Xavier Thomas got a nice ride!

[rogue cock]

And South Carolina fans are trying to act like Clemson is the only team cheating.

Nope, just the nearest.

 

[SHillTIger]

You mean you spent time under a tractor hood.

Thats a good reply but no. The only tractor I ever worked on was my grandpas old Ford 8n. My first memory of working on a car was my Dads 66 SS Chevelle he bought as a teenager. It was his first car. He had that and 58 Ford F100 that was given to him when his dad died. Those were my parents daily drivers until I was about 14. Dad drove the Ford back and forth to work until I was about 18. It was good truck.

 

[topdecktiger]

So, Clemson started signing out of state 5 star guys just because of the upgraded facilities? But other programs also upgraded it’s facilities, so this doesn’t really make sense at all. I’m willing to bet that most of what you’re reading about Clemson’s facilities improvements came from Clemson’s own media marketing machine? Clemson has 1 thing that other big time Universities don’t have already, or are not in the process of building, and that’s a sliding board.

Yes. Upgraded facilities allowed Clemson to get better recruits. Again, Clemson's recruiting classes were ranked 67th and 53rd before the upgraded facilities, and 17th and 16th after the upgraded facilities. That's not Clemson media marketing. Those numbers come from Rivals. I didn't make the up, and neither did Clemson.

You're missing the point about the facilities when you say other schools upgraded as well. The point is, Clemson was significantly behind everyone else in facilities. Top level players wouldn't even look at them. When Clemson upgraded the facilities, it put them on a level playing field, so they could get their foot in the door with top recruits. Its no surprise that if have competitive facilities, and you recruit 100 top level recruits, you may land 3 or 4 of them. It's frankly not surprising for any decent P5 school to get a few big recruits here and there. The difference was Clemson was able to build on the ones they did get.

You frankly make too much about the 5-star thing. Clemson had one year (2011) were they got several 4 stars. Otherwise, they really haven't been getting all that many until the last couple of years. If you look at the foundational classes of the Clemson's national championship team, the 2012/13/14 classes only had 1 5-star, which was Deshaun Watson. By 2015 and 16 they started getting more high level players, but by then they had started winning, so again, it built on itself.

You also have to have a coach to take advantage of those recruits and facilities. Tommy Bowden had some pretty good players (especially compared to ACC teams), but he underachieved. Clemson was fortunate enough to have good facilities, and coaches who could properly utilize them and the talent they brought.

Now, as some other posters have pointed out, football in general is corrupt, and there is no telling what all these schools, especially the big ones are doing. However, to simply attribute all of Clemson's success to cheating, and overlook the other factors is just being intellectually dishonest.

 

[topdecktiger]

Nope, just the nearest.

Jealously.

 

[cockn'fyr]

I just can't understand how stuff like this goes on and the NCAA doesn't find out, but they know about our minor infractions and penalizes us! If there is any misdoings as the photos show and the family finances can't afford it then I'm waiting for the day Dabo is at midfield after a game saying, your the SOB that turned my ass in!

 

[cockynSC66]

New spring gave him the money. Perry noble and his merry band of thugs paid XT off. They also are getting his Dad out of jail.

 

[Judson1]

Yes. Upgraded facilities allowed Clemson to get better recruits. Again, Clemson's recruiting classes were ranked 67th and 53rd before the upgraded facilities, and 17th and 16th after the upgraded facilities. That's not Clemson media marketing. Those numbers come from Rivals. I didn't make the up, and neither did Clemson.

You're missing the point about the facilities when you say other schools upgraded as well. The point is, Clemson was significantly behind everyone else in facilities. Top level players wouldn't even look at them. When Clemson upgraded the facilities, it put them on a level playing field, so they could get their foot in the door with top recruits. Its no surprise that if have competitive facilities, and you recruit 100 top level recruits, you may land 3 or 4 of them. It's frankly not surprising for any decent P5 school to get a few big recruits here and there. The difference was Clemson was able to build on the ones they did get.

You frankly make too much about the 5-star thing. Clemson had one year (2011) were they got several 4 stars. Otherwise, they really haven't been getting all that many until the last couple of years. If you look at the foundational classes of the Clemson's national championship team, the 2012/13/14 classes only had 1 5-star, which was Deshaun Watson. By 2015 and 16 they started getting more high level players, but by then they had started winning, so again, it built on itself.

You also have to have a coach to take advantage of those recruits and facilities. Tommy Bowden had some pretty good players (especially compared to ACC teams), but he underachieved. Clemson was fortunate enough to have good facilities, and coaches who could properly utilize them and the talent they brought.

Now, as some other posters have pointed out, football in general is corrupt, and there is no telling what all these schools, especially the big ones are doing. However, to simply attribute all of Clemson's success to cheating, and overlook the other factors is just being intellectually dishonest.

Didn’t Watkins sign with Clemsin sight unseen? Guess the facility brochure was enough? If not him it was one of the big time out of state guys several years ago.

 

[Bongsummers]

And South Carolina fans are trying to act like Clemson is the only team cheating.

Oh, brother, we're in the SEC - nobody believes that. Auburn? Ole miss? Lsu? Have you seen the deposition of the linebacker at miss st? Our conference is the big league of cheating.

No offense to the cheaters at UNC. We know you guys in Chapel Hill are on cutting edge of academic fraud.

 

[Bongsummers]

Yeah we got caught telling a recruit to run some drills lmao.

Actually, that's a high school coach trying to sell his players to our coaches. We received no benefit because those were never going to get a scholarship.

 

[ClemsonBlozz]

I remember when you taters never stopped yakking about the infamous "Rock Hill bagman."

Guess y'all find him when OJ finds the real killer.

And they were all torqued up over clowney driving a 2004 dodge 300..

 

[Superior7]

First let me say I couldn't care less about what happened in 81. I was like 3 months old so it mean nothing to me. Now did we cheat at the start of this run to get it going? Maybe. But we are at the point now we dont have a reason to cheat. Winning cures everything. Kids want to play for winners and the more you win the easier it is to
convince kids to play for you. Clemson is at the point now that as long as the coaches keep putting in work and keep winning they will keep getting good players. Now years from now if it comes out that we
cheated then I hope we get burned
for it. But until then its just butt hurt and conspiracy theories.

When you are recruiting against schools that are winning less than you that is possible but when you are
getting the top players from the
states of Georgia and Ohio that were recruited by their instate football powers that are currently and were recently playoff teams, it is easy to figure out the cheating is still in progress. Also, financially challenged
families learned well what a top
ranked recruit is worth by watching Cam Newton win the Heisman, SEC Championship, and National Championship @ Auburn. They also know to shop around and find out which school will pay the price they
are asking for. The way XT is
spending money, his price must have been very high.

 

[rogue cock]

Jealously.

If that helps you sleep at night, Twinkletoes!

 

[Ken M.]

When you are recruiting against schools that are winning less than you that is possible but when you are
getting the top players from the
states of Georgia and Ohio that were recruited by their instate football powers that are currently and were recently playoff teams, it is easy to figure out the cheating is still in progress. Also, financially challenged
families learned well what a top
ranked recruit is worth by watching Cam Newton win the Heisman, SEC Championship, and National Championship @ Auburn. They also know to shop around and find out which school will pay the price they
are asking for. The way XT is
spending money, his price must have been very high.

Getting the top players from Georgia and Ohio? Trevor Lawrence was committed to Clemson for over a year before UGA sniffed the playoffs. In fact, they were 8-5 when he committed, and he never waivered. And Jackson Carman? Sure, OSU made the playoff last year, but it really didn’t work out too well for them. And Carman spent his entire recruitment looking for reasons NOT to go to OSU; he wanted to get out of state. That’s the mindset some kids have. Southern Cal was his other finalist.

I mean, seriously, if you don’t believe that it’s possible to improve recruiting and pull highly ranked players from other states, then why even bother caring about football? Your school is stuck where it is, right? It’s one or the other. If Muschamp improves recruiting and pulls a 5* from another state, is he definitely cheating? I’ll have to assume so.

 

[BigTomE]

Yes. Upgraded facilities allowed Clemson to get better recruits. Again, Clemson's recruiting classes were ranked 67th and 53rd before the upgraded facilities, and 17th and 16th after the upgraded facilities. That's not Clemson media marketing. Those numbers come from Rivals. I didn't make the up, and neither did Clemson.

You're missing the point about the facilities when you say other schools upgraded as well. The point is, Clemson was significantly behind everyone else in facilities. Top level players wouldn't even look at them. When Clemson upgraded the facilities, it put them on a level playing field, so they could get their foot in the door with top recruits. Its no surprise that if have competitive facilities, and you recruit 100 top level recruits, you may land 3 or 4 of them. It's frankly not surprising for any decent P5 school to get a few big recruits here and there. The difference was Clemson was able to build on the ones they did get.

You frankly make too much about the 5-star thing. Clemson had one year (2011) were they got several 4 stars. Otherwise, they really haven't been getting all that many until the last couple of years. If you look at the foundational classes of the Clemson's national championship team, the 2012/13/14 classes only had 1 5-star, which was Deshaun Watson. By 2015 and 16 they started getting more high level players, but by then they had started winning, so again, it built on itself.

You also have to have a coach to take advantage of those recruits and facilities. Tommy Bowden had some pretty good players (especially compared to ACC teams), but he underachieved. Clemson was fortunate enough to have good facilities, and coaches who could properly utilize them and the talent they brought.

