Maurice Couch Tweet

[vol66]

Glad he manned up, but these guys know the rules. I understand the argument that "he has to feed his family", but do any of us know if that is why he took the cash? The skeptic in me say probably not. When half the nation is able to get government assistance, I am sure Mo and his wife could have received some help if it was needed. Not to mention, if you're having a hard time providing for one child...you don't get your wife pregnant with another. I'd love to give the benefit of the doubt, but... Flame away.

Couch took $1350 spread out in four payments over seven months. As you said, "these guys know the rules." He and four others got caught, the other four are done with college and therefore suffer no penalty. It is with the penalty I might have a problem. He made a mistake, he's apologized, he will miss a game. If he misses more than that, it's a shame.

 

[Doyle Hargraves]

I'm done here.

 

[vol66]

Sorry i'm not gonna read the last 20 pages of posts, but do you guys actually think the NCAA is gonna do anything when Fluker is involved, I think not. Besides he could have just been tweeting in response to his heat exhaustion. LOL!

What can they do to Fluker?

 

[VolunteerTitan3]

What can they do to Fluker?

It's not what they can do to Fluker it's what they can do to their little cash cow Alabama. The NCAA is making too much money off the bandwagon fans right now to stop them from winning. Once they start to decline in wins you will start hearing stories come out and then they will be punished, much the same way it went down with USC once Pete Carroll was gone.

 

[VolunteerTitan3]

1350 dollars in 7 months butch please! Lol!

 

[vol66]

It's not what they can do to Fluker it's what they can do to their little cash cow Alabama. The NCAA is making too much money off the bandwagon fans right now to stop them from winning. Once they start to decline in wins you will start hearing stories come out and then they will be punished, much the same way it went down with USC once Pete Carroll was gone.

In just this specific instance regarding Fluker, the NCAA would have to prove that Alabama knew to do anything to the school. Same with Tennessee and Miss. St.

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

Honestly I doubt the NCAA will do much of anything given the number of teams involved and the fact they have to sort of treat them equally.....UNLESS a school is stupid enough to do what some have suggested and deny what the NCAA knows is true.....it is in the denial you will get nailed.

That said whether much comes of it or not. I now know there are players that would sacrifice not only what they worked hard for but what their team worked hard for, for many years for "beer and pizza" money.

This is like stealing in my book, you're stealing the blood and sweat of your brothers for a few hundred dollars......just pathetic. I don't care how old you are, and 18 yrs old you should know lie, cheating and stealing is wrong......every kid KNOWS what can happen before they walk into any college. The fans, and boosters and agents that support these sort of payments are the scum of the sports world. They're ruining kids lives. Maybe the kids deserve some of it when they choose to accept, but ultimately it's those sending the money that are the worst of the worst.

 

[VolunteerTitan3]

In just this specific instance regarding Fluker, the NCAA would have to prove that Alabama knew to do anything to the school. Same with Tennessee and Miss. St.

This is exactly it! It's not like the school was paying him, so i guess the team should be ok. But Mo i dont know? I personally would like to see him back out there though.

 

[VolunteerTitan3]

Honestly I doubt the NCAA will do much of anything given the number of teams involved and the fact they have to sort of treat them equally.....UNLESS a school is stupid enough to do what some have suggested and deny what the NCAA knows is true.....it is in the denial you will get nailed.

That said whether much comes of it or not. I now know there are players that would sacrifice not only what they worked hard for but what their team worked hard for, for many years for "beer and pizza" money.

This is like stealing in my book, you're stealing the blood and sweat of your brothers for a few hundred dollars......just pathetic. I don't care how old you are, and 18 yrs old you should know lie, cheating and stealing is wrong......every kid KNOWS what can happen before they walk into any college. The fans, and boosters and agents that support these sort of payments are the scum of the sports world. They're ruining kids lives. Maybe the kids deserve some of it when they choose to accept, but ultimately it's those sending the money that are the worst of the worst.

This too! It is selfish to accept these payments knowingly putting your brothers in arms in a tough spot if you get caught accepting said payments. I still just think this is all a bunch of horse wash some butthurt Big 12 beat writer scratched up once the OkieState story broke!

 

[vol66]

The fans, and boosters and agents that support these sort of payments are the scum of the sports world. They're ruining kids lives. Maybe the kids deserve some of it when they choose to accept, but ultimately it's those sending the money that are the worst of the worst.

I agree with this. Nick Saban referred to these folks as Pimps. That was in 2010 at SEC Media Days. Flash forward to April 2013 and DJ Fluker tweets the following:

"Yeah I took $ in college so wat. I did wat I had to do. Agents was tryin to pimp me so I pimped them. Cast the 1st stone."

