The NCAA's Four-Game Suspension of the Georgia Bulldogs' A.J. Green Was Unjustified Overkill
I want to apologize to my coaches, teammates, and the Georgia fans for the mistake in judgment. I very much regret all that has taken place and the distraction that's been caused. I've learned a valuable lesson and hope others can learn from my mistake. I can only focus my attention now on practicing and looking ahead to getting back with my teammates as quickly as possible.
A.J. Green
As you heard first right here at Dawg Sports, A.J. Green has been suspended for four games as a condition of the reinstatement of his collegiate eligibility. Here’s the thing, though: I’m not convinced A.J. is the one who owes anyone an apology.
Earlier today, before the bad news broke, I called this a witch hunt, and subsequent events have done little to persuade me that this characterization is unwarranted.
Yes, he sold a jersey, and, yes, he sold it to someone who meets the NCAA’s definition of an agent, but meeting the NCAA’s definition of an agent and being what a reasonable human being would call an agent are two different things. It’s not at all clear whether this was an agent per se, and I’m missing the significance of that fact even if he was.
It’s one thing for an agent to pay for a college athlete to fly to Miami and be plied with alcohol at a party; the benefits, and the impropriety thereof, are obvious. The problem with A.J. Green selling a jersey he wore in a game, however, is that he’s profiting from his celebrity in a way the NCAA deems impermissible. Whether the purchaser was a sports agent, an orthodontist, or an overzealous fan hoping to surprise his kid with an extra-special birthday gift ought to be immaterial. It was hardly an act of subterfuge to conceal the transfer of cash from an agent to a 2011 first-round draft pick if an agent---or someone connected to someone the NCAA says meets the definition of an agent---paid for a valuable item the price the market would bear, and I know more than a few Georgia fans who would drop that kind of cash for a jersey A.J. Green wore in a bowl game.
What ought not to be immaterial, on the other hand, is the fact that Green appears to have been entirely forthcoming and completely vindicated in the investigation that placed him in the NCAA’s crosshairs in the first place. Mark Schlabach reported that Green was cooperative and honest with the authorities; the fact that Mark Richt has been nothing but supportive of his star player, after having earlier in the year booted his would-be starting quarterback from the squad after the signal caller failed to come clean with his head coach, appears to confirm this.
Green’s candor has been on display from the outset. His statement regarding the infamous soiree in South Beach was utterly unequivocal, his alibi was verified independently, and his desire to speak in his own defense was quite clear. Everything we know indicates that Green engaged in a single arm’s-length business transaction, had nothing to do with an agent in any circumstances in which the agent’s status as such was relevant, donated the profits to charity, and answered all questions truthfully.
Thus far this young season, the NCAA is the MVP of the SEC, at least insofar as the hectoring busybodies in Indianapolis are affecting the outcomes of games. The absence of the North Carolina players sidelined by the agent scandal almost certainly made the difference in the Tar Heels’ down-to-the-wire loss to an underperforming LSU squad, while preseason No. 1 Alabama has not been helped in its efforts to reload defensively by the two-game suspension levied against Marcell Dareus. One of the most significant showdowns in the long history of the Georgia-South Carolina series will be marred by the absence of marquee players on both sides.
To some extent, this is warranted, although there appears to have been more wrongdoing in Chapel Hill than in Athens, Columbia, and Tuscaloosa combined. Even in SEC country, the punishments appear disproportionate. Dareus had a four-game suspension reduced to two games after receiving approximately $1,800 worth of benefits in the form of air fare, lodging, meals, and transportation during two separate trips to Miami. While he pled ignorance---a tough sell, considering the two trips---and came clean, the fact is that Dareus had twice as many incidents involving contacts with agents, received roughly twice as much in financial benefits, and had far more extensive involvement in the activity that spawned this entire investigation . . . yet he received exactly the same original punishment, which later was cut in half.
That is not to say that the NCAA went too easy on Marcell Dareus; the Crimson Tide defensive lineman very well may have been subjected to reasonable sanctions. Assuming, probably safely, equal degrees of honesty on the part of both players, Marcell Dareus’s situation looks a good deal more fishy, and A.J. Green’s error was much more minor. Do we even know he knew he was dealing with an agent---or an associate of someone meeting the NCAA’s definition of an agent---when he sold the jersey? Unlike the NCAA, the Georgia receiver has no background in investigating such matters; he’s A.J. Green, not A.J. Simon, and, as EricBDawg astutely pointed out, the NCAA says "[t]he university declared the student-athlete ineligible" and the suspension is based upon "the facts of the case submitted by Georgia." All appearances are that Georgia and Green were cooperative and candid.
