ADVERTISEMENT

Xavier Thomas got a nice ride!

Funny how times have changed. Most of the folks I went to school with either drove a parent’s hand-me-down or a car that cost 2-3k. HS kids with these types of cars aren’t uncommon.

Now as far as XTs car goes, who knows. Unless XT’s mom has a good job (I know nothing about her), at $400, that is a high payment for a single income family. And like someone else mentioned, this is the third nice vehicle he has had. He is certainly getting it from somewhere. The question is from where.
 
One thing that our Pickenese visitors need to understand. The last time you had a national championship it ended with y'all being put on probation for over 150 NCAA violations including "pay for play". Y'all love to talk about tradition?...well that is a part of it. It is one thing to get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, it is another to take the whole damn jar. Given your past, it should be easy for you to understand that people are looking for an explaination for why kids that were previously "unavailable" to Clemson are now signing a letter of intent with crayons.

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.
 
Young man + inflated ego + muscle car = TROUBLE! I'm a parent of adult kids. And I've worked with teaching/mentoring teenagers. We'll just have to wait and see how this all turns out for XT. I hope he has at least one responsible adult roll model in his life. Lacking that, I expect he'll probably choose to participate in some foolhardy behaviors that derail his life. And that's when he'll discover who his real friends are, and aren't.
 
Funny how times have changed. Most of the folks I went to school with either drove a parent’s hand-me-down or a car that cost 2-3k. HS kids with these types of cars aren’t uncommon.

Now as far as XTs car goes, who knows. Unless XT’s mom has a good job (I know nothing about her), at $400, that is a high payment for a single income family. And like someone else mentioned, this is the third nice vehicle he has had. He is certainly getting it from somewhere. The question is from where.

I would agree with that if I didnt know how the typical hard working AA family structure works. I have had many people work for me over the years that would work 70-80 hour weeks and save for months to make sure their kids had nice things. Also in the single family structure grandparents tend to be major in helping the mom(or dad) when it comes to "stuff" for the kids. I was a shift supervisor for about 70 and about 70% of it was AA so I have seen this first hand. They are some hard working folks and will take any and all overtime you offer. Nights, days, weekends, holidays, it doesnt matter. Also you figure mom could be thinking that 3 years of overtime is worth her baby driving some thing nice knowing that likely in 3 years hes gonna be a millionaire.
 
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigTomE
I give him three weeks, and this car will be wrecked in a ditch somewhere. No worries...he'll just get another one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigTomE
I would agree with that if I didnt know how the typical hard working AA family structure works. I have had many people work for me over the years that would work 70-80 hour weeks and save for months to make sure their kids had nice things. Also in the single family structure grandparents tend to be major in helping the mom(or dad) when it comes to "stuff" for the kids. I was a shift supervisor for about 70 and about 70% of it was AA so I have seen this first hand. They are some hard working folks and will take any and all overtime you offer. Nights, days, weekends, holidays, it doesnt matter. Also you figure mom could be thinking that 3 years of overtime is worth her baby driving some thing nice knowing that likely in 3 years hes gonna be a millionaire.
Nothing to argue about there. I agree. Had some experience with an elder couple who had built a successful little business and handed it over to their son...and he proceeded to get them in trouble with the IRS, as the business was still in their name. Ugly case, but finally got them out of it....and they still bailed him out.
 
It’s well documented that 100% of five star athletes are offered monetary incentives to attend a certain school. This is a fact. But these clemmoners will have you believe everyone else is paying and these kids decide to go to clemson for free.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

If thats the case and everyone is offering(including SC) it sounds to me like you guys need to raise your offers to match everyone else. ;)
 
It’s well documented that 100% of five star athletes are offered monetary incentives to attend a certain school. This is a fact. But these clemmoners will have you believe everyone else is paying and these kids decide to go to clemson for free.

And of course South Carolina fans will have you believe that Clemson only school paying players and all the other schools are clean as a whistle.
 
And of course South Carolina fans will have you believe that Clemson only school paying players and all the other schools are clean as a whistle.
Lol not me. Kirby, Urban, Saban, Dabo, etc. they’re all “paying”. Everyone that recruits within the top 25 most likely does shady things.
 
One thing that our Pickenese visitors need to understand. The last time you had a national championship it ended with y'all being put on probation for over 150 NCAA violations including "pay for play". Y'all love to talk about tradition?...well that is a part of it. It is one thing to get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, it is another to take the whole damn jar. Given your past, it should be easy for you to understand that people are looking for an explaination for why kids that were previously "unavailable" to Clemson are now signing a letter of intent with crayons.

Who got "paid to play" and how many games were vacated because of it?
 
One thing that our Pickenese visitors need to understand. The last time you had a national championship it ended with y'all being put on probation for over 150 NCAA violations including "pay for play". Y'all love to talk about tradition?...well that is a part of it. It is one thing to get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, it is another to take the whole damn jar. Given your past, it should be easy for you to understand that people are looking for an explaination for why kids that were previously "unavailable" to Clemson are now signing a letter of intent with crayons.

The problem is, the "people" who are looking for an explanation are mostly South Carolina fans. You go to other boards, other radio stations, etc. in the region, and nobody really makes a big deal about it besides you guys.

Another problem is, there are explanations that you simply want to ignore because they don't fit your agenda. For example, Clemson has significantly upgraded their facilities in the past 10+ years, and it just so happens that this coincides with more successful recruiting. IN 2003 and 2004, Clemson's classes ranked #67, and #53. Then in 2005, they jumped up to #15 and #16 in 2006 (and it's been roughly around that level ever since). Well, it just so happens that in 2005, Clemson built the West Zone, and what do you? Their recruiting picked up. Weird how doing something like majorly upgrading your facilities would boost recruiting.
 
If you guys are gonna call out players and their cars at least have a clue what model it is. That is NOT even close to a 2016/17 model and its not a ZL1.
Thats a Gen 5 Camaro which means it can be between a 2010 and 2015. The new Gen 6 cars have a completely different front clip. Looking at he picture more closely I can tell you its a 2014-15 because of the fog lights and the smaller grill which was changed between 2013 and 2014. Now it could be an SS but even if it is you can get a nice SS convertible in the mid to lower 20s. With half way reasonable credit that will run you in the mid 400s for 5 years and even less for 6 years. SO tell me again how he got this "super expensive car".

Uhhh, mid 40’s for a high school senior isn’t expensive? Are you the same guy that was on here telling us that XT’s F-150 truck that he wrecked was only worth $5,000 or $6,000?
 
Again, you may be right about XT’s family. I know nothing about them, so I would never judge them. I have worked with the XT type family quite often over the last 18 years. While some will pick up shifts and what not, most in my experience do not. They are content to play the “woe is me” card. Also, in most of these situations, it is generational with similar situations throughout the family.

Personally, I think Clemson has it rolling right now and doesn’t need to cheat. When you win, kids want to play there. I do think something was up when it started. Say what you want, the program was pedestrian. While Clemson has a pretty campus in a quiet place (that as an adult I appreciate), when I went to college I was looking for a place with things to do. Yet that being said, Dabo was still racking up. Maybe Dabo could sell ice to an Eskimo.
 
Who got "paid to play" and how many games were vacated because of it?
"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;

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;

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;

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;

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;"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...1a2-bd99-8de9e774f458/?utm_term=.f05702cf9781
 
Dont argue cars with a guy who was raised under the hood of one and can tell you changes from year to year off the top of his head.
2012-camaro-zl1-037.jpg
You mean you spent time under a tractor hood.
 
The problem is, the "people" who are looking for an explanation are mostly South Carolina fans. You go to other boards, other radio stations, etc. in the region, and nobody really makes a big deal about it besides you guys.

Another problem is, there are explanations that you simply want to ignore because they don't fit your agenda. For example, Clemson has significantly upgraded their facilities in the past 10+ years, and it just so happens that this coincides with more successful recruiting. IN 2003 and 2004, Clemson's classes ranked #67, and #53. Then in 2005, they jumped up to #15 and #16 in 2006 (and it's been roughly around that level ever since). Well, it just so happens that in 2005, Clemson built the West Zone, and what do you? Their recruiting picked up. Weird how doing something like majorly upgrading your facilities would boost recruiting.

This really sounds like the same argument Ole Miss fans tried to make.
 
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.

I don’t understand this line of thinking at all.... so, maybe Clemson cheated in the beginning? Ok, I follow you and agree. But how exactly do you suppose they just cut it off? Do players from class to class just NOT talk to each other? You better believe if a highly recruited member of the 2009 class got X amount of $$’s, then the next few highly recruited members of the 2010 class knew about it and insisted that they receive at least the same amount of $$”s. I think it’s incredibly difficult to get a wealthy booster to stop offering recruits whatever it takes, after he/she learns exactly what it takes. A better and more logical argument is that the Admin has decided to turn a blind eye and pretend they have no clues as to what’s going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bazurke
Who got "paid to play" and how many games were vacated because of it?

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.
 
The problem is, the "people" who are looking for an explanation are mostly South Carolina fans. You go to other boards, other radio stations, etc. in the region, and nobody really makes a big deal about it besides you guys.

Another problem is, there are explanations that you simply want to ignore because they don't fit your agenda. For example, Clemson has significantly upgraded their facilities in the past 10+ years, and it just so happens that this coincides with more successful recruiting. IN 2003 and 2004, Clemson's classes ranked #67, and #53. Then in 2005, they jumped up to #15 and #16 in 2006 (and it's been roughly around that level ever since). Well, it just so happens that in 2005, Clemson built the West Zone, and what do you? Their recruiting picked up. Weird how doing something like majorly upgrading your facilities would boost recruiting.
The problem with your facilities argument is that everybody else has upgraded/is upgrading too. That just doesn't hold much water.
 
And of course South Carolina fans will have you believe that Clemson only school paying players and all the other schools are clean as a whistle.
I bet you were that kid that cried and pointed at your brother and said "he did it too" when your mama whipped your ass for misbehaving
 
The problem with your facilities argument is that everybody else has upgraded/is upgrading too. That just doesn't hold much water.

Oh no, it holds plenty of water. The numbers are there. I didn't make them up. Upgrading the facilities made Clemson competitive with other schools, which they weren't previously.

The problem is, you are looking at it from a South Carolina fan's point of view: "Why would anybody want to go to Clemson?!?!" The fact is, most other people (including recruits) don't have the negative view of Clemson that you do. So, it's no surprise that when Clemson upgrades the facilities it makes them competitive in recruiting.

I bet you were that kid that cried and pointed at your brother and said "he did it too" when your mama whipped your ass for misbehaving

Deflection from the topic. You can't deal with the discussion on a factual basis

You must not talk to many USC fans.

Oh I do.
 
Oh no, it holds plenty of water. The numbers are there. I didn't make them up. Upgrading the facilities made Clemson competitive with other schools, which they weren't previously.

The problem is, you are looking at it from a South Carolina fan's point of view: "Why would anybody want to go to Clemson?!?!" The fact is, most other people (including recruits) don't have the negative view of Clemson that you do. So, it's no surprise that when Clemson upgrades the facilities it makes them competitive in recruiting.



Deflection from the topic. You can't deal with the discussion on a factual basis



Oh I do.
You may have a good point if, and it's a big IF, you were talking about in state recruiting versus us. But most of Dabo's initial highly rated recruits were coming out of Florida. Several schools had much deeper recruiting ties in Florida than Clemson, including UF, FSU, Miami, UGA, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, etc.., most of which had equal or better facilities than Clemson even after Clemson built the West Zone.
 
If you guys are gonna call out players and their cars at least have a clue what model it is. That is NOT even close to a 2016/17 model and its not a ZL1.
Thats a Gen 5 Camaro which means it can be between a 2010 and 2015. The new Gen 6 cars have a completely different front clip. Looking at he picture more closely I can tell you its a 2014-15 because of the fog lights and the smaller grill which was changed between 2013 and 2014. Now it could be an SS but even if it is you can get a nice SS convertible in the mid to lower 20s. With half way reasonable credit that will run you in the mid 400s for 5 years and even less for 6 years. SO tell me again how he got this "super expensive car".

Just stop. He was bought as was the car and you know it
 
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.

Maybe ? Boy you are clueless
 
Oh no, it holds plenty of water. The numbers are there. I didn't make them up. Upgrading the facilities made Clemson competitive with other schools, which they weren't previously.

The problem is, you are looking at it from a South Carolina fan's point of view: "Why would anybody want to go to Clemson?!?!" The fact is, most other people (including recruits) don't have the negative view of Clemson that you do. So, it's no surprise that when Clemson upgrades the facilities it makes them competitive in recruiting.



Deflection from the topic. You can't deal with the discussion on a factual basis



Oh I do.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CockaDude-a-Dude
Oh no, it holds plenty of water. The numbers are there. I didn't make them up. Upgrading the facilities made Clemson competitive with other schools, which they weren't previously.

The problem is, you are looking at it from a South Carolina fan's point of view: "Why would anybody want to go to Clemson?!?!" The fact is, most other people (including recruits) don't have the negative view of Clemson that you do. So, it's no surprise that when Clemson upgrades the facilities it makes them competitive in recruiting.



Deflection from the topic. You can't deal with the discussion on a factual basis



Oh I do.

Deflection of topic that he was bought and paid for. You Taters really are a special breed
 
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.
 
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.

That’s what I’m saying. Clemson acts as though they’re the only team not cheating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mbsurfside
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT