"Who Dat" Bounty Games...

AUChizad · « **Reply #80 on:** April 23, 2012, 09:27:11 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on April 23, 2012, 08:51:10 PM

Still can't see the diff?

Convicted felon. Already in trouble. Gonna be in more because there is a culture of rampant cheating.

Or...

Exonerated. Not scathed. Blameless. Clean.

One of those is Auburn. The other is the New Bama Saints.

Loomis is a convicted felon now?

"I know he done nis, Paul, cuz he had some speedin tickets, an' he cheated in college! An he stolt a laptop, Paul!"

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #81 on:** April 23, 2012, 09:35:49 PM »

JR4AU · « **Reply #82 on:** April 23, 2012, 09:50:52 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on April 23, 2012, 05:08:37 PM

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/23/at-first-blush-allegations-of-loomis-espionage-make-no-sense/

While they may not be able to discern the exact play call, and then communicate it down to the field, it would be very easy to work out run plays vs. pass plays, and set the defense accordingly, and also disguise it so as not to have the opponent check out of the called play. Also, they could pick up general strategy discussions as well. It would be a hell of an advantage.

AWK · « **Reply #83 on:** April 23, 2012, 10:18:23 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on April 23, 2012, 08:51:10 PM

Still can't see the diff?

Convicted felon. Already in trouble. Gonna be in more because there is a culture of rampant cheating.

Or...

Exonerated. Not scathed. Blameless. Clean.

One of those is Auburn. The other is the New Bama Saints.

Someone was convicted of a felony??!?!?!

Oh...I see what you did...damn metaphors....

Kaos · « **Reply #84 on:** April 23, 2012, 10:29:50 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on April 23, 2012, 09:27:11 PM

Loomis is a convicted felon now?

"I know he done nis, Paul, cuz he had some speedin tickets, an' he cheated in college! An he stolt a laptop, Paul!"

Trying too hard.

No way in screaming chartreuse hell can you paint the dirty ass thug punk cheating Saints (who have been convicted of an NFL felony, BTW) with the same brush you use to characterize Cam who was never guilty of shit.

It's apples and lampshades. No correlation.

The Prowler · « **Reply #85 on:** April 23, 2012, 10:43:08 PM »

"1000% false"......LMAO!!!! The bama Saints are just making up numbers. So, can the bama Saints Coaching Staff tap into Mickey Loomis' headset?

AUChizad · « **Reply #86 on:** April 23, 2012, 11:23:42 PM »

Funny that only Joe Schad & ESPN is blaring this over their airwaves while Fox Sports, NBC Sports, CNNSI, CBS Sports, Yahoo Sports, etc. have all basically called bullshit. At the very least, they have distanced themselves.

But this time, and only this time, ESPN is completely legitimate in their completely unsubstantiated, unsupported claims that they are unable to back up.

I'm sure the Saints are seeking legal action against ESPN knowing full well that they are guilty.

Saints seeking ‘legal recourse’ after ESPN report alleges Loomis could eavesdrop on opponents

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/saints-seeking-legal-recourse-after-espn-report-alleges-loomis-could-eavesdrop-on-opponents/2012/04/23/gIQAt0rtcT_story.html

Quote

Saints seeking ‘legal recourse’ after ESPN report alleges Loomis could eavesdrop on opponents

By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, April 23, 6:56 PM

NEW ORLEANS — The New Orleans Saints denied an anonymously sourced ESPN report on Monday which alleges that general manager Mickey Loomis’ booth in the Superdome was wired so he could listen to opposing coaches’ radio communications during games.

ESPN could not determine if the system was ever used. The report on Monday’s “Outside the Lines” said Loomis would have been able to eavesdrop on opponents from 2002 to 2004. The report also said the system was disabled in 2005, when the Superdome was heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina.

Saints spokesman Greg Bensel called the report “1,000 percent false.”

“We asked ESPN to provide us evidence to support their allegations and they refused,” Bensel said. “The team and Mickey are seeking all legal recourse regarding these false allegations.”

Loomis explained his use of an earpiece and described his game-day setup in the Superdome booth in an emailed statement.

“I have a monitor in front of me in my booth that provides the league issued stats for the game,” Loomis stated. “I have a small TV with the network broadcast and I have an earpiece to listen to the WWL-AM radio game broadcast.

“To think I am sitting in there listening and actually ... doing something with the offensive and defensive play calls of the opposing teams makes this story and the unnamed sources that provided the false information that much more less credible,” Loomis’ statement continued. “It just didn’t happen.”

Washington Redskins defensive coordinator Jim Haslett was the Saints’ head coach from 2000 through 2005. In a comment the Saints forwarded to the AP by email, Haslett denied knowledge of any system that would have allowed for eavesdropping on opponents.

“At no time during my tenure as head coach with the New Orleans Saints did Mickey and I discuss monitoring opposing team coaches communication, nor did I have any knowledge of this,” Haslett said. “To my knowledge this concept was never discussed or utilized.”

If the Saints had installed a system allowing them to listen in on their opponents it would have violated NFL rules and also could have infringed on federal wire-tapping laws.

“We were not aware of it,” league spokesman Greg Aiello said. “We have no knowledge of the allegations.”

FBI spokeswoman Sheila Thorne said the agency’s New Orleans office was aware of the situation, but wouldn’t comment further.

U.S. Attorney Jim Letten in New Orleans also said his office had been told about “general allegations” involving the Saints and possible wiretapping, but he did not elaborate. Letten declined to discuss who made the allegations, and whether they involved Loomis or any other Saints officials.

For the Saints, the report in itself added to a slew of recent bad publicity, which began in early March when the NFL released a report describing a crunch-for-cash bounty system that provided improper cash bonuses to defensive players who delivered hits that hobbled targeted opponents.

Commissioner Roger Goodell has suspended head coach Sean Payton for the entire 2012 season in connection with the bounty probe. Loomis was suspended for the first half of the regular season and assistant head coach Joe Vitt was suspended six games.

The team also lost its second-round pick in this week’s NFL draft and was fined $500,000. Goodell took away the Saints’ second-round pick in 2013 as well, but has said he may lessen that punishment if he is satisfied with the club’s cooperation in the ongoing investigation.

The NFL still has yet to hand down punishment to between 22 and 27 current and former Saints defensive players whom the league has said participated in the bounty program.

Kaos · « **Reply #87 on:** April 23, 2012, 11:40:46 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on April 23, 2012, 11:23:42 PM

Funny that only Joe Schad & ESPN is blaring this over their airwaves while Fox Sports, NBC Sports, CNNSI, CBS Sports, Yahoo Sports, etc. have all basically called bullshit. At the very least, they have distanced themselves.

New Bama Saints are dirty. End of story.

AUChizad · « **Reply #88 on:** April 23, 2012, 11:50:27 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on April 23, 2012, 11:40:46 PM

New Bama Saints are dirty. End of story.

Whatever you say BlueTunaKaos.

djsimp · « **Reply #89 on:** April 24, 2012, 12:05:03 AM »

I'm just gonna have to say here, any story that Joe the Schads supports, ima gonna have to disagree wif. Call it.....I don't know......a severe sense of hatred.

Godfather · « **Reply #90 on:** April 24, 2012, 12:15:46 PM »

This thread has turned into funny.

Shug Dye · « **Reply #91 on:** April 24, 2012, 12:27:43 PM »

Quote from: Godfather on April 24, 2012, 12:15:46 PM

This thread has turned into funny.

That is 1000% not true.

AUChizad · « **Reply #92 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:26:21 PM »

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/24/polian-says-he-believes-loomis/

Quote

Polian says he believes Loomis
Posted by Mike Florio on April 24, 2012, 1:44 PM EDT

One of the now-departed Rosenthal’s lasting contributions to PFT (he ain’t dead, he just doesn’t work here anymore) comes from a term he coined.

“ESPN-on-ESPN crime.”

It refers (for those of you who actually need an explanation . . . then again, based on the quality of some of the comments that could be a larger demographic than I realize) to conflicting reports and/or opinions from two or more of the many talking heads employed by the four-letter network based in Bristol. And, for the first time ever, the term “ESPN-on-ESPN crime” can be trotted out in connection with a report that, if true, represents an actual crime.

On Monday, right after ESPN’s John Barr was touting the new allegations of eight-year-old eavesdropping by Saints G.M. Mickey Loomis, ESPN’s Bill Polian explained that the suggestion that Loomis was listening to opposing coaches and somehow transforming it into a tangible benefit made no sense.

On Tuesday, Polian explained on ESPN that he has since spoken to Loomis, and Polian offered an opinion on whether the report is accurate. “It was a friendly conversation and in the interest of full disclosure, we are friends,” Polian said. “Bottom line, he told me that he never listened to any communication of any kind in his booth, other than the commercial radio broadcast, which is very common for most General Managers or assistant General Managers.”

Asked by the host (sorry, the names and faces blend together), “And you believe him?”

“I do,” Polian said.

In other words, Polian doesn’t believe John Barr’s source. Which means Polian doesn’t believe that Barr’s report is credible.

Which means that ESPN has a bit of a problem right now.

“There’s a huge piece missing here for me,” Polian said. “I can’t see how they could have gotten information that would have been of use to them.”

Barr’s report doesn’t attempt to explain how Loomis would have turned the information into something that would have benefited the team. Barr and/or his editors easily could have asked Polian (or other current and former General Managers) to explain how the information could, or couldn’t, have been used. Barr and/or his editors easily could have asked former NFL coach and executive Bill Parcells for information regarding the potential uses by a G.M. or intercepted conversations among a coaching staff.

They didn’t. And so until Barr or someone else at ESPN properly refutes Polian’s doubts with an unequivocal explanation from a coach or a G.M. (and ESPN has plenty of them on the payroll) regarding a specific manner in which the information allegedly harvested by Loomis could have been used to the benefit of the Saints, a dark cloud will remain over the dark cloud that Barr has tried to wedge among the dark clouds already hovering over the Saints organization.

Finally, we don’t want to hear (again), “Of course they had a use for it or they wouldn’t have done it.” The fact that there was no apparent use for the information directly undermines the credibility of the report, which apparently comes from a disgruntled employee who for unknown reasons squatted on the information for nearly a decade.

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #93 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:29:06 PM »

I just realized today that I haven't really watched ESPN since football season. I haven't gone to their website, turned on their channel, or read their magazine.

They're a joke. From the Cam Newton story to the pathetic coverage of Joe Paterno's firing to the Saints circus - it's all been hack journalism at its finest.

GH2001 · « **Reply #94 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:36:03 PM »

Quote from: Townhallsavoy on April 24, 2012, 02:29:06 PM

I just realized today that I haven't really watched ESPN since football season