The Prowler 1 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I'm not sure how true this is, but.... Jimmy John's Pit Bull Website was Registered on April 12th, 2006.....Meaning that there's a possibility that he's been ineligible since April 12th, 2006. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/arin...hnspitbulls.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 3,915 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 KNOCK, KNOCK NCAA COMING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashandarei 0 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 He only updated it in March of 08, so I don't think it will be a big deal. Just having the site name means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAR-MATT 2 Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I'm not sure how true this is, but.... Jimmy John's Pit Bull Website was Registered on April 12th, 2006.....Meaning that there's a possibility that he's been ineligible since April 12th, 2006. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/arin...hnspitbulls.com You know what's sad? They would only have to give up 13 wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prowler 1 Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUesquire 1 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I'm not sure how true this is, but.... Jimmy John's Pit Bull Website was Registered on April 12th, 2006.....Meaning that there's a possibility that he's been ineligible since April 12th, 2006. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/arin...hnspitbulls.com You know what's sad? They would only have to give up 13 wins. Exactly. Nothing to see here. Move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoopie 6 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Will they have to forfeit the 2008 recruiting championship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I'm not sure how true this is, but.... Jimmy John's Pit Bull Website was Registered on April 12th, 2006.....Meaning that there's a possibility that he's been ineligible since April 12th, 2006. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/arin...hnspitbulls.com You know what's sad? They would only have to give up 13 wins. Will they have to forfeit the 2008 recruiting championship? YOU GUYS ARE CRACKING ME UP!! Who do I send my keyboard cleaning bill to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 3,915 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Will they have to forfeit the 2008 recruiting championship? Not for this. That will be a separate forfeiture likely to occur around 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Everyone just calm down. JJ was just naively but desperately looking for a secret weapon--anything to avoid #7 this fall: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WezgAIBY6Ys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 He only updated it in March of 08, so I don't think it will be a big deal. Just having the site name means nothing. the problem here is though, he uses pictures of him in action and mentions the university on his website. doing that on a website for a player owned business is a no-no. if he would have had the site without references, big deal. but this does pose a problem. however, i believe i have seen in the NCAA regulations that the NCAA will generally hold a university harmless for the actions of a player if they were unaware of something like this. for example, if a player were a few points short on their grades and might not qualify coming out of high school and the coaches or administration of the high school changed his grades. if the university didn't know that happened but after the player's sophomore year it surfaces that had happened, i don't think the NCAA would generally hold the university responsible for that and wouldn't sanction them. i tried to find the link to the NCAA regs unsuccessfully, however, i think the topic was generally covered in some of the Josh Chapman threads last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECEstudentUA 9 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 He only updated it in March of 08, so I don't think it will be a big deal. Just having the site name means nothing. the problem here is though, he uses pictures of him in action and mentions the university on his website. doing that on a website for a player owned business is a no-no. if he would have had the site without references, big deal. but this does pose a problem. however, i believe i have seen in the NCAA regulations that the NCAA will generally hold a university harmless for the actions of a player if they were unaware of something like this. for example, if a player were a few points short on their grades and might not qualify coming out of high school and the coaches or administration of the high school changed his grades. if the university didn't know that happened but after the player's sophomore year it surfaces that had happened, i don't think the NCAA would generally hold the university responsible for that and wouldn't sanction them. i tried to find the link to the NCAA regs unsuccessfully, however, i think the topic was generally covered in some of the Josh Chapman threads last year. You are right. IF, and only IF the University did not know about the site.......it shouldnt be a problem. But, if the University some how knew about the site and did nothing.....then it would be a big problem. Either way, it doesn't look good. It gives the NCAA a reason to look at Bama agian, and that is always bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I'm not sure how true this is, but.... Jimmy John's Pit Bull Website was Registered on April 12th, 2006.....Meaning that there's a possibility that he's been ineligible since April 12th, 2006. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/arin...hnspitbulls.com actually, the site wasn't even registered until 03/06/08 according to the WHOIS from NETSOL http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/resu...hnspitbulls.com Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: JIMMYJOHNSPITBULLS.COM Created on: 06-Mar-08 Expires on: 07-Mar-09 Last Updated on: 06-Mar-08 also on GoDaddy http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIsRegData.aspx?k...prog_id=godaddy Domain Name: JIMMYJOHNSPITBULLS.COM Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: NS11.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS12.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 06-mar-2008 Creation Date: 06-mar-2008 Expiration Date: 06-mar-2009 if you go directly to ARIN and query the IP, you will see that the 4/12/06 date you are seeing is when the IP block that the domain is in was purchased. that is what the ARIN query you did on NETSOL is showing also, i just think you are possibly confused on how to read ARIN/NETSOL records. ARIN only deals with actual IP addresses, not domains. so any query you would do with them will show the actual IP history. http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=208.109.181.157 NetRange: 208.109.0.0 - 208.109.255.255 CIDR: 208.109.0.0/16 NetName: GO-DADDY-SOFTWARE-INC NetHandle: NET-208-109-0-0-1 Parent: NET-208-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: CNS1.SECURESERVER.NET NameServer: CNS2.SECURESERVER.NET NameServer: CNS3.SECURESERVER.NET Comment: RegDate: 2006-04-12 Updated: 2007-06-14 InterNIC also (obviously) reflects the domain itself being created on 03/06/2008. http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whoi...amp;type=domain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAR-MATT 2 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 And all the NCAA could do to is take away wins in which he played in the games. No big deal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Points 2 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 give bama the death penality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiescottie 1 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 I don't know the NCAA bylaws by heart, but I'm pretty sure that would just be a secondary violation if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBURNJAC 53 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 give bama the death penality NO WAY DUDE!!!!! I know that I LOVE LOVE LOVE to give Bammer hell, but I NEVER want them to get the death penalty! Geez, imagine an Auburn season without our #1 Rivals.......That would SUCK! As a matter of fact, I don't want anyone to EVER get the death penalty as it HURTS the entire conference very very badly............ Dear Bammers, I just took up for you. I hope I NEVER have to again. Sincerely, AUBURNJAC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUisAll 2 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 He only updated it in March of 08, so I don't think it will be a big deal. Just having the site name means nothing. the problem here is though, he uses pictures of him in action and mentions the university on his website. doing that on a website for a player owned business is a no-no. if he would have had the site without references, big deal. but this does pose a problem. however, i believe i have seen in the NCAA regulations that the NCAA will generally hold a university harmless for the actions of a player if they were unaware of something like this. for example, if a player were a few points short on their grades and might not qualify coming out of high school and the coaches or administration of the high school changed his grades. if the university didn't know that happened but after the player's sophomore year it surfaces that had happened, i don't think the NCAA would generally hold the university responsible for that and wouldn't sanction them. i tried to find the link to the NCAA regs unsuccessfully, however, i think the topic was generally covered in some of the Josh Chapman threads last year. You are right. IF, and only IF the University did not know about the site.......it shouldnt be a problem. But, if the University some how knew about the site and did nothing.....then it would be a big problem. Either way, it doesn't look good. It gives the NCAA a reason to look at Bama agian, and that is always bad. A reason to look at bama again? LMAO. With all due respect, let me count the reasons. The feds did a little research on Logan and I understand that the Dicovery channel will do a show about how someone dies falling up the stairs. They can look at the new cars at the athletic complex. The feds might offer a deal to Jimmy Johns and who knows what might be learned. I could go on an on but I'll let some of you help lead the horse err NCAA to the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runswithscissors 33 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 And all the NCAA could do to is take away wins in which he played in the games. No big deal.... unless i missed something, no games have been played since 03/06/08 and now. the domain was not registered in April of 06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAR-MATT 2 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 And all the NCAA could do to is take away wins in which he played in the games. No big deal.... unless i missed something, no games have been played since 03/06/08 and now. the domain was not registered in April of 06. that was my point. you bammers want to argue even when we agree with you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU Cav 0 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 And all the NCAA could do to is take away wins in which he played in the games. No big deal.... unless i missed something, no