This is but one of the ways Bama has known for a while, where as UT found out about 3 hours before the story was released.

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

I agree with this. Nick Saban referred to these folks as Pimps. That was in 2010 at SEC Media Days. Flash forward to April 2013 and DJ Fluker tweets the following:

"Yeah I took $ in college so wat. I did wat I had to do. Agents was tryin to pimp me so I pimped them. Cast the 1st stone."

This is but one of the ways Bama has known for a while, where as UT found out about 3 hours before the story was released.

This is also the reason as much as I dislike Alabama as a rival, I have respect for Saban that I never had for the Bear. Saban shows honor, he plays hard knocks....but he gets the same sort of morality of say General Neyland preached that the Bear never got. I'm pretty happy that Butch Jones got behind this thing fast too, and would bet money Couch's tweet has a lot to do with a conversation with CBJ.

 

[vol66]

This is also the reason as much as I dislike Alabama as a rival, I have respect for Saban that I never had for the Bear. Saban shows honor, he plays hard knocks....but he gets the same sort of morality of say General Neyland preached that the Bear never got. I'm pretty happy that Butch Jones got behind this thing fast too, and would bet money Couch's tweet has a lot to do with a conversation with CBJ.

When you've got guys like Saban saying we have a problem and then 3 years later you still have the problem...it sort of screams for a new way of attacking the problem.

This Luther fella wasn't even an agent, he was a wanna be, using his contacts in the hopes of getting a job with an agent. Think about that for a second. A former Tide player, who couldn't make it in the NFL, selling out his own peers.

 

[big harry]

This is also the reason as much as I dislike Alabama as a rival, I have respect for Saban that I never had for the Bear. Saban shows honor, he plays hard knocks....but he gets the same sort of morality of say General Neyland preached that the Bear never got. I'm pretty happy that Butch Jones got behind this thing fast too, and would bet money Couch's tweet has a lot to do with a conversation with CBJ.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Thanks for the info, I will have to maybe get in contact with his wife or girlfriend somehow and give it to her since she is not on the football team. Been wanting to hand out a GIFT to somebody anyways.

I truly hope you aren't serious.

 

[UTProf]

I'm proud of how Mo, our coaches, and our fanbase have handled this so far. I wish he'd never made the mistake to begin with but such a small amount says a lot, especially knowing he has a wife and child he's trying his darndest to care for (I don't know anyone alive who wouldn't do all they could to keep their baby in diapers, food, a roof etc.) Mo apologized publicly to his team, family and all of us. Contrast that to Manziel or Fluker who bragged about it until claiming his twitter was hacked? I can't remember the last time a college football player who did something wrong responded the way Mo Couch has.

The NCAA needs to set an example here: the right kind of example. Show us that circumstances matter, that honesty matters, that character does count for something when so many others lie their way out of things -- the NCAA has been thrown a softball and can do just that. We need to believe that it's simply not a matter of the 'best cheat wins' or the most popular star gets overlooked.

I'm saddened by this, mainly for Mo but I hope and pray he can come back from this. He deserves a chance to make things right.

 

[rockytop114]

He apologize for not playing.

He never admitted to nothing!

 

[G8R8U2]

Dude, your soapbox is big enough for a sectional sofa. Their is nothing wrong with wanting our players to be responsible audults. But if you think 17-18 year olds aren't going to live in the present instead of the future, you need to move. I suggest...
View attachment 66777

You guys have redshirt seniors who are 17 and 18 years old?

C'mon, if the topic is going to be debated let's at least be honest and leave the exaggerations and embellishments out of it... MC must be 22 or 23 years old at this point and 5 of the transactions took place just last year.

I know when these things happen we like to cut them some slack and say kids will be kids; but this is an adult man with a child, not some kid fresh out of high school.

In just this specific instance regarding Fluker, the NCAA would have to prove that Alabama knew to do anything to the school. Same with Tennessee and Miss. St.

Since when? That's never been true; several programs have unknowingly used players that were later ruled ineiligible, and the sanctions were administered retroactively.

Whether or not the school knows is irrelevant; any games in which a player, who should have been ruled ineligible, participated typically get vacated.

This issue is about the eligibility of players, not about the school paying athletes, which is a different set of violations. Teams cannot benefit from the use of players who should be or should have been ineligible.

That's why kids get held out of games in advance now whenever these eligibility concerns arise, because the schools don't want to have to vacate games later when they might have been able to win without the suspended player in the first place... they choose to err on the side of caution.