Now, as some other posters have pointed out, football in general is corrupt, and there is no telling what all these schools, especially the big ones are doing. However, to simply attribute all of Clemson's success to cheating, and overlook the other factors is just being intellectually dishonest.

Ole Miss recently had the same type of jump in recruiting rankings as well. I guess the upgraded their facilities as well?

 

[Tigeriffic88]

Here are the actual NCAA violation findings if you want to read them...


For Release After 11 p.m. (EST) November 22, 1982
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION
-- Clemson University has been placed on probation for a two-year period by the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Committee on In-fractions as a result of violations occurring in the conduct of the institution's intercollegiate football program.
The penalty includes sanctions that will prohibit the university's football team from participating in any postseason football bowl game following the 1982 and 1983 seasons or from appearing on any live football telecast during the 1983 and 1984 seasons.
In addition, the Committee on Infractions limited the university to 20 initial grants-in-aid for new football recruits (rather than the normal limit of 30) during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 academic years.
Further, as a result of his involvement in the case, the university placed one assistant football coach on probation for a three-year period and will prohibit him from participating in off-campus recruiting activities, accepting off-campus speaking engagements, participating in the university's summer football camps and from receiving salary increases during that period.
In addition, the university placed a second assistant football coach on probation for two years and will prohibit him from participating in off-campus recruiting activities, participating in the university's summer football camp and from receiving a salary increase for one year. Also, the university will prohibit four representatives of its athletic interests from participating in recruiting activities on behalf of the institution for at least a two-year period.
"Due to the large number and serious nature of the violations in this case," said Charles Alan Wright, chair, NCAA Committee on Infractions, "the committee believed that institutional sanctions related to appearances on television and in postseason football bowl games were appropriate. In addition, because the violations indicated a pattern of improper recruiting activities, the committee determined that a two-year limitation on financial aid to new recruits should be imposed to offset any recruiting advantage that was gained improperly by the university.
"Also," noted Wright, "based on the involvement of two of the university's present assistant football coaches and four outside athletic representatives in this case, the university took meaningful disciplinary and corrective action against those individuals.
"Accordingly, the committee believes that the actions taken in this case against the university, its coaches and representatives are fully justified and that the overall penalty supports the interest of all NCAA members in maintaining compliance with NCAA legislation."
In considering the case, the Committee on Infractions found violations of NCAA legislation related to recruiting, extra benefits to student-athletes, ethical conduct and certification of compliance with NCAA legislation.
The following is a complete text of the penalty imposed upon Clemson University and a summary of the violations.
Penalty To Be Imposed Upon Institution
1. Clemson University shall be publicly reprimanded and censured, and placed on probation for a period of two years, effect ive November 21, 1982, it being understood that should any portion of the penalty in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penalty shall be reconsidered by the NCAA; further, prior to the expiration of this period of probation, the NCAA shall review the athletic policies and practices of the university.
2. The university's intercollegiate football team shall end its 1982 and 1983 football seasons with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and the university shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason football competition.
3. During the 1983 and 1984 football seasons, the university's intercollegiate football team shall not be eligible to appear on any television series or program subject to the administration or control of this Association or any other television programs involving live coverage.
4. During the 1983-84 and 1984-85 academic years, no more than 20 student-athletes in the sport of football shall be recipients of initial, athletically related financial aid (as set forth in 0.1. 600), which has been arranged for or awarded by Clemson University.
5. In accordance with the "show cause" provision of the NCAA penalty structure, the university will take disciplinary and corrective action in regard to:
a. One assistant football coach who will be placed on probation for a three-year period. During that period, he will be prohibited from:
(1) participating in any off-campus recruiting activities; (2) receiving a salary increase; (3) participating in the university's summer football camps or receiving income from the camps, and (4) accepting speaking engagements off-campus at booster club functions or at high school sports banquets.
b. A second assistant football coach who will be placed on probation for a two-year period. During the first year of that period, he will be prohibited from: (1) participating in any off-campus recruiting activities; (2) receiving a salary increase, and (3) participating in the university's 1983 summer football camp or receiving income from the camp.
c. Four representatives of the university's athletic interests, which will preclude these individuals from involvement in any activities associated with the recruitment of prospective student-athletes on behalf of the university during the institution's probationary period, and result in any further measures that the university determines to be within its authority to curtail the involvement of each individual in the university's athletic program during the probationary period.
Summary of Violations of NCAA Legislation
1. NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(b) [improper recruiting inducements] -- (a) In December 1980, a former assistant football coach offered to provide a prospective student-athlete a substantial sum of cash and an automobile to sign a letter of intent; (b) During the fall of 1978, a representative of the university's athletic interests offered to pay the costs for the two sisters of a prospective student-athlete to attend the university; (c) In 1978, the university awarded a scholarship to a friend of a prospective student-athlete; (d) During the 1980-81 academic year, representatives of the university's athletic interests directly assisted a prospective student-athlete and his family in paying four telephone bills; (e) During the 1980-81 academic year, a former assistant football coach and a representative of the university's athletic interests offered to provide the mother of a prospective student-athlete transportation to attend the university's football games during her son's enrollment; (f) During the summer of 1978, a prospective student-athlete was permitted to attend the university's summer football c amp at no cost to him, and (g) In January 1978, an assistant football coach offered inducements to a prospective student-athlete to attend the university that included substantial sums of cash to sign conference and national letters of intent, a television set, a wardrobe and six complimentary football tickets for the university's home football contests.
