Johnny Manziel Suspended by NCAA....

This is so ****ing stupid. It was a very appropriate response. This statement implies that he did sign over 2,000 pieces of merchandise to go on sale for a 3rd party. That is really shady.

I will apologize to you if you can dig up a post of yours where you complained about the media working everyone up when Johny Football was winning the Heisman and Cotton Bowl. You put yourself in the spotlight and the bad stories will come as big as the good.


The suspension was stupid. Either he violated the rule and suspend him a game or don't suspend him at all.

 

You seem rather angry. Why is that?

I find this statement to be accurate for the most part. In fact, besides the initial ESPN Outside the Lines story, I have yet to see any corroborating evidence that supports that initial story. (If you have something else to point me to, I would appreciate it.) Perhaps if ESPN were to release the source of their story we could all see how reliable this source is.

I won't hold my breath on that.

Meanwhile, ESPN is getting all the viewership and page hits they can get out of this story.....accurate or not.

 

I'm not a lawyer. It was simply a question I was asking.

 

It's just an annoying argument that no one who follows that team would agree with if it was another school. It's also really annoying because we all put up with the Johnny Football stuff which was everywhere. We couldn't get away from it. BUT what are you going to do? He deserved the attention because he did a lot of great things and was decorated for them but that spotlight is a double edged sword.

Don't you get that this statement from the NCAA proves ESPN was right? They said he signed thousands of pieces of merchandise that was to be sold. It seems Manziel admitted to that and A&M is calling it an innocent mistake. ESPN never said there was proof he paid for it.

Discrediting a news organization or journalist for not disclosing the identity of a source is antithetical to journalism itself.

 

Manziel would have to be able to prove that he didn't get paid - I'm not sure how to do that.

If I say someone hit me, but I can't prove it, it doesn't mean I was lying.

 

Yes but it was inadvertent. Sometimes you just inadvertently sign things 2000 times and somebody hands you a stack of 100s.

Could happen to anyone.

 

1/2 game is too harsh. should only be for the first snap of the other team.

 

Boy, this is why college football is so stupid. It's my name, my likeness, I can do with it what I want.

NFL maybe the No Fun League but at least it's not ruled by the idiocy that's the college ruling body known as the NCAA.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf-...ess-of-ncaa-s-double-standards-012517037.html

 

He should sign autographs during the first half, lol.

 

Is he suspended without pay?

 

Look, we all know there's no good reason to believe someone who trademarked their nickname for future compensation would so sign hundreds of pieces of apparel pro bono, while believing that the college memorabilia market was on a barter system.

College kids with reputations of posting pictures of themselves holding wads of cash online have reputations for their selfless, production line-esque signature mill's while being filmed in hotel rooms.

We know all this, because when it benefits our own interests, we need more than smoke to believe there's fire. If innocent is my preferred outcome, then I gonna need more than an OJ murder trial amount of evidence.

 

Not being able to hock a signature that wouldn't have been worth the ink used to write before being given a full scholorship, and access to the stage that make profit on his name worth something is hardly an injustice.

 

Meaningless gesture that will do more to unfairly tarnish his legacy than prevent future issues.

He will no longer be able to say he started every game this season.
He will likely put up minimal stats in a game that should have been used to bump up his season totals.

I'm not an Aggie fan, but this is dumb, dumb, dumb

 

Umm... You've never been to the D&D?

 

The SEC must feel like the Koch Brothers after Romney still lost the election

 

Your two reasons are a bit of a stretch for me. But this DOES bring up an interesting point.

Let's say he has another season like he did last year - but maybe, all his numbers are slightly better. Will this "scandal" + missing the first half of the first game irk Heisman voters?

I mean, I'm sure they're already thinking "maybe we shouldn't have given it to this guy in the first place," leading to "we shouldn't give it to this guy again, no matter what."

 

Giving it to a freshman for the first time ever is a bigger deal than giving it to someone with a minor scandal that everyone will soon forget about if the player plays well.

Based on the conclusion it's a tiny story that seemed bigger during the offseason. Nobody will remember this in 2 months if TAMU is undefeated.

 

I think the whole "first freshman" thing is overrated from a voter perspective. Freshmen don't win it because they are rarely the best player in the nation - not because voters aren't willing to vote for them. Plenty of voters were willing to go vote for Adrian Peterson his freshman year. And he may well have won it if the 3rd place finisher wasn't also on his team, splitting all the regional votes in Leinart's favor.