That's what happened to both USC and Ohio State... they made both programs vacate games all the way back to when the first violation occurred.

In the Ohio State case, not only was the program sanctioned for the players getting benefits unbeknownst to the school, but Tressel got sanctioned too because once he did finally find out there were problems, he tried to hide them instead of owning up to it.

 

[UTProf]

He apologize for not playing.

He never admitted to nothing!

Not outright, no. But he also never said "sorry I can't play" either. Sure there's room for "legal" doubt but his message was obvious to anyone who read it. There's also a character limit on Twitter and no need to go any further as we all 'got it.' You can be a cynic and say it was just a Machiavellian manipulation to win sympathy but I don't think there's any reason to believe that.

 

[vol66]

You guys have redshirt seniors who are 17 and 18 years old?

C'mon, if the topic is going to be debated let's at least be honest and leave the exaggerations and embellishments out of it... MC must be 22 or 23 years old at this point and 5 of the transactions took place just last year.

I know when these things happen we like to cut them some slack and say kids will be kids; but this an adult man with a child, not some kid fresh out of high school.



Since when? That's never been true; several programs have unknowingly used players that were later ruled ineiligible, and the sanctions were administered retroactively.

Whether or not the school knows is irrelevant; any games in which a player, who should have been ruled ineligible, participated typically get vacated.

This issue is about the eligibility of players, not about the school paying athletes, which is a different set of violations. Teams cannot benefit from the use of players who should be or should have been ineligible.

That's why kids get held out of games in advance now whenever these eligibility concerns arise, because the schools don't want to have to vacate games later when they might have been able to win without the suspended in the first place... they choose to err on the side of caution.

That's what happened to both USC and Ohio State... they made both programs vacate games all the way back to when the first violation occurred.

In the Ohio State case, not only was the program sanctioned for the players getting benefits unbeknownst to the school, but Tressel got sanctioned too because once he did finally find out there were problems, he tried to hide them instead of owning up to it.

I believe the school has to know that a player is doing something improper to rule him ineligible. In Cam Newton's case, for instance, the school had to determine whether there was enough info to sit him or play him.

In the OSU case the NCAA determined, based on the evidence that the school SHOULD HAVE KNOWN and I believe that is similar to the USC case.

In this case, Alabama has stated that they have been looking into this for a while. Whether that is because of Fluker's tweet in April or the one FORMER agent with Bama ties...Hubbs said that UT knew nothing until three hours before the story broke when they were asked for comment by the news outlet regarding the story.

It is my view that UT would have to know, or there would have to be info that leads the NCAA to say, you should have known for this to become a bigger issue for UT.

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

too much ?

 

[alldayvols]

this guy is admitting he's made a mistake

whatever that mistake is...doesn't matter.

it's the fact that he's not OJ'ing the situation.

 

[TideWarrior]

You guys have redshirt seniors who are 17 and 18 years old?

C'mon, if the topic is going to be debated let's at least be honest and leave the exaggerations and embellishments out of it... MC must be 22 or 23 years old at this point and 5 of the transactions took place just last year.

I know when these things happen we like to cut them some slack and say kids will be kids; but this is an adult man with a child, not some kid fresh out of high school.



Since when? That's never been true; several programs have unknowingly used players that were later ruled ineiligible, and the sanctions were administered retroactively.

Whether or not the school knows is irrelevant; any games in which a player, who should have been ruled ineligible, participated typically get vacated.

This issue is about the eligibility of players, not about the school paying athletes, which is a different set of violations. Teams cannot benefit from the use of players who should be or should have been ineligible.

That's why kids get held out of games in advance now whenever these eligibility concerns arise, because the schools don't want to have to vacate games later when they might have been able to win without the suspended player in the first place... they choose to err on the side of caution.

That's what happened to both USC and Ohio State... they made both programs vacate games all the way back to when the first violation occurred.

In the Ohio State case, not only was the program sanctioned for the players getting benefits unbeknownst to the school, but Tressel got sanctioned too because once he did finally find out there were problems, he tried to hide them instead of owning up to it.

I will disagree here. OSU from what I have read that is out there for what the players did received bowl bans and loss of scholarships. OSU covering up got the wins vacated. USC was totally different because a player was bought during recruitment to come to the school and it was directly linked to someone the NCAA determined was a booster. Both totally different cases and neither like this yet.

In the current case if none of the schools involved show they had no knowledge, what is being reported on the radio or wherever seems to be in the school's favor. If the schools were aware it becomes lack of institutional control if they were not then yes eligibility will be questioned but the NCAA has nothing to determine that with for any player in question.