2. NCAA Bylaws 1-l-(b), 1-8-(j) and 1-8-(l) [improper recruiting inducements and entertainment] -- (a) In December 1979, an assistant football coach provided a prospective student-athlete local automobile transportation, a meal and made remarks that were reasonably interpreted by the young man to be an offer of an automobile, clothing and cash, and (b) In January 1981, a representative of the university's athletic interests offered to provide a prospective student-athlete the use of an automobile, and transportation home during his attendance at the university; further, the representative provided local transportation and a meal to the prospect on this occasion.
3. NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(b)-(l) [improper recruiting inducements] -- (a) In December 1980, a representative of the university's athletic interests gave a prospective student-athlete a substantial amount of cash in return for his signature on a letter of intent, as well as several other gifts; (b) In December 1980, a representative of the university's athletic interests arranged for a substantial amount of cash to be given to a prospective student-athlete and provided the young man and his mother other gifts; (c) During Christmas vacation in the 1977-78 academic year, a former assistant football coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive round-trip airline transportation between a junior college he was attending and his home; (d) During the 1977-78 academic year, a prospective student-athlete made personal long-distance telephone calls through the use of a former assistant football coach's credit card number; (e) During the 1980-81 academic year, a former assistant football coach and a representative of the university's athletic interests gave two prospective student-athletes cash; (f) On numerous occasions during the 1980-81 academic year, a representative of the university's athletic interests gave a prospective student-athlete cash; (g) In January 1978, a former assistant football coach gave a prospective student-athlete's fiancé cash; (h) In the fall of 1978, a former assistant football coach gave a prospective student-athlete cash; (i) A representative of the university's athletic interests paid the cost of numerous long-distant telephone calls made by two prospective student-athletes during December 1980; (j) In February 1981, the head football coach offered to help find a job for a prospective student-athlete's mother; (k) In the spring and summer of 1979, a former assistant football coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive medical examinations and treatment for an ankle injury at no cost to the young man; (1) In November or December 1978, a former assistant football coach gave a prospective student-athlete two sweaters; (m) During January or February 1981, a former assistant football coach mailed a pair of basketball shoes to two prospective student-athletes; (n) During the 1978-79 academic year, a former assistant football coach gave a prospective student-athlete cash to pay the necessary fee to take a college entrance examination; (o) In November 1980, an assistant football coach provided a prospective student-athlete several articles of clothing at no cost to the young man; (p) During December l980~ a representative of the university's athletic interests gave the friend of two prospective student-athletes a briefcase; (q) In January or February 1981, a representative of the university's athletic interests employed a prospective student-athlete's mother and his sister for one day; (r) In the fall of 1979, a former assistant football coach gave a white sport shirt to a prospective student-athlete, and (s ) Numerous prospective student-athletes have been provided T-shirts, football jerseys or souvenir photographs during visits to the university's campus.
4. NCAA Bylaw l-8-(g) [improper transportation] -- In January 1978, a former assistant football coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive a prepaid, one-way commercial airline ticket at no cost to the young man to travel to the university.
5. NCAA Constitution 3-1-(g)-(5) [extra benefits to student-athletes] -- (a) In January 1982, a representative of the university's athletic interests cosigned a promissory note to arrange a loan for a student-athlete to finance the purchase of an automobile, and (b) In April 1980, the head football coach, director of athletics and dean of student affairs arranged for the university to pay the cost of a dental bill on behalf of a student-athlete.
6. NCAA Constitution 3-6-(a) [ethical conduct] -- (a) A former assistant football coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct inasmuch as he did not on all occasions deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics in that his involvement in the violations set forth in this report demonstrates a knowing and willful effort on his part to operate the university's intercollegiate football program contrary to the requirements and provisions of NCAA legislation, and (b) In the fall of 1981 and again in late February 1982, an assistant football coach telephoned the father of a prospective student-athlete, which were reasonably interpreted a being request to provide the NCAA false information concerning his son's recruitment by the university.
7. NCAA Constitution 3-6-(a) and Bylaws l-l-(b)-(l), l-8-(i) and 1-8-(j)-(3) [ethical conduct and improper transportation] -- (a) In the fall of the 1980-81 academic year, an assistant football coach provided a prospective student-athlete's father round-trip automobile transportation between his home and the university at the time he accompanied his son on an official paid visit to the university; further, the coach filed a false mileage reimbursement receipt with the university concerning this transportation, and (b) in November 1980, an assistant football coach gave cash to a prospective student-athlete during his official paid visit to the university for entertainment purposes and later filed a false expense report with the university regarding a meal provided to the young man during this visit.
8. NCAA Constitution 3-l-(g)-(5) and 3-4-(a) [extra benefits and improper financial aid] -- (a) In September 1980, following one of the university's scheduled intercollegiate football contests, a representative of the university's athletic interests gave a student-athlete cash, and (b) On three separate occasions during the fall of the 1979-80 academic year, representatives of the university's athletic interests gave a student-athlete cash as a reward for being selected "specialty team player of the week."
9. NCAA Bylaws 1-1-(b)-(l) and l-8-(d) [recruiting inducements and improper campus visits] -- (a) During the 1980-81 academic year, a prospective student-athlete was provided four official paid visits to the university's campus;(b) In December 1980, a representative of the university's athletic interests paid the costs for a prospective student-athlete to be lodged for three nights at a motel and provided the young man cash, two meals and the use of a rental automobile, and (c) In July 1980, two prospective student-athletes attended the university's summer football camp for one day at no cost to either young man.