games have been played since 03/06/08 and now. the domain was not registered in April of 06. that was my point. you bammers want to argue even when we agree with you.... Yeah, it's sad. You can't even help them out. But then again, look at the steeping pile of crap they have their arms around. You can't blame them for smelling like it. Bama football, the girl you were so happy to be with the night before and embarrassed to be around the next morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebdawg 5 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Bama football, the girl you were so happy to be with the night before and embarrassed to be around the next morning. Well said. All that tra-dish-un looks good with beer goggles. The reality is just too sobering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKCAUB 0 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 He only updated it in March of 08, so I don't think it will be a big deal. Just having the site name means nothing. the problem here is though, he uses pictures of him in action and mentions the university on his website. doing that on a website for a player owned business is a no-no. if he would have had the site without references, big deal. but this does pose a problem. however, i believe i have seen in the NCAA regulations that the NCAA will generally hold a university harmless for the actions of a player if they were unaware of something like this. for example, if a player were a few points short on their grades and might not qualify coming out of high school and the coaches or administration of the high school changed his grades. if the university didn't know that happened but after the player's sophomore year it surfaces that had happened, i don't think the NCAA would generally hold the university responsible for that and wouldn't sanction them. i tried to find the link to the NCAA regs unsuccessfully, however, i think the topic was generally covered in some of the Josh Chapman threads last year. You are right. IF, and only IF the University did not know about the site.......it shouldnt be a problem. But, if the University some how knew about the site and did nothing.....then it would be a big problem. Either way, it doesn't look good. It gives the NCAA a reason to look at Bama agian, and that is always bad. You got dat right. Sheesh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 And all the NCAA could do to is take away wins in which he played in the games. No big deal.... unless i missed something, no games have been played since 03/06/08 and now. the domain was not registered in April of 06. that was my point. you bammers want to argue even when we agree with you.... Where you made a mistake is using LOGIC or HONESTY in a conversation with a uater. They simply can't comprehend the concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prowler 1 Posted June 27, 2008 Author Share Posted June 27, 2008 I'm not sure how true this is, but.... Jimmy John's Pit Bull Website was Registered on April 12th, 2006.....Meaning that there's a possibility that he's been ineligible since April 12th, 2006. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/arin...hnspitbulls.com actually, the site wasn't even registered until 03/06/08 according to the WHOIS from NETSOL http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/resu...hnspitbulls.com Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: JIMMYJOHNSPITBULLS.COM Created on: 06-Mar-08 Expires on: 07-Mar-09 Last Updated on: 06-Mar-08 also on GoDaddy http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIsRegData.aspx?k...prog_id=godaddy Domain Name: JIMMYJOHNSPITBULLS.COM Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: NS11.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS12.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 06-mar-2008 Creation Date: 06-mar-2008 Expiration Date: 06-mar-2009 if you go directly to ARIN and query the IP, you will see that the 4/12/06 date you are seeing is when the IP block that the domain is in was purchased. that is what the ARIN query you did on NETSOL is showing also, i just think you are possibly confused on how to read ARIN/NETSOL records. ARIN only deals with actual IP addresses, not domains. so any query you would do with them will show the actual IP history. http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=208.109.181.157 NetRange: 208.109.0.0 - 208.109.255.255 CIDR: 208.109.0.0/16 NetName: GO-DADDY-SOFTWARE-INC NetHandle: NET-208-109-0-0-1 Parent: NET-208-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: CNS1.SECURESERVER.NET NameServer: CNS2.SECURESERVER.NET NameServer: CNS3.SECURESERVER.NET Comment: RegDate: 2006-04-12 Updated: 2007-06-14 InterNIC also (obviously) reflects the domain itself being created on 03/06/2008. http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whoi...amp;type=domain Oh, aight...I gotcha. I guess he just reserved the name of the website in '06? BTW, I wasn't trying to flame or anything, just basically wondering. Also, I SERIOUSLY Doubt that the University knew anything about that website. Even if the NCAA found out that they did, it'd only be a Secondary/Minor Violation, I think. Hell I really don't know anymore, seems to me that the NCAA changes their Rule Book every year like the Federal Government does with the Taxes. I want to know more about this Lee "Personal Caretaker" Thomas fella. Has he been taking care of "The Snowman" since he's been there? How many more athletes is he a "Caretaker" of? Also, WTF does "Caretaker" actually mean? If an athlete needs money, does the "Caretaker" "take......care" of that? If they need to borrow a car for a Hot Date, does he take care of that? Maybe one of you REC members can shed some light on what a "Caretaker" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.