There is a big difference in playing an ineligible player knowing or not knowing. But if you are right please provide a link to programs that fit your criteria in the part I bolded. I do not follow all programs out there so maybe this has happened so please show me for I can share on other sites.

 

[G8R8U2]

I believe the school has to know that a player is doing something improper to rule him ineligible. In Cam Newton's case, for instance, the school had to determine whether there was enough info to sit him or play him.

In the OSU case the NCAA determined, based on the evidence that the school SHOULD HAVE KNOWN and I believe that is similar to the USC case.

In this case, Alabama has stated that they have been looking into this for a while. Whether that is because of Fluker's tweet in April or the one FORMER agent with Bama ties...Hubbs said that UT knew nothing until three hours before the story broke when they were asked for comment by the news outlet regarding the story.

It is my view that UT would have to know, or there would have to be info that leads the NCAA to say, you should have known for this to become a bigger issue for UT.

Unfortunately that's not true; if a player who should be ineligible participates, regardless of the school's knowledge, it's a violation and games get vacated.

That's why AU asked the NCAA to intervene and tell them if they should sit Newton before the game; because they knew if he was retroactively ruled ineligible at a later date, regardless of the school's knowledge, they'd have to vacate the game later.

The NCAA said USC should have known about Reggie Bush; but did not say that about tOSU.

In fact, while reading the report on Ohio State last night, they even referred to Bama's 2002 case and a case against Arkansas.

If you recall, Bama even got hit when a player agreed to be represented on a dinner napkin in NO, and the school knew nothing about it.

This is why fans get so bent out of shape when a player does something selfish like this, because even though the school may not know, it, the fans, players, and coaches all suffer repercussions if it's found out.

The school itself can escape the sanctions like failure to monitor and lack of institutional control if they aren't aware of the player's transgressions; but they still have to vacate games... there's no way around that because an ineligible player participated.

In fact, the vast majority of cases in the last decade deal with player malfeasance unknown by the schools themselves. It's not intended to be a punishment for the university if they force games to be vacated; it's simply an issue of amateurism... a team cannot keep wins if it's determined an ineligible player participated.

 

[G8R8U2]

I will disagree here. OSU from what I have read that is out there for what the players did received bowl bans and loss of scholarships. OSU covering up got the wins vacated. USC was totally different because a player was bought during recruitment to come to the school and it was directly linked to someone the NCAA determined was a booster. Both totally different cases and neither like this yet.

In the current case if none of the schools involved show they had no knowledge, what is being reported on the radio or wherever seems to be in the school's favor. If the schools were aware it becomes lack of institutional control if they were not then yes eligibility will be questioned but the NCAA has nothing to determine that with for any player in question.

There is a big difference in playing an ineligible player knowing or not knowing. But if you are right please provide a link to programs that fit your criteria in the part I bolded. I do not follow all programs out there so maybe this has happened so please show me for I can share on other sites.

According to the report that anyone can read for themselves, tOSU had to vacate all 2010 games, including the Big-10 title and Sugar Bowl win over Arkansas, because several players who'd received benefits in the form of tattoos and other benefits from the sale/trade of tOSU items played in at least 1 of each of those games throughout the entire season. They were retroactively ruled ineligible.

tOSU got additional sanctions, like LOIC, as did Tressel personally, because once Tressel found out about the problems he lied and tried to cover up those players' wrongdoing.

But the vacating of games happens not as a punishment to the school necessarily, but because the NCAA cannot allow wins to stand when one team uses a player who is no longer an amateur.

 

[TideWarrior]

According to the report that anyone can read for themselves, tOSU had to vacate all 2010 games, including the Big-10 title and Sugar Bowl win over Arkansas, because several players who'd received benefits in the form of tattoos and other benefits from the sale/trade of tOSU items played in at least 1 of each of those games throughout the entire season. They were retroactively ruled ineligible.

tOSU got additional sanctions, like LOIC, as did Tressel personally, because once Tressel found out about the problems he lied and tried to cover up those players' wrongdoing.

But the vacating of games happens not as a punishment to the school necessarily, but because the NCAA cannot allow wins to stand when one team uses a player who is no longer an amateur.

I guess we will see if the NCAA does get involve which I expect they will at some point and if they ever can get someone to talk or enough evidence, which I highly doubt, what they decide if they determine all the players in question were deemed ineligible but yet the schools were unaware. A lot of talk even of the local sports radio here in NC that if schools can demonstrate they were not aware of the agent involvement the punishment would not be as severe for said school.