10. NCAA Bylaw l-8-(d) [improper campus visits] -- (a) During the 1980-81 academic year, one prospective student-athlete was provided two official paid visits to the university's campu s, another was provided three visits and a third was provided two visits; (b) During the 1978-79 academic year, one prospective student-athlete was provided three expense-paid visits to the university's campus and another was provided two visits, and (c) During the 1976-77 academic year, a prospective student-athlete was provided several visits to the university's campus.
11. NCAA Bylaws 1-8-(j) and l-8-(l) [improper transportation and entertainment] --Between 1977 and 1981, four prospective student-athletes were provided local transportation and meals by an assistant football coach or a representative of the university's athletic interests.
12. NCAA Bylaws l-8-(i)-(5) and l-8-(j) [improper entertainment] -- In the fall of 1977, a former assistant football coach arranged for a friend of a prospective student-athlete to receive meals, lodging and entertainment during the young man's official paid visit.
13. NCAA Bylaws l-8-(i) [improper transportation] -- In December 1977, an assistant football coach provided the mother of a prospective student-athlete one-way automobile transportation from her home to the university's campus and the coach arranged for a student trainer to transport her home at the conclusion of the visit.
14. NCAA Constitution 3-l-(g)-(5) and Bylaw l-8-(j) [extra benefits and improper transportation] -- During his employment in the university's summer football camp in 1980, an assistant football coach provided local automobile transportation and a meal to approximately 10 prospective student-athletes; further, following the camp, the coach arranged for two student-athletes to utilize his automobile to travel home for a visit while also providing five prospective student-athletes transportation home.
15. NCAA Bylaw l-8-(j) [improper transportation] -- (a) In the fall of 1979, an assistant football coach provided round-trip automobile transportation for a friend of a prospective student-athlete to accompany the prospect on his official paid visit to the university; (b) In the summer of 1981, an assistant football coach and a high school coach arranged for a prospective student athlete to be provided automobile transportation to attend the university's summer football camp; (c) During the summer of 1980, a prospective student-athlete was provided automobile transportation following his attendance at the university's summer football camp; (d) On three occasions during the 1980-81 academic year, a representative of the university's athletic interests entertained a prospective student-athlete for a meal, and (e) During the 1980-81 academic year, four prospective student-athletes were provided improper automobile transportation by representatives of the university's athletic interests.
16. NCAA Bylaws l-8-(j)-(2) and 1-8-(j)-(4) [improper transportation] -- (a) In January 1981, an assistant football coach permitted a student-athlete to use his automobile to transport a prospective student-athlete during his official paid visit to the university; (b) In December 1980, a former assist-ant football coach permitted two prospective student-athletes to use his personal automobile during their official paid visits to the university, and (c) In November 1979, an assistant football coach provided his automobile to a student hostess in order to transport a prospective student-athlete during his official paid visit.
17. NCAA Bylaw 1-8-(c) [improper use of funds] -- In October 1980, a representative of the university's athletic interests gave a student hostess cash for her gasoline expenses to transport a prospective student-athlete from his home to the university's campus.
18. NCAA Bylaws 1-5-(b) and l-8-(m) [improper funds] -- In July 1980, an assistant football coach gave cash to a high school assistant football coach to reimburse the coach for expenses incurre d while transporting two prospective student-athletes to the university's summer football camp.
19. NCAA Constitution 3-l-(g)-(5) and Bylaws l-l-(b)-(l), l-8-(j)-(2) and 1-8-(j)-(3) [improper entertainment] -- (a) During the 1980-81 and 1981-82 academic years, the university's football coaching staff entertained prospective and enrolled student-athletes off campus at a restaurant located outside of Clemson, South Carolina, or a community contiguous thereto, and (b) During the 1980-81 academic year, individuals who were not enrolled in the university served as hosts for prospective student-athletes on their official paid visits to the university.
20. NCAA Bylaw l-6-(a) [tryout] -- In the fall of 1979, a prospective student-athlete was timed running the 40-yard dash by a former assistant football coach.
21. NCAA Bylaw 1-l-(b)-(2) [improper employment] -- (a) In December 1978, a former assistant football coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to be employed by a representative of the university's athletic interests prior to the completion of the young man's senior year in high school, and (b) In the summer of 1980, two prospective student-athletes were employed by a representative of the university's athletic interests in order to assist the young men in paying the costs to attend the Clemson football camp.
22. NCAA Bylaw 5-6-(d)-(4) [certification of compliance with NCAA legislation] --With full knowledge at the time that certain practices of the university's intercollegiate football program were not in compliance with NCAA legislation, certain individuals (i.e., two assistant football coaches in 1978, two in 1979, two in 1980 and two in 1981) attested on statements filed with the chief executive officer of the university that they had reported their knowledge of and involvement in any violation of NCAA legislation involving the university.
23. NCAA Bylaws l-2-(a)-(2) and l-2-(a)-(4) [recruiting contact] -- In September 1981, an assistant football coach contacted a prospective student-athlete for recruiting purposes at the young man's high school outside the permissible period for in-person recruiting contacts.
24. NCAA Bylaw 1-2-(a)-(3) [recruiting contact] -- (a) In the spring of 1979, an assistant football coach personally contacted a prospective student-athlete in person, off campus prior to the completion of the young man's junior year in high school, and (b) On two occasions in the spring of 1977, a former assistant football coach personally contacted a prospective student-athlete off campus for recruiting purposes prior to the completion of the young man's junior year in high school.
25. NCAA Bylaw l-2-(a)-(l) [recruiting contacts] -- (a) During the 1977-78 academic year, a prospective student-athlete was contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than three occasions by members of the football coaching staff; (b) During the 1978-79 academic year, three prospective student-athletes were contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than three occasions by members of the football coaching staff and representatives of the university's athletic interests; (c) During the summer of 1979 and during the fall of the 1979-80 academic year, two prospective student-athletes were contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than three occasions by members of the football coaching staff and representatives of the university's athletic interests, and (d) During the 1980-81 academic year, four prospective student-athletes or their relatives were contacted in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than three occasions by members of the football coaching staff and representatives of the university's athletic interests.

