December 11, 2011 · 10:36 AM

Margin called, gentlemen.

You know how everybody asks “would you take winning a national championship if it meant your program would have to spend years in the wilderness afterwards”?

Auburn, the Newton-Fairley check is being presented for payment.

28 Comments

Filed under Auburn's Cast of Thousands

28 responses to “Margin called, gentlemen.”

  1. Hogbody Spradlin
    December 11, 2011 at 10:44 AM

    Wow! Such retribution! And they’re so honest they did it themselves. I stand in speechless admiration of the character, fortitude, and uncompromising integrity of Auburn University.

    Like

    • indemnitor
      December 11, 2011 at 12:54 PM

      Cam called and recommended the “1 [day] and done” suspension as highly effective..especially if it can be done on a day when you dont have practice.

      Should be do-able for Dyer-maker as long as he agrees not to meet with Stephen Garcia for the traditional pre-peach bowl stripper and booze suite throw down. Garcia says hes available and ready-

      Like

  2. PatinDC
    December 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM

    I couldn’t figure out the story from the comments. Was it a drug issue or something else?

    Like

  3. Mike
    December 11, 2011 at 11:15 AM

    “Violation of undisclosed team rules” is almost always drug related.

    Like

  4. UGAfoo
    December 11, 2011 at 11:37 AM

    We had three running backs suspended for the same thing. We didn’t win a national championship.

    Like

  5. Spike
    December 11, 2011 at 11:58 AM

    People in glass houses….

    Like

  6. Lrgk9
    December 11, 2011 at 12:02 PM

    Err, Mikey – there is a Coach Crowe from Jacksonville State on line one…

    Like

  7. Dante
    December 11, 2011 at 12:22 PM

    Wilderness? Auburn is in the Peach Bowl. That’s a lot better bowl than we were in last year. I’ll take that “wilderness” for a national championship any day. Now if we’re talking a bowl drought wilderness then I’m not so sure.

    Like

  8. PhillyDawg
    December 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    I’m not really sure what you’re trying to get at here Senator? Can you elaborate a bit for us?

    Like

    • Senator Blutarsky
      December 11, 2011 at 2:48 PM

      Let’s see:

      — after starting 4-1, Auburn finished the year 3-4.
      — in those four losses, the average margin of defeat was more than 31 points.
      — they paid their OC $1.3 million to finish 104th nationally in total offense.
      — Roof fled to UCF before being canned, but his defense was ranked higher (78th) in total defense.
      — they haven’t found a starting quarterback.
      — their best player on offense is suspended for at least one game, with perhaps more to come.
      — and that was after an offseason that saw four players arrested and kicked off the team for robbery, burglary and theft.

      I’m not seeing a lot of positive trends there.

      Like

  9. Macallanlover
    December 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM

    We all (SEC teams AU, TN, Bama, UF, SC and national programs OSU, TX, FSU, USC, OU, etc) recruit the same players and end up with many that lack character. The difference isn’t the players and what they do, it is the cover up and setting low standards with the other programs. At UGA players are suspended on the first offense with drugs and alcohol, and bad behavior results in suspension at the time of incidents, not selected games in the future based on opponent’s strength. That is a huge difference, we should not be compared on an equal basis because we don’t selectively punish.

    I am pleased we take a tough stance, just wish other had to follow suit. Even better, let’s all toughen up on the punishments and clean the sport up. Having scholarships and representing the schools should carry a higher standard of behavior. Discipline off the field should carry over onto the field, we could all use that.

    Like

  10. Dboy
    December 12, 2011 at 12:22 AM

    I would still take the championship. Under the provision that it doesn’t get revoked later, of course

    Like

    • Hackerdog
      December 12, 2011 at 12:52 PM

      It won’t. What amazes me is that the first half of 2010 constitutes the “old days” of NCAA oversight. Once the 2010 regular season started, it seems the NCAA had a case of buyer’s remorse over the USC sanctions and vowed never to let it happen again.

      I can understand a gradual slide towards indifference on institutional oversight. But I can’t get over the sharp demarcation that occurred when Emmert took over the reigns of the NCAA.

      Like

      • Macallanlover
        December 12, 2011 at 7:10 PM

        That was a very strange progression for a first year President. He comes in with both guns blazing and you think he is following in the new NFL commissioner’s footsteps by making the case he would be a strict contstructionist and hold programs to a higher standard of contact. Next he gives the bizarre penalties where wimpy and over-reaction penalties flew at the start of the 2010 season. Follows that up by completely going against the NCAA rules by excusing Auburn, directly undermining the Director of Compliance’s statement. Terrible first year by a new leader, how can programs judge that sort of inconsistency?

        I don’t know what type of leader he will end up being before he either leaves, or gets run out of town, but people can adjust if they just know what is expected. He has looked totally inept thus far. Have to give Emmert a big F for his first two years at the helm.

        Like

        • Mayor of Dawgtown
          December 12, 2011 at 10:00 PM

          Well, whatever score you give Emmert you have to give Slive for his handling of the Auburn/Newton thing, too. The only reason Slive isn’t being tarred and feathered by most of the SEC schools (Auburn excluded) is the $$$$ he seems to always bring into the SEC. I guess that’s why Al Capone lasted as long as he did in Chicago, too.

          Like

          • JayBird
            December 13, 2011 at 8:05 AM

            You guys do know the NCAA investigated every damn sport at Auburn for 13 months and found NOTHING. NADA. Time to move on with the “Auburn cheated” meme to win the crystal for the 2010 season. Damn.

            Like

          • Macallanlover
            December 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM

            I agree, and have been a strong critic of Slive for several issues including the lack of discipline with the Auburn cheating, and lack of discipline for dirty hits which were tolerated last season. The latter ties in with his inability to address the pathetic performance of SEC refs for over a decade, which have hurt all SEC members. Improving the consistency of SEC refs with better management and training should be Job 1.

            The weeniness shown by Emmerta nd Slive is taken by AU fans as an OK for them to continue their ways and attitude that anything goes. They interpreted the Fairley the Fairy issues that way, which went on all season long,and as you see from the comment below, they still don’t recall the absolute, unequivocable rule that any money solicited by a player’s family or representative makes that player ineligible. How can anyone not see, or understand that. It is why the error of both Slive and Emmert will continue to send confusing signals to all. How do you determine which rule will mean what it says, and which will not?

            Like

            • Comin' Down The Track
              December 13, 2011 at 10:32 AM

              Exactly, Mac. Just because something cannot be proven does not mean that it did not happen.
              Auburn is the O. J. Simpson of the SEC, and I don’t care for Auburn.

              Like

  11. JasonC
    December 14, 2011 at 4:47 AM

    My how the mighty have fallen:
    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-arkansasstate-malzahn
    I think I would’ve taken Vandy over Ark St., maybe a not-so-spectacular offense and his wife really did take a hit on his popularity.

    Like