That is not to say, of course, that A.J. Green did nothing wrong; he sold a jersey he should not have sold, whether to an agent or to anyone else, and he knew better. That rule is a rule, and, while reasonable arguments may be made against its existence, it exists, and it was violated. There have to be consequences for that.
What ought not to be lost in all of this, though, is that all this began because of a party in Miami . . . and the NCAA appears to have turned up nothing on that front, probably because there was nothing for the NCAA to turn up on that front. Various other rumors have circulated, about insurance policies and suchlike, and there appears to have been nothing to any of that. The NCAA interviewed Green in July and has kept him twisting in the wind for weeks on end while the organization tried to justify this massive expenditure of effort, all to uncover a single sale of one lousy Independence Bowl jersey.
A mistake---a mistake; one; uno---was made, the money was paid back, and he sat out for one game. That is a punishment proportional to the affront, particularly if Marcell Dareus got a two-game suspension for twice as many contacts and twice as much profit. Benching A.J. Green for two games would be a stretch, but at least it could be argued with a straight face that it’s reasonable.
A four-game suspension, however, is unfair, disproportionate, and overkill. The NCAA is punishing Green as though he did the things he was accused of doing and that the investigation leaves us to conclude he did not do. As with the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty at the end of last year’s LSU game, Green has been flagged for an offense the replay does not show. This is not justifiable, and this should not stand.
A.J. Green doesn’t owe Bulldog Nation an apology. The NCAA does.
Go ‘Dawgs!
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The attorney definitely came out in that one!
I agree with your argument completely. I understand the need, the justification, the necessity of punishing AJ Green, and as a result the University of Georgia football team.
However, as you so eloquently stated, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
AJ Green seems to more of a stand-up guy than many college FB players
Especially more than most stars of his caliber. The fact that he’s twice been singled out for disproportionate punishment given the conduct (or non-conduct in the LSU game) is nothing short of outrageous, for the reasons so eloquently given above. Great post, and I hope the Athletic Association has people that can write that well working on this case.
Ah, stole the word "eloquent" from EricB's post
Clearly I am not the master wordsmith here…
I, respectfully, disagree
My fanpost articulates my position at length, but I disagree that the punishment does not fit the crime. The NCAA clarified the rules regarding the sale of game day memorabilia after the 2002 SECCG ring sales. I am sure that Georgia compliance personnel makes it absolutely clear that this type of transaction is unacceptable. AJ knew this and made a conscious decision to violate this rule.
Going to a party, hosted by an NFL player (Frank Gore, in this case), is actually more ambiguous than selling a game jersey. You are allowed to travel and attend a party hosted by a friend as long as it’s not an agent. You can at least make a colorable argument that going to a party was just that….going to a party. Crappy argument, but still an argument.
The jersey sale is undeniably a clear violation of NCAA rules. If AJ thought it was a sale to an orthodontist, and thought it was okay, he should’ve asked about whether the sale was appropriate. If, even now, he still believes the sale was not to an agent, he should’ve come out and said that. I think the fact that he, without a doubt, knew the sale was against the rules, resulted in the suspension.
I saw your fanpost, which I appreciated.
I agree with you about the suspension, for the reasons you stated. It’s the length of the suspension I find troubling. Four games seems excessive, especially since all indications are that the University and the player cooperated and came clean. Again, I don’t want to single out Marcell Dareus, but he made two trips to Miami, and he had his air fare, lodging, meals, and transportation paid for by someone else. I don’t think there’s a lot of ambiguity there. A.J. Green shouldn’t get twice the suspension for half the benefits.
Go 'Dawgs!
I concur.
Four games seems like a lot. I just don’t get the NCAA sometimes. Masioli gets to play the whole season after pulling that BS but this is worth a four-game suspension
Different situation
Massoli actually complied with NCAA rules to the absolute letter of the law. Sure, it wasn’t in the “spirit” of the rules, but he did not violate any NCAA rule in any way, whatsoever. That rule will be changed this year.
by WindyCityDawg on Sep 8, 2010 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Is the question the buyer?