That doesn't answer the question. Who got paid to play? If any player was paid to play, he would be ineligible and the games he participated in would be vacated (or forfeited depending on the NCAA policy at the time). Ineligible players means the game gets wiped one way or another (in football, see Alabama, FSU, USC, GaTech, SCAR for examples).

Pay-to-play is what happened at SMU. They were caught paying some players monthly salaries. The reason they got the death penalty is that they continued to make the payments while on probation.

 

[mbsurfside]

These Taters are as sharp as marbles. High level recruits get paid. Not just by your school but I would imagine most every school. Some are worse than others. Your school and Ole Miss are not afraid to toss around the cash. I’m sure we do the same. It’s just funny for people to really believe that doesn’t happen. Talk about head in the sand. Like one poster said above. He doesn’t have any issue with it. I have mixed feeelings but realize that it the way things are done. Lot of money at stake

 

[Ken M.]

These Taters are as sharp as marbles. High level recruits get paid. Not just by your school but I would imagine most every school. Some are worse than others. Your school and Ole Miss are not afraid to toss around the cash. I’m sure we do the same. It’s just funny for people to really believe that doesn’t happen. Talk about head in the sand. Like one poster said above. He doesn’t have any issue with it. I have mixed feeelings but realize that it the way things are done. Lot of money at stake

Kids get paid, and any school serious about winning has networks of boosters that do it. It’s a reality in bigtime college football. If you’re referring to my response to Superior’s post, that was in reference to two specific recruits. There’s a pretty high degree of certainty that the Lawrence and Carman families weren’t and aren’t on the take, and never had a hand out. Those were the top recruits in GA and OH, and presumably who Superior was referring to. That certainty doesn’t exist with a lot of other recruits, and I’m sure Clemson plays the same game everybody else does. And if Clemson or anybody else isn’t careful enough and leaves a paper trail or some proof, turn ‘em in. It sounds like some posters are about to crack the XT dad’s business sale case wide open.

