None used for personal profit

[kingfish 73]

Quote from NCAA news release:

"The university has said none of the textbooks or materials were used for profit or to get items not related to academics, and that the athletes involved who still have eligibility remaining have had to pay restitution."

I'm greatly relieved after reading the preceding UAT statement that, "none of the materials were used for profit." I can't tell you how badly I feel now because I had first thought that some of the athletes were getting a $100 text book and then selling it to another student for $50." I am so glad to have UAT officials straighten me out on this.

[Grumps 3,705]

Quote from NCAA news release:

"The university has said none of the textbooks or materials were used for profit or to get items not related to academics, and that the athletes involved who still have eligibility remaining have had to pay restitution."

I'm greatly relieved after reading the preceding UAT statement that, "none of the materials were used for profit." I can't tell you how badly I feel now because I had first thought that some of the athletes were getting a $100 text book and then selling it to another student for $50." I am so glad to have UAT officials straighten me out on this.

If they did not profit from the books then what restitution is there to pay? Anyone who thinks that all of the student got books for their buddies and then returned them without getting any $$$ for it is a bonehead.

[au2004ece 30]

Stealing a textbook and then giving it to a friend is the same as stealing cash and giving it to a friend because the friend doesn't have to pay for the book.

Nobody would say that "personal benefit" mattered if cash was what was stolen, even though a textbook equals cash.

[quietfan 233]

Why, amidst all the "they returned the books, so no harm, no foul" talk does no one mention the depreciation/lost value on the books due to use?

If that doesn't matter, then why not let the players borrow university cars, university computers, university planes ..."as long as they return them"? Use of such items beyond what is legitimately included in scholarships is an extra benefit, even if returned! The University lost value on the books regardless of who used or returned them!

[kingfish 73]

Quote from NCAA news release:

"The university has said none of the textbooks or materials were used for profit or to get items not related to academics, and that the athletes involved who still have eligibility remaining have had to pay restitution."

I'm greatly relieved after reading the preceding UAT statement that, "none of the materials were used for profit." I can't tell you how badly I feel now because I had first thought that some of the athletes were getting a $100 text book and then selling it to another student for $50." I am so glad to have UAT officials straighten me out on this.

If they did not profit from the books then what restitution is there to pay? Anyone who thinks that all of the student got books for their buddies and then returned them without getting any $$$ for it is a bonehead.

Please tell me you didn't fail to recognize the tongue in cheek tone in my post!

[Grumps 3,705]

Quote from NCAA news release:

"The university has said none of the textbooks or materials were used for profit or to get items not related to academics, and that the athletes involved who still have eligibility remaining have had to pay restitution."

I'm greatly relieved after reading the preceding UAT statement that, "none of the materials were used for profit." I can't tell you how badly I feel now because I had first thought that some of the athletes were getting a $100 text book and then selling it to another student for $50." I am so glad to have UAT officials straighten me out on this.

If they did not profit from the books then what restitution is there to pay? Anyone who thinks that all of the student got books for their buddies and then returned them without getting any $$$ for it is a bonehead.

Please tell me you didn't fail to recognize the tongue in cheek tone in my post!

Yes, I recognized it. It is the NCAA release that said "none of the textbooks or materials were used for profit" and "that the athletes involved..have had to pay restitution". I still say, how did they pay restitution if the books were returned and no profits were made.

[kingfish 73]

Quote from NCAA news release:

"The university has said none of the textbooks or materials were used for profit or to get items not related to academics, and that the athletes involved who still have eligibility remaining have had to pay restitution."

I'm greatly relieved after reading the preceding UAT statement that, "none of the materials were used for profit." I can't tell you how badly I feel now because I had first thought that some of the athletes were getting a $100 text book and then selling it to another student for $50." I am so glad to have UAT officials straighten me out on this.

If they did not profit from the books then what restitution is there to pay? Anyone who thinks that all of the student got books for their buddies and then returned them without getting any $$$ for it is a bonehead.

Please tell me you didn't fail to recognize the tongue in cheek tone in my post!

Yes, I recognized it. It is the NCAA release that said "none of the textbooks or materials were used for profit" and "that the athletes involved..have had to pay restitution". I still say, how did they pay restitution if the books were returned and no profits were made.

The idea would not have originated with the NCAA. This was crap sold the NCAA by none other than UAT.

[pensacola tiger 0]

In addition to the depreciation of the books that was a lost to the university, some bookstore lost the money that would have been paid for those books by the students who used them. After all, if the students had not received free books from their friends they would have had to purchase them somewhere, one assumes.

[CircleDrill 178]

Well, it is absolutely true that bammer athletes didn't profit from text books. "Profit" means you make more money than you spent.

Other things they do not profit from:

HS grades changed for eligibility

Free vehicles

REC contributions to their families

$100 bills in the couch cushions at Mom's house after coach has been there

Fishing trips with boosters

You get the point.....

They spent nothing on any of these, therefore they cannot "profit" from their investment. These are "gifts" not "profit."

[runswithscissors 33]

Fishing trips with boosters

Yet another AU fan who has absolutely no idea of the origin of that rumor. Are you aware that the rumor was originally that it was an Auburn booster that took Julio and Mark Ingram on a fishing trip and a cruise? Supposedly Julio was friends with the daughter of the Auburn booster. Just another example of AU fans running with somthing they saw on a board without really paying attention to it.

Ohhhh.....I bet now there is NO WAY it happened, right?

[E'Town4Bama 111]

Well, it is absolutely true that bammer athletes didn't profit from text books. "Profit" means you make more money than you spent.

Other things they do not profit from:

HS grades changed for eligibility

Free vehicles

REC contributions to their families

$100 bills in the couch cushions at Mom's house after coach has been there

Fishing trips with boosters

You get the point.....

They spent nothing on any of these, therefore they cannot "profit" from their investment. These are "gifts" not "profit."

That stuff happens all over the country. Tell us something we don't know.

[IndyTiger 3]

Well, it is absolutely true that bammer athletes didn't profit from text books. "Profit" means you make more money than you spent.

Other things they do not profit from:

HS grades changed for eligibility

Free vehicles

REC contributions to their families

$100 bills in the couch cushions at Mom's house after coach has been there

Fishing trips with boosters

You get the point.....

They spent nothing on any of these, therefore they cannot "profit" from their investment. These are "gifts" not "profit."

That stuff happens all over the country. Tell us something we don't know.

Why do you keep trying to defend Bama with the, "everyone else does it so it must be ok" excuse? You have some good logic and values there...

[rebdawg 5]

Here's the rub. These players didn't just get free books they didn't need and "give" them to other students - they SOLD them to the other students who then returned them for a refund.

"Book store wants $95 for that Business Law book but I can get it for you for $45 - meet me in the athletic parking lot this afternoon. My Gadsden Caddy will be parked next to Jimmy John's Gadsden Caddy so if you can kill two birds with one stone."

[runswithscissors 33]

Here's the rub. These players didn't just get free books they didn't need and "give" them to other students - they SOLD them to the other students who then returned them for a refund.

"Book store wants $95 for that Business Law book but I can get it for you for $45 - meet me in the athletic parking lot this afternoon. My Gadsden Caddy will be parked next to Jimmy John's Gadsden Caddy so if you can kill two birds with one stone."

Student athletes were required to return their books otherwise their receivables account would be charged, and they would have to come out of pocket on that. For the student athletes, its sort of like a library. You get issued a book, and when you complete or drop the class you use that book for, you have to return it. If you do not return it, you have to pay for it. If some other student tried to return a book that was assigned to a student athlete they wouldn't get jack for it. But hey, go ahead and let the NCAA know the findings of your exhaustive investigation anyway.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Here's the rub. These players didn't just get free books they didn't need and "give" them to other students - they SOLD them to the other students who then returned them for a refund.

"Book store wants $95 for that Business Law book but I can get it for you for $45 - meet me in the athletic parking lot this afternoon. My Gadsden Caddy will be parked next to Jimmy John's Gadsden Caddy so if you can kill two birds with one stone."

Student athletes were required to return their books otherwise their receivables account would be charged, and they would have to come out of pocket on that. For the student athletes, its sort of like a library. You get issued a book, and when you complete or drop the class you use that book for, you have to return it. If you do not return it, you have to pay for it. If some other student tried to return a book that was assigned to a student athlete they wouldn't get jack for it. But hey, go ahead and let the NCAA know the findings of your exhaustive investigation anyway.

The bottomline is bama broke the rules and got put on probation. Move on and quit rationalizing it.

[kingfish 73]

Here's the rub. These players didn't just get free books they didn't need and "give" them to other students - they SOLD them to the other students who then returned them for a refund.