I guess after reading a fair amount about this, my fundamental problem with passing judgment (even though I’ve come down on the side of the NCAA) is that we don’t know the buyer. If it’s a friend of a friend of a friend of an agent, then maybe this is a two game suspension. If it’s somebody you can google that comes up under CAA, it’s four games.
by WindyCityDawg on Sep 8, 2010 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
The Buyer
Schlabach said on espn earlier that the buyer is a “Collector” that sells Collegiate Merchandise. And that the Collector is “associated” with an agent.
by allyugadawgs on Sep 8, 2010 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
What mitigating circumstances exist for the NCAA to reduce the punishment from the bylaw-mandated amount of four games?
Cooperating and being truthful are not “bonuses”, they are required by rule.
I'm wrong all the time.
I'd say
Green’s knowledge of who was buying said jersey might be mitigating, but again, the NCAA rule makes anyone a stinking “agent”.
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
Agreed
I think Green’s knowledge of who was buying the jersey would probably only hurt him, not mitigate against a mandated punishment. Knowledge that the person was an agent would enhance the punishment above and beyond the four games but the thought that “oh this person is only a collector” doesn’t excuse or justify the sale.
A good way for AJ to have reduced his potential punishment would have been to self-report. It appears the NCAA initiated the investigation. That’s sort of the only thing here I see that he could’ve done to help his cause. He obviously couldn’t help the NCAA case against others because it doesn’t appear to involve anyone else.
by WindyCityDawg on Sep 9, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
“The NCAA is punishing Green as though he did the things he was accused of doing and that the investigation leaves us to conclude he did not do. As with the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty at the end of last year’s LSU game, Green has been flagged for an offense the replay does not show.”
I think that’s a perfect, concise statement of what’s going on. If the parallels continue, they’ll issue an absurd ruling against Florida 2 weeks from now. Then they’ll be suspended and the ruling will be admitted as an error immediately after the Miss St. game so that the recognition will be vindicating but ultimately moot.
Questions
Kyle, just curious if you’ve read the entire report from the ncaa or were in on the meetings? Do you know for a fact that AJ never lied to any investigator about any wrongdoing?
Even beat reporters aren’t as sure as you seem to be on details about what actually went on here. As Schlabach said there were “twists and turns” throughout this investigation.
On the surface the Dareus & Green suspensions look unfair, but things are rarely as they seem. I want to rah rah for AJ too, however it might be best to let some facts come out before we declare him a victim of a witch hunt, no?
A 4 game suspension may not sound as harsh when all is said and done.
As always, I stand to be corrected.
Obviously, I wasn’t in on any meetings. I am drawing logical inferences based upon known facts. I might subsequently be proven wrong, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence, especially until we have more to go on than what we have been given.
Go 'Dawgs!
One reason to believe this is a safe inference? The Dez Bryant precedent.
If A.J. had lied to the NCAA about the sale a 4 game suspension would be incredibly merciful. Lying to the NCAA Infractions Committee (and getting caught doing it) doesn’t get him suspended, it likely puts an end to his amateur athletic career.
It’s one thing for an agent to pay for a college athlete to fly to Miami and be plied with alcohol at a party; the benefits, and the impropriety thereof, are obvious… Assuming, probably safely, equal degrees of honesty on the part of both players, Marcell Dareus’s situation looks a good deal more fishy, and A.J. Green’s error was much more minor.
First off, this isn’t exactly accurate. Dareus’s transportation was paid for by another player who turned out to be getting paid by an agent. We really don’t know much about what went on in Marcel’s trips to Miami. You seem to be assuming that he was down there with agents “making it rain” on strippers, etc. The one thing that is pretty clear is that Marcel was enticed, if not entrapped, into getting into his situation while he was also dealing with his mother dying (a prolonged illness). On the other hand, AJ Green made a calculated decision to make money in a way that he knew would compromise his eligibility. So saying that his was “much more minor” seems like BS to me.
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
However,
the other player was in effect an “agent” for Dareus under the NCAA rules was he not? Seems to me he “promoted” Dareus.
Also keep in mind – Dareus did it twice, AJ did it once.
I’ll grant dealing with the prolonged life-threatening illness of a close family member is extenuating.
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
Given what we little we know about the purchaser of A.J. Green's jersey, the same may be said for him.
Contrary to what Pete says above, several press accounts have made it clear that the agent involvement is what took the jersey sale to a different level.
As I’ve tried to make clear, I’m not saying Marcell Dareus was treated too leniently, I’m trying to draw reasonable comparisons. I’m willing to buy that he was duped on the first trip to Miami, even though that seems like a stretch, considering that his way supposedly was paid by a fellow player who faces the same restrictions (no stipend, no job) as Dareus does. How was he an innocent bystander on the second trip, though?
I’m sorry about Dareus’s mother, but I fail to see that as a mitigating circumstance. How was his judgment impaired by his mother’s illness if he was duped? If he was enticed and entrapped, how does judgment enter into it? What does a loved one’s grave illness have to do with whether a player knows and complies with NCAA rules? Moreover, who flies to Miami to be with a buddy while his mother is dying?
Those questions are what cause me to say that “Marcell Dareus’s situation looks a good deal more fishy.” I’m not trying to rag on the guy—-a two-game suspension is probably fair—-but one jersey sale is not twice as bad as two trips to Miami under circumstances that ought to have made him suspicious. Nearly $2,000 in impermissible benefits is not twice as bad as nearly $1,000 in impermissible benefits.
Go 'Dawgs!
Like I said, we know very little of the details of the trips. The first one might have been pretty innocent. It’s not a crime to go to the beach, and $900 (if you assume an equal split between the trips) for a vacation doesn’t indicate to me that he was doing extravagant partying in opulent locations.
Moreover, who flies to Miami to be with a buddy while his mother is dying?
That’s a pretty insensitive comment. As I said, it was a prolonged illness. It’s not like she had a wreck, ends up in the ICU, and Marcel takes off to Miami. They had been through several instances where it seemed like she might pass away.
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
I apologize if that seems insensitive, and I thank you for the clarification.
While I am, of course, sympathetic to the young man’s situation, I question why it is relevant to the NCAA’s determination. If having a legitimate reason to feel sorry for him counts as a mitigating circumstance, fine, but my understanding is that the claim is that her illness impaired his judgment. While I don’t doubt that he was concerned about his mother, your points that (a) he didn’t know at the time that she literally was on her deathbed and (b) was misled as to the nature of the trips to Miami both seem to suggest that there was no impairment to his judgment caused by his mother’s illness.
I am sorry for his loss, and I don’t think he was treated with undue leniency, but I’m having difficulty connecting the dots on the mitigating circumstances if he didn’t know his mother’s passing was imminent (which does explain his willingness to go out of town, but not his supposed impairment due to worry) and he didn’t know the nature of his visits. At the end of the day, it still comes down to the value of the benefit, which, according to Year2 over at Team Speed Kills, is the basis for the four-game suspension.
Go 'Dawgs!
I don’t know. It may or may not have been party of the “mitigating circumstances”, but then again that would require the NCAA having an actual heart instead of being powered by Skynet.
if he didn’t know his mother’s passing was imminent (which does explain his willingness to go out of town, but not his supposed impairment due to worry)
well, perhaps you’ve never had a close family member go through a horrible terminal illness. Otherwise you’d see how ridiculous your points are.
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
Which way do you want it, Zoltar?
I was agreeing with you that, if he knew his mother was sick but did not know her death to be imminent (which I did not know, but which I have no reason to doubt), it is understandable that he reasonably could have taken an out-of-town trip. I’m merely saying that, while I am sure he was worried about his mother’s well-being, he was not so fearful of an imminent demise he did not know was coming that he was unable to function.
It has to be one way or the other. He’s either worried to the point of incapacity, in which he case he wouldn’t have gone, or (as you say, and as I have no reason to doubt) he’s worried but still able to function. If, as appears to be so, the latter is the case, then the argument that his judgment was impaired by worry fails to hold water, and what has been reported to be the relevant mitigating circumstance is not relevant for NCAA purposes (although it remains, of course, relevant to our human compassion for a young man who has lost his mother).
I would like to think, Zoltar, that I have a track record of reasonableness and civility that would spare me being called “ridiculous” when I am merely drawing comparisons to show the excessive nature of a particular punishment.
Go 'Dawgs!
I just don’t see how you can say that it has to be one or the other. When you have a family member who is in very bad shape with a terminal illness, it’s not that you are necessarily “fearful of an imminent demise”. In a lot of ways, the death can be a blessing, as having it drag out longer and longer with the person being in pain is worse. The process can be very hard on the family, and can lead to things like depression.
I went through this earlier this year with my mother dying of cancer, and it was pretty rough even though she went pretty quickly once things started getting bad. I don’t think you’re a bad guy or anything, I just don’t think you can see the forest for the trees here, and your statements on this issue are ridiculous IMO.
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
I am not asserting this to be the case, but I’m not sure why it would be impossible to be worried to the point of incapacity at the thought of losing a parent but simultaneously have been dealing with it long enough that you still try to go about your day.
Put another way: one could be very, very worried without believing that the threat of death was imminent.
I'm wrong all the time.
I’m sorry about Dareus’s mother, but I fail to see that as a mitigating circumstance. How was his judgment impaired by his mother’s illness if he was duped? If he was enticed and entrapped, how does judgment enter into it? What does a loved one’s grave illness have to do with whether a player knows and complies with NCAA rules? Moreover, who flies to Miami to be with a buddy while his mother is dying?
You aren’t seriously going to deny someone else the opportunity to argue in the alternative, are you?
I’m guessing you’re not familiar with the situation of Dareus’s mother, as you seem to be repeating the same “probing questions” that a few of our barner trolls did when this fist came out. The problem is that his mother was dying quite some time. It’s not as though Dareus got the news that she was on her death bed and then promptly flew to Miami. He had been dealing with that grief for some time when a long-time friend of his offered him a bit of a vacation.
Accepting that was stupid, yes, but it’s difficult to say that he should’ve known an agent was behind it.
I'm wrong all the time.
Given the fact that I promoted a fanpost defending the NCAA to the front page, . . .
. . . I’d like to think it’s pretty clear that I’m providing every reasonable participant the opportunity to argue in the alternative.
Judging by the two-minute differential in the time-stamps of my 12:36 comment and your 12:38 comment, I’m guessing you were typing the latter while I was posting the former, which I believe addresses the point regarding Dareus’s mother. I appreciate the clarification and I am sorry for the young man’s loss, but I fail to see how it makes sense to use that as a mitigating circumstances, beyond simply feeling sorry for him on his mother’s passing. Obviously, we all regret that he has had to go through that, and I am sorry if I appeared insensitive to his loss.
I agree that it is difficult to say that he should’ve known an agent was behind it. By the same token, when A.J. Green sold a jersey to a collector, he had no basis for knowing that person met the NCAA definition of an agent. Although C&F suggests that there is no fair market value to such an item because its sale is a violation of the rules, he’s simply mistaken in that respect: all fungible commodities have fair market values, notwithstanding rules and regulations. Anyone who does not know that must not be aware of the existence of drug trafficking.
Plenty of overzealous but otherwise innocuous Georgia fans would pay $1,000 for a jersey worn by A.J. Green in a bowl game. No, he shouldn’t have sold it, and for that some punishment is warranted, but he had no more reason to be suspicious of the purchaser’s connection to an agent than Marcell Dareus had, and, arguably, he had less.
Go 'Dawgs!
The sale of the jersey was, in fact, not permissible regardless of to whom he was selling and, furthermore, all evidence is that the sale was direct, affording Green an opportunity to check the buyer out to make sure he wasn’t an agent.
Neither of those two things were necessarily true for Dareus.
I'm wrong all the time.
Could you get me a link on that?
I haven’t seen any indication that the sale was directly to anyone who could be classified as an agent; to the contrary, everything I have seen has been couched in very amorphous language.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but, if you’ve seen evidence that the sale was direct, I’d appreciate being pointed in the direction of it, because I obviously haven’t seen it.
Go 'Dawgs!
The Buyer
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5551923
… and that’s The Rest of the Story.
(well… part of it, anyway).
Ok, somebody help me out here
How is it that the Jeremiah Masoli issue can be resolved before kickoff of the first game vs. a patsy, but AJ Green’s case can’t be resolved or even considered until after the game that I’m calling the SEC East championship game? This is ludicrious.
Help build NCAA case against other + full honesty/disclosure = mitigating circumstances/leniency
Frankly I doubt the dying mother had anything to do with it, nor should it. What I’ve read about Dareus paints the picture that he is the star witness in the NCAA’s case against other players. As in criminal courts, this apparently buys you some leniency on your punishment.
I think it also has something to do with the level of knowledge of the player. Dareus could probably make a colorable argument that he thought this trip was on his teammate’s dime, not an agent’s. As far as I know, there’s nothing wrong with your friend helping you pay for a vacation. Sure, it looks terrible, but at least he could make a good faith argument.
I think AJ probably was completely honest and admitted he knew that this sale violated NCAA rules. It’s tough to justify breaking the rules when you knew the rules and knew what you were doing violated those rules.
by WindyCityDawg on Sep 9, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
However,
if Dareus’s friend pays for his vacation, and whether incidental to said vacation or not, this same friend “promotes” Dareus as a football player, then under the NCAA rules this friend is an “agent” and we’re back to the same situation as AJ’s – receiving improper benefits, cash or otherwise from an agent.
Also keeping in mind the Reggie Bush situation – if my memory serves, part of the improper benefits there went to his family.
So I guess AJ’s mama can’t even sell that jersey can she?
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
If I am mistaken in my understanding of the mitigating circumstances in Marcell Dareus's case, . . .
. . . I apologize. Accounts I have read suggested that the mitigating circumstances in question had to do with his perfectly legitimate and understandable concern for his mother’s well-being, which reportedly impaired his judgment. If I am in error in that understanding, then, obviously, that point is not relevant, and I regret any perceived insensitivity resulting from my attempt to make sense of the NCAA’s apparently contradictory rulings.
Go 'Dawgs!
The Relevance of Dareus's Mother
I think that Dareus’s mother is a relevant consideration, but maybe not for the reasons you might initially think.
I do not believe, and am not asserting, that being grief-stricken is an excuse for breaking benefits rules. However…
Austin was a friend of Dareus’s before the whole agent thing started up. I’m not sure if they knew each other in High School, or met through some sort of elite athlete country club, or what the situation is, but they are (or maybe “were”) friends.
It comes up from time to time that impermissible, additional benefits can come from extended family and close friends, but whether benefits are determined to be impermissible generally rides on what that family member or friend’s behavior was prior to the person becoming a college recruit or athlete. In other words, if you just started giving them cars when they started showing up on ESPN’s Top Plays, that’s probably no good. If you were the rich uncle that bought them a car every two years from the time they were 16 on, that’s another story.
I don’t believe that, prior to the incident in question, Austin had really provided Dareus much in the way of gifts or trips or the like, so as a general rule, I would expect Dareus to be suspect of Austin’s motives for offering the trips.
However, given the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Dareus and his mother, two things would likely be true. First, such trouble tends to bring out a more comforting and generous side of one’s friends. Those who might not otherwise have been much for gift-giving, might decide to get you something. As a result, Austin’s gifts, in context, are much more explainable. Second, dealing with that sort of long-term stress probably would tend to reduce one’s judgment in situations like this one, leading to Dareus being less skeptical than maybe he should otherwise be.
Combine less skepticism than normal with a plausible reason for Austin’s increased generosity and you have a pretty good case to be made for mitigating circumstances.
If you can also add him spilling the beans on a bunch of other infractions, all the better,
That, I believe, take’s Dareus’s offense from “should definitely have known better” to "I can see
I'm wrong all the time.
All right, I can see that.
I appreciate Zoltar’s and your efforts to enlighten me concerning the exact details of Marcell Dareus’s case. As I have tried to emphasize, I am not attempting to vilify Dareus, but merely to draw comparisons between his case and A.J. Green’s.
I am sorry Dareus had to suffer through this experience with his mother’s illness and death, and I wish the Crimson Tide the best of luck. If you’d be willing to send just a little of that luck our way, we’d be appreciative. It’s been a pretty crappy last three years to be a Georgia fan.
Go 'Dawgs!
It’s always difficult, given the lack of information we usually get as to the details of the cases. Even assuming Dareus and Green broke the same rules, clearly the circumstances are very different and drawing conclusions between them is going to be pretty tough without having all of the info.
Even having all of the info, it’s still a judgment call — to fancy parties and trips to miami might seem to be worse than selling a jersey to some, but not as big a deal to others.
I can’t speak for Zoltar, but I want to see Georgia claw its way back out of the issues they’ve had lately. Despite the annual hot-seat talk, Richt is pretty clearly a class individual and a damn good football coach, so I always hope for almost the best for Georgia. I’d love to see y’all go 13-1 this year.
I'm wrong all the time.
Ok fine, maybe the NCAA is not the Nazi SS
their rules specifically state the whole 30% for value over $500 great, just great.
Now the only questions remaining are these:
1. When was that scale created and has it been adjusted for inflation? $100 just ain’t what it used to be.
2. What are the mitigating circumstances for Dareus that fundamentally reduced the punishment from the over $500 level to half way between the 100 – 300 & 300 – 500 levels?
3. Are there any mitigating circumstances in Green’s case?
Damn now I’m even further depressed.
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain

by 