 

[craneoperatr1_a_aol.com]

Thats a good reply but no. The only tractor I ever worked on was my grandpas old Ford 8n. My first memory of working on a car was my Dads 66 SS Chevelle he bought as a teenager. It was his first car. He had that and 58 Ford F100 that was given to him when his dad died. Those were my parents daily drivers until I was about 14. Dad drove the Ford back and forth to work until I was about 18. It was good truck.

What was in the Chevelle a 396. My friend has 67 he puts in car shows down in the Jacksonville area.

 

[uscusc1987]

First let me say I couldn't care less about what happened in 81. I was like 3 months old so it mean nothing to me. Now did we cheat at the start of this run to get it going? Maybe. But we are at the point now we dont have a reason to cheat. Winning cures everything. Kids want to play for winners and the more you win the easier it is to convince kids to play for you. Clemson is at the point now that as long as the coaches keep putting in work and keep winning they will keep getting good players. Now years from now if it comes out that we cheated then I hope we get burned for it. But until then its just butt hurt and conspiracy theories.

The same butt hurt comments were made before clempson was busted in the late 70s and early 80s. So why don't you STFU and go away. If you take a survey I promise most USC fans on here are tired of you dumbass taters on this board.

 

[uscusc1987]

That is what they said in 81. I was 21 and I remember it well. Just because you were 3 months old when it happened does not make it any less relevant.

Exactly, so tired of dumbass taters on this board.

 

[scmomandpop]

From the comments he "bought" it the day after signing day.

View embedded media

CHECK THAT ROLEX OUT

 

[SHillTIger]

What was in the Chevelle a 396. My friend has 67 he puts in car shows down in the Jacksonville area.

It has a 396 with a 4 speed. It was beautiful back then but could use some TLC now. He hasnt been into much since my mom passed. He just started getting out the house so maybe he will get it back to its former glory.

 

[mbsurfside]

Kids get paid, and any school serious about winning has networks of boosters that do it. It’s a reality in bigtime college football. If you’re referring to my response to Superior’s post, that was in reference to two specific recruits. There’s a pretty high degree of certainty that the Lawrence and Carman families weren’t and aren’t on the take, and never had a hand out. Those were the top recruits in GA and OH, and presumably who Superior was referring to. That certainty doesn’t exist with a lot of other recruits, and I’m sure Clemson plays the same game everybody else does. And if Clemson or anybody else isn’t careful enough and leaves a paper trail or some proof, turn ‘em in. It sounds like some posters are about to crack the XT dad’s business sale case wide open.

Thank you. I would agree. Don’t know specifics of Lawrence family. But doesn’t take a genius to see XT got paid. Probably by more than one school. Same can probably be said for Clowney. It’s not a pay to play situation. Compensation can come in many ways but it is happening. Just because schools are not being investigated doesn’t mean it’s not going on. How long did UNC get away with their stuff

 

[uscusc1987]

Jealously.

What a tool. You people are so obsessed with what we say. If you weren't you would STFU and go away. Doesn't clempson have a tsternet board?

 

[Cocky704]

Oh, brother, we're in the SEC - nobody believes that. Auburn? Ole miss? Lsu? Have you seen the deposition of the linebacker at miss st? Our conference is the big league of cheating.

No offense to the cheaters at UNC. We know you guys in Chapel Hill are on cutting edge of academic fraud.

Clemson already knows this! Why do you think all of their major successful coaching hires have been from Alabama. Pell, Ford and Dabo. Heck even the Bowdens are from Alabama and I sm sure Saint Bobby taught his son Tommy how to work the system well.

 

[FORKCOCK]

Explain Deshaun Watson and his Gucci backpacks all the while he grew up in a habitat for humanity home?

His grandma pulled double shifts at Wal-Mart to pay for it. C'mon man!

 

[tngamecock#]

While I appreciate all the debate on the model, and whether its a 23K car or a 40K car. When my kids entered college, I made almost 100k per year. I couldn't afford to buy them even a 15K car. So I always find it strange when someone who makes less than that (assuming his dad in prison makes less), can have a kid drive that type of thing. I guess if you don't have to pay for the college to boot, then might be possible. But I never could.

 

[yeah_yeah]

Jones, me too. I drove a 6 year old escort GT. My dad paid 2k for it. No power anything other than steering. The AC didn’t work. The radio didn’t work. 5 speed. Drive by a school nowadays and you’ll see nicer cars than the adults have. My wife taught a kid that had a new camero he wrecked, a new mustang he wrecked, and finally a new corvette stingray.

 

[Joelmoo2]

Our boosters don't have the same mentality Clemson's does. We expect a kid to be happy about getting a scholarship while Clemson's network invest in these palyers. At any rate it may go deeper than that considering they have 2 alum that work on the play off selection committee as well. In XTs case it's not just the car. The img private school he attended was paid for by someone. I knew once he left for Florida he was not coming to Carolina. They did a first class hack job on us. I also hear they have plenty of alumni with the NCAA. How has that worked for UNC? Nicely as they tied up making fake classes for three years in court. Verdict not guilty. Good old boy network at it's finest and they will only watch what the boosters are doing on our side. We are out networked period and I don't see it changing anytime soon

 

[topdecktiger]

Ole Miss recently had the same type of jump in recruiting rankings as well. I guess the upgraded their facilities as well?

The problem is, you can't draw conclusions for one situation based on another. Clemson's recruiting rankings increased exactly at the same time the new facilities were built. Facts are facts.

What a tool. You people are so obsessed with what we say. If you weren't you would STFU and go away. Doesn't clempson have a tsternet board?

There are more threads about Clemson on here than on an actual Clemson board. I'd say that's a better indicator of who is obsessed.

 

[Willie B Long]

I just love message boards!

 

[TheReelEss]

We have the richest poor people these days. Mike Davis used to tweet about the single-parent-in-the-ghetto struggle but boasted he had over 100 pairs of shoes while he was still an amateur athlete. 100 pairs!? Deshaun Watson grew up in a project but wore a gold chain that i couldn't afford and wouldn't buy if i could. People in other countries can't believe how many fat poor people we have here.

 

[Kitchenlabs]

Jealously.

You keep accusing us of jealousy, but YOU are the one who can't stay off OUR board.

 

[Kitchenlabs]

The problem is, you can't draw conclusions for one situation based on another. Clemson's recruiting rankings increased exactly at the same time the new facilities were built. Facts are facts.



There are more threads about Clemson on here than on an actual Clemson board. I'd say that's a better indicator of who is obsessed.

Hardly..you're in the playoffs, and you have nothing to talk about? That's a laugh.

 

[mbsurfside]

The problem is, you can't draw conclusions for one situation based on another. Clemson's recruiting rankings increased exactly at the same time the new facilities were built. Facts are facts.



There are more threads about Clemson on here than on an actual Clemson board. I'd say that's a better indicator of who is obsessed.

How ironic. As you post on THIS message board

 

[mbsurfside]

The proof is in the assets the recruits are displaying on social media. The payment has been made, the kids are spending it, but from whom from Clemson did it come from? New Chevy Camaro on signing day and no one from Clemson is providing the cash to finance it? I'm pretty confident Ezra Thomas shopped his son, Clemson bought, the money is being spent before everyone's eyes, and one day wins will be vacated especially with the FBI helping the NCAA since taxes are not being paid on the income and people are being locked up for it.

I mean it doesn’t take a genius to figure this stuff out. Problem is most of them are sharp as a marble

 

[BigTomE]

That doesn't answer the question. Who got paid to play? If any player was paid to play, he would be ineligible and the games he participated in would be vacated (or forfeited depending on the NCAA policy at the time). Ineligible players means the game gets wiped one way or another (in football, see Alabama, FSU, USC, GaTech, SCAR for examples).

Pay-to-play is what happened at SMU. They were caught paying some players monthly salaries. The reason they got the death penalty is that they continued to make the payments while on probation.

Did you actually read what was posted before asking this question? The posted article states multiple times that cash was exchanged.

 

[gr8spur]

Texas AM is paying Jimbo $75,000,000. Dabo has the highest paid staff in America. Unbelievably, we were paying Roper 700k a year and he was awful.

If these kids are getting cars and some cash to fill stadiums, I'm totally ok with it.

That said, watching fans act appalled APPALLED! that somebody is suggesting fans and coaches pay players is silly. There's a lot at stake - you better believe that money is changing hands. If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying.

Wow, really? Is it not possible to TRY, without cheating? The moral compass in our land seems to be broke.

 

[owensdj]

As I've said on this forum before, the guy is almost certainly going to be a first round NFL draft pick. He has relatives and friends giving him money and things. You help him now and he'll help you even more in 4 or so years. It's an investment.

 

[Horseshoe 04]

As I've said on this forum before, the guy is almost certainly going to be a first round NFL draft pick. He has relatives and friends giving him money and things. You help him now and he'll help you even more in 4 or so years. It's an investment.

Isn't that a little sad, and a poor example to how life actually works?