someone tweet it to one of the fox sports 1 reporters. They have a several reasons to get up in espn's grill... lol!

I know the NCAA is not a court of law and blah blah blah, but if Schad and/or Rovell do have proof of Johnny receiving compensation for the autograph signings and decide not to report on it until a future date, could that be considered "withholding evidence"?

Would this help A&M in the event that we decide to play Johnny, which I think we should, and find out later that he did indeed commit a violation?

It seems to me like Schad or Rovell would/should be held liable for willfully withholding damning information for their own benefit.

Maybe Joe needs to learn to investigate and then follow it up with an article that is coherent and allows for zero misunderstanding.

For someone with a degree in journalism from St Johns, he sure has gone out on a limb on this story considering he is dealing with scumbags and has no hard evidence.


from his wiki:
"Schad reports feature stories and sitdown conversations for shows like College GameDay, SportsCenter and Outside The Lines. Some of Schad's more notable interview subjects are Urban Meyer, Pete Carroll, Mack Brown, Bobby Bowden, Joe Paterno, Tim Tebow, Steve Spurrier, Jake Locker, Sam Bradford, Bobby Petrino and Tyrann Mathieu. Schad has reported on several NCAA investigations including ones into Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, Marvin Austin, Rhett Bomar, Florida State, Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan and Oregon."

[This message has been edited by Citizen Reign (edited 8/21/2013 8:17a).]

Yes, PE. Both schad and rovell should lose eligibility for withholding the evidence

You acknowledge realizing the ncaa is not a court of law, so what other options do you have as punishment from ncaa?

Or is their "punishment" the ncaa ignoring the evidence they withheld and allowing JFF to play, thereby foiling the grand conspiracy?

Rovell will block him just like he blocked me for questioning his integrity.

quote:

---

you are correct, schad does say that the broker claims to have paid him cash. I was wrong on that.

---

Paid Johnny, or paid Uncle Nate?

Rovell says that Schad says that a source alleged that Manziel was paid something by someone.

They had ESiPN at Manziel. Rovell's job is to keep the fabrication afloat and at the forefront.
Schads job is to buffer the "story" from the sideshow Rovell and to use big words like allege.

Recent twist to their story indicate that their agenda has shifted to just wanting to drop the Manziel name and cashing in on Manziel playing plus keeping their "story" alive as long as possible, into JFs NFL rookie season and beyond.

This is what ESiPN does.

Rovell's explanation is weak. However, what if the disclaimer about lack of witnesses was no longer true?

I still think Rovell would like nothing more than to catch A&M or JFF in a lie. Especially after the Twitter beat down the Ags have put on him.

I do not think there will be any witnesses that come forward that will be deemed credible.

My guess is that if any money did change hands it was cash and with no witnesses, and probably nothing went directly to Johnny.

The only way to get real evidence was for one of the brokers to set up Manziel in a sting. I guess that could have happened but would have ruined th broker.

Which article came first? The Rovel one or the one with the $7500 comment?

If Rovel is first, he's removing the lack of evidence to say the guy that gave him the $7500 is the evidence and adjusted his story after the other one came out. Not sure how legit that is, but seems to me that is what Rovel is saying.

He's saying the $7500 man is the 'evidence.'

Clown,

There is the "Where is the proof?" question that TexAgs keeps asking on the boards. But the NCAA would not need that much evidence to find Johnny guilty.

quote:

---

There is the "Where is the proof?" question that TexAgs keeps asking on the boards. But the NCAA would not need that much evidence to find Johnny guilty.

---

They definitely need more than they have now.

They also would have to have proof that some how money changed hands between someone, whether it be Johnny or someone like Uncle Nate.

The problem is unless one of these brokers set up a sting, then they are not going to have the necessary proof for the NCAA to act.

Also ncaa's own rules say can't rely on anonymous sources.

I still think the "you never did this signing with me" comment was likely due to the fact that he had told a lot of other folks he wouldn't do signings for them and didn't want an avalanche of "that's not fair, you did it for XYZ".

He has made it clear he was getting beaten by signing autographs.

quote:

---

They definitely need more than they have now.

---

My guess is that the NCAA has more info than what has been reported to date.

quote:

---

My guess is that the NCAA has more info than what has been reported to date.

---

My guess is that you are wrong. The NCAA investigation wing has been devastated by departures. They do not have the staff to try to chase this type of investigation. They have been at this investigation for months with a near skeleton crew.

The only evidence would be if a broker had set up a sting, which is unlikely for a variety of reasons.

I would bet A&M's law firm has every bit of information the NCAA has and even more. They have more resources than the NCAA has available right now.

Sure hope you're right clown. Felt weird typing that.

quote:

---

Everyday it looks more and more like ESPN is trying to protect their 300mm sipvestment.

If they can hurt A&M recruiting enough to give the sips back their free run on Texas, they have the biggest tv audience in the dumbster fire back.

The SEC is strong enough without A&M to bring in huge numbers with four or five other big draw schools. the dumpster fire only has OU and sip

---

Underrated post by Citizen Reign

quote:

---

How does an old go about enrolling on the twitters?

---

Open enrollment weekdays at your local city hall, 8am-11am. Bring three forms of ID.