to warn the young

men not to sign contracts with sports agents prior to the completion of their NCAA eligibility,

and instead, he recommended that they obtain loans if they needed money. The head coach

referred at least three student-athletes to a representative of the institution's athletics interests at a

local bank for the possibility of obtaining a loan. He knew it was a violation of NCAA legislation

for student-athletes to obtain loans based upon their payback potential as professional athletes,

but he did not inform the student-athletes of applicable NCAA legislation and he did not ask the

student-athletes or the representative about the outcome of his referral to the bank.

Did you read the link you posted?

Here is what it says was found :

The institution and the involved coaches admitted a number of violations as major violations,

and the Committee on Infractions found the following major violations within the football

program had occurred:

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of cash payments, including bonuses for game

performance, to a student-athlete by a representative of the institution's athletics interests.

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of cash payments to a student-athlete by an assistant

football coach.

* Provision of extra benefits in the form of repeated and regular cash payments to a studentathlete

by an athletics department administrative assistant.

Provision of preferential treatment to a student-athlete by a representative of the institution's

athletics interests in order for the student-athlete to obtain a loan.

* Failing to exercise appropriate institutional control and monitoring of the institution's

intercollegiate football program.

* Unethical conduct by an assistant football coach.

* Unethical conduct by an athletics department administrative assistant.

* Erroneous certification during the 1989-90 and 1990-91 academic years that the institution's

athletics program was in compliance with NCAA rules.

* Permitting student-athletes who had not met all eligibility requirements to compete in athletics

contests. [Page 7] * Exceeding the number of permissible grants-in-aid in football during the

1988-89 and 1990-91 academic years.

If you think Dye was just tryting to "help" needy players ge loans, you're are mis-informed... at least that's not what they admitted to. Now, having said that... I don't doubt for one minute that what was going on was common practice at other institutions.... just couldn't be proven as easily as it was for Auburn with those tapes. So, if we can forgive Dye and name the field after him, I think wwe can forgive Petrino for what he has done in the past given he has changed his ways and IF hired holds himsel to the standard set forward by the University.

I really don't care what Dye did nor do I care what Petrino has done. I don't even know if Petrino is a good coach or not. What I do know is that this team we currently have isn't performing like it should. In my limited experience and knowledge I would pin that on the Head Coach, although it may not be his fault. What ever the issue is, it needs to be fixed...

Of course I read it, I was being sarcastic

Corky Frost gave Rasmey steaks/food for good play. Assistant coach helped (keep down home) getting advances on pell grant aid. Athletic admin assist was the pell grant advances. If these violations had not happened then the others could have gone as minor. If you don't think Eric played the system for his benefit you don't know the true history of this Auburn experience. Dye did do the introductions on loans but the loans were between the bank and the students. Intro was wrong. Fine lines fall both ways.

[Bathel 50]

Of course I read it, I was being sarcastic

WHere has the Yellow text gone I miss those days....

[cctiger 572]

To quote Dr.McCoy, MY GOD JIM DO SOMETHING, QUICK!

[Bathel 50]

Corky Frost gave Rasmey steaks/food for good play. Assistant coach helped (keep down home) getting advances on pell grant aid. Athletic admin assist was the pell grant advances. If these violations had not happened then the others could have gone as minor. If you don't think Eric played the system for his benefit you don't know the true history of this Auburn experience. Dye did do the introductions on loans but the loans were between the bank and the students. Intro was wrong. Fine lines fall both ways.

Ha... I don't want to get into a debaet on past events, but read the link. It's a link to the NCAA report. I don't believe you'll find information in there to support your thoughts on what happened. Like it or not, the Pat Dye administration was freewheeling, although I don't think it was any different than any other programs. Eric Rasmey was the least of the issue that Auburn was slapped for, he was just what brought it all out in the open. Let me be clear, I really don't care what Dye did back then... it was wrong, we got caught, we paid the price AND I don't think our program was doing anything different than other schools, we just got caught. Be that right or wrong can be debated, but we paid our price and we moved forward.... and the point is/was that if Petrino has turned a new leaf, he should be afforded the same forgiveness and the fans should move past it. Maybe it's still to "current", which I would understand or maybe the current admin doesn't want to risk the PR nightmare if Petrino hasn't changed his ways... understandable. However, when it comes down to IF he is hired, he will have my support if that is the direction we go. If not that direction, I'm fine with that too...

What I want to see is the team to be competative no matter who they play. We don't have to win every game, but we should always have a shot to win and we should play like we do. I don't feel like this team has that kind of attitude, but that is just an opinion and it seems to be supported by the opinions of the OP of current players comments.

[around4ever 4,139]

Whatever.