If there's one thing the NCAA will not tolerate, it's college athletes making money. Underage drinking? Meh.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WV0bqASKAY8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not much they can do if they can't find the money, and the ESPN report says their sources didn't see the actual exchange. Sounds like Cam Newton part 2, at this point.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>NCAA will have to have testimony and/or evidence of course, to prove Johnny Manziel received $ for autographs. Bank record reviews common.</p>— Joe Schad (@schadjoe) <a href="https://twitter.com/schadjoe/statuses/364143282407739393">August 4, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Word of caution on NCAA investigation on Manziel: They still have to find compelling evidence to suspend him. Might not be easy.</p>— darren rovell (@darrenrovell) <a href="https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/statuses/364148282882138112">August 4, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
i'm about to overdose on johnny-be-news. the best thing for him and us is for this college season to get underway already! 23 days for the first ncaa game, yeay!
Wait a minute. Does Johnny seem like the kind of guy that would take money under the table to sign some autographs? Oh crap, this could be a problem.
If true, why? His family is wealthy... how much money could he have gotten paid for signing some autographs?
The only thing I can think of is if his drinking/weed issue is worse than anyone thought. That's the only reason for him to need extra money that mommy and daddy don't know about. Seems like they would pay for anything else he needed, but would probably draw the line at excessive booze.
I love how you trumpet that George Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty, but now you are willing to throw Johnny under the bus with zero evidence. Inconsistent much?
my earlier point was that Johnny Lohan can't stay out of trouble, to which Refman said I had no evidence. I posted evidence of him getting into trouble, thereby pwning the schit out of Refman. I did not claim I had evidence regarding this latest issue, but it's safe to say that you're not staying out of trouble if the NCAA is investigating you. Trouble is not defined as legally guilty, nor did I infer that.
You are a complete clown. Your earlier post absolutely indicated that Johnny was guilty, thus that he was in trouble. If the claim is groundless, he isn't in any trouble. For a Rice guy, you sure are a dumbass. You should be forced to prove you actually got a degree from Rice.
...aaaaand you resort to personal insults, meaning you've lost the argument. "Trouble" is defined as "legally guilty"? I don't think so. (although he did plead guilty to the charge that landed him in jail last summer, but whatevs) Johnny Cash just can't stay out of trouble.
It's like talking to a fifth grader. You know what the conversation was about, you know what you said and now you are backtracking. I see it all the time in court right before the judge signs my proposed order.