"Book store wants $95 for that Business Law book but I can get it for you for $45 - meet me in the athletic parking lot this afternoon. My Gadsden Caddy will be parked next to Jimmy John's Gadsden Caddy so if you can kill two birds with one stone."

Student athletes were required to return their books otherwise their receivables account would be charged, and they would have to come out of pocket on that. For the student athletes, its sort of like a library. You get issued a book, and when you complete or drop the class you use that book for, you have to return it. If you do not return it, you have to pay for it. If some other student tried to return a book that was assigned to a student athlete they wouldn't get jack for it. But hey, go ahead and let the NCAA know the findings of your exhaustive investigation anyway.

The bottomline is bama broke the rules and got put on probation. Move on and quit rationalizing it.

The system did not function in the manner in which the fellow above you claims otherwise this "dirty" book scheme would have been uncovered long before it was. Some of these "book worm" athletes would have had huge amounts due the book store if that poster's comments were accurate. These "book worms" were getting books for others and it is obvious that no one noticed or cared. As for financial benefits from these clandestine book transactions, one must really be naive to think that money was not made by the perpetrators.

[runswithscissors 33]

Here's the rub. These players didn't just get free books they didn't need and "give" them to other students - they SOLD them to the other students who then returned them for a refund.

"Book store wants $95 for that Business Law book but I can get it for you for $45 - meet me in the athletic parking lot this afternoon. My Gadsden Caddy will be parked next to Jimmy John's Gadsden Caddy so if you can kill two birds with one stone."

Student athletes were required to return their books otherwise their receivables account would be charged, and they would have to come out of pocket on that. For the student athletes, its sort of like a library. You get issued a book, and when you complete or drop the class you use that book for, you have to return it. If you do not return it, you have to pay for it. If some other student tried to return a book that was assigned to a student athlete they wouldn't get jack for it. But hey, go ahead and let the NCAA know the findings of your exhaustive investigation anyway.

The bottomline is bama broke the rules and got put on probation. Move on and quit rationalizing it.

The system did not function in the manner in which the fellow above you claims otherwise this "dirty" book scheme would have been uncovered long before it was. Some of these "book worm" athletes would have had huge amounts due the book store if that poster's comments were accurate. These "book worms" were getting books for others and it is obvious that no one noticed or cared. As for financial benefits from these clandestine book transactions, one must really be naive to think that money was not made by the perpetrators.

I'm not justifying or rationalizing anything. There is no getting around that rules were broken. I'll admit that all day long, and I'm fine with taking my medicine on that. I'm simply stating the facts that were found by the NCAA. The fact is, some of those books were returned. Some of them were not. The ones that were not returned, were charged to the players that did not return them. That was before the whole thing was even discovered because that was how the system worked. I don't think anybody could argue that there weren't some flaws in that system though.

The NCAA found that the whole returning books thing is partly to blame for the delay in discovering this. They suggested that the university go to a system that allows student athletes simply keep the books, that way the school doesn't have to reconcile against books loaned out and books returned, etc. There were 22 people in all that were labeled as "intentional" wrongdoers, meaning that they intentionally cheated the school's system. 7 of them were football players I believe. The remaining balance ("unintentional" wrongdoers) were student athletes that either received books from other student athletes or student athletes that received the incorrect books from the bookstore or received materials that were pre-packaged.

Bottom line IS, we screwed up. I'm fine with moving on, but I didn't start this thread.

[sogaaufan 27]

Here's the rub. These players didn't just get free books they didn't need and "give" them to other students - they SOLD them to the other students who then returned them for a refund.

"Book store wants $95 for that Business Law book but I can get it for you for $45 - meet me in the athletic parking lot this afternoon. My Gadsden Caddy will be parked next to Jimmy John's Gadsden Caddy so if you can kill two birds with one stone."

Student athletes were required to return their books otherwise their receivables account would be charged, and they would have to come out of pocket on that. For the student athletes, its sort of like a library. You get issued a book, and when you complete or drop the class you use that book for, you have to return it. If you do not return it, you have to pay for it. If some other student tried to return a book that was assigned to a student athlete they wouldn't get jack for it. But hey, go ahead and let the NCAA know the findings of your exhaustive investigation anyway.

The bottomline is bama broke the rules and got put on probation. Move on and quit rationalizing it.

The system did not function in the manner in which the fellow above you claims otherwise this "dirty" book scheme would have been uncovered long before it was. Some of these "book worm" athletes would have had huge amounts due the book store if that poster's comments were accurate. These "book worms" were getting books for others and it is obvious that no one noticed or cared. As for financial benefits from these clandestine book transactions, one must really be naive to think that money was not made by the perpetrators.

I'm not justifying or rationalizing anything. There is no getting around that rules were broken. I'll admit that all day long, and I'm fine with taking my medicine on that. I'm simply stating the facts that were found by the NCAA. The fact is, some of those books were returned. Some of them were not. The ones that were not returned, were charged to the players that did not return them. That was before the whole thing was even discovered because that was how the system worked. I don't think anybody could argue that there weren't some flaws in that system though.

The NCAA found that the whole returning books thing is partly to blame for the delay in discovering this. They suggested that the university go to a system that allows student athletes simply keep the books, that way the school doesn't have to reconcile against books loaned out and books returned, etc. There were 22 people in all that were labeled as "intentional" wrongdoers, meaning that they intentionally cheated the school's system. 7 of them were football players I believe. The remaining balance ("unintentional" wrongdoers) were student athletes that either received books from other student athletes or student athletes that received the incorrect books from the bookstore or received materials that were pre-packaged.

Bottom line IS, we screwed up. I'm fine with moving on, but I didn't start this thread.

Maybe you should talk to Witt and Moore. THEY don't seem to be fine with moving on.

[runswithscissors 33]

Here's the rub. These players didn't just get free books they didn't need and "give" them to other students - they SOLD them to the other students who then returned them for a refund.

"Book store wants $95 for that Business Law book but I can get it for you for $45 - meet me in the athletic parking lot this afternoon. My Gadsden Caddy will be parked next to Jimmy John's Gadsden Caddy so if you can kill two birds with one stone."

Student athletes were required to return their books otherwise their receivables account would be charged, and they would have to come out of pocket on that. For the student athletes, its sort of like a library. You get issued a book, and when you complete or drop the class you use that book for, you have to return it. If you do not return it, you have to pay for it. If some other student tried to return a book that was assigned to a student athlete they wouldn't get jack for it. But hey, go ahead and let the NCAA know the findings of your exhaustive investigation anyway.

The bottomline is bama broke the rules and got put on probation. Move on and quit rationalizing it.

The system did not function in the manner in which the fellow above you claims otherwise this "dirty" book scheme would have been uncovered long before it was. Some of these "book worm" athletes would have had huge amounts due the book store if that poster's comments were accurate. These "book worms" were getting books for others and it is obvious that no one noticed or cared. As for financial benefits from these clandestine book transactions, one must really be naive to think that money was not made by the perpetrators.

I'm not justifying or rationalizing anything. There is no getting around that rules were broken. I'll admit that all day long, and I'm fine with taking my medicine on that. I'm simply stating the facts that were found by the NCAA. The fact is, some of those books were returned. Some of them were not. The ones that were not returned, were charged to the players that did not return them. That was before the whole thing was even discovered because that was how the system worked. I don't think anybody could argue that there weren't some flaws in that system though.

The NCAA found that the whole returning books thing is partly to blame for the delay in discovering this. They suggested that the university go to a system that allows student athletes simply keep the books, that way the school doesn't have to reconcile against books loaned out and books returned, etc. There were 22 people in all that were labeled as "intentional" wrongdoers, meaning that they intentionally cheated the school's system. 7 of them were football players I believe. The remaining balance ("unintentional" wrongdoers) were student athletes that either received books from other student athletes or student athletes that received the incorrect books from the bookstore or received materials that were pre-packaged.

Bottom line IS, we screwed up. I'm fine with moving on, but I didn't start this thread.

Maybe you should talk to Witt and Moore. THEY don't seem to be fine with moving on.

As far as the appeal goes, doesn't really matter to me one way or another. It sucks that guys not even involved with this are penalized (stats) for it, so I can see why they would try for an appeal. I wouldn't imagine we will get anything overturned or anything, but whatever. If we win, we win. If not, then so be it. It won't really bother me either way.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I read in the Huntsville Times bama will spend around $500,000 on the appeal. The probation penalty fine is only about $49,000.

[E'Town4Bama 111]

Well, it is absolutely true that bammer athletes didn't profit from text books. "Profit" means you make more money than you spent.

Other things they do not profit from:

HS grades changed for eligibility

Free vehicles

REC contributions to their families

$100 bills in the couch cushions at Mom's house after coach has been there

Fishing trips with boosters

You get the point.....

They spent nothing on any of these, therefore they cannot "profit" from their investment. These are "gifts" not "profit."

That stuff happens all over the country. Tell us something we don't know.

Why do you keep trying to defend Bama with the, "everyone else does it so it must be ok" excuse? You have some good logic and values there...

If you will go back and read some of my posts you will realize I never said it was okay to cheat. I just said that everybody cheats and there is nothing that we can do about it. Believe me, those five points listed above go on at more schools than just Bama and if you think they don't you are ignorant. BTW if Bama is guilty of the five points listed above, how come we just got penalized for the text book issue only. Maybe those five points are just more rumors......

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Well, it is absolutely true that bammer athletes didn't profit from text books. "Profit" means you make more money than you spent.

Other things they do not profit from:

HS grades changed for eligibility

Free vehicles

REC contributions to their families

$100 bills in the couch cushions at Mom's house after coach has been there

Fishing trips with boosters

You get the point.....

They spent nothing on any of these, therefore they cannot "profit" from their investment. These are "gifts" not "profit."

That stuff happens all over the country. Tell us something we don't know.

Why do you keep trying to defend Bama with the, "everyone else does it so it must be ok" excuse? You have some good logic and values there...

If you will go back and read some of my posts you will realize I never said it was okay to cheat. I just said that everybody cheats and there is nothing that we can do about it. Believe me, those five points listed above go on at more schools than just Bama and if you think they don't you are ignorant. BTW if Bama is guilty of the five points listed above, how come we just got penalized for the text book issue only. Maybe those five points are just more rumors......

I sure hope Auburn doesn't stop cheating. I would hate for you to be a liar.

Since you are so sure everybody cheats, can you tell us a few things you know Auburn is doing? How about Northwestern, Duke, Texas Tech, Stanford, or a myriad of others?

[au2004ece 30]

I wonder how anybody believes that these athletes went to all the effort to steal books they didn't need and then didn't get any "profit" from it. Yeah, they just let the book they didn't need sit in their bookcase for a semester.

[CircleDrill 178]

Again.... the DEFINITION of "profit" is simply making more money than you spent.

If you spend $0.00 on a book and you make $50.00 from the sale of the book to a friend, you BY DEFINITION have profited from your position to get the book for $0.00.

Just check any dictionary if you want to see what the definition of "profit" is.

It has NOTHING to do with the value of the item being traded.

If I obtain a $100,000 car for $0 and sell it for $1, then I PROFIT!!!!!! I do not lose money in that transaction.

If you go to the bookstore and obtain a $100.00 book for $0 and sell it for $50.00 for it, then you profit.

The ONLY way you cannot profit from obtaining a $100.00 book for $0 is if you use it yourself and return it as the system was intended. If you give it to someone else for more than $0, you profit. If you give it to them for $0 and they take you out to dinner, you profit. If you give it to them for $0 for a case of beer, you profit.

What is so hard to understand about this? Why do people INSIST on making up their own definitions to words when we all have READY access to countless numbers of reference materials today????

[kingfish 73]

Again.... the DEFINITION of "profit" is simply making more money than you spent.

If you spend $0.00 on a book and you make $50.00 from the sale of the book to a friend, you BY DEFINITION have profited from your position to get the book for $0.00.

Just check any dictionary if you want to see what the definition of "profit" is.

It has NOTHING to do with the value of the item being traded.

If I obtain a $100,000 car for $0 and sell it for $1, then I PROFIT!!!!!! I do not lose money in that transaction.

If you go to the bookstore and obtain a $100.00 book for $0 and sell it for $50.00 for it, then you profit.

The ONLY way you cannot profit from obtaining a $100.00 book for $0 is if you use it yourself and return it as the system was intended. If you give it to someone else for more than $0, you profit. If you give it to them for $0 and they take you out to dinner, you profit. If you give it to them for $0 for a case of beer, you profit.

What is so hard to understand about this? Why do people INSIST on making up their own definitions to words when we all have READY access to countless numbers of reference materials today????

I don't believe anyone can spell it out any clearer than that ... the difficulty arises when we realize that some of the UAT people are having a difficult time reading ... with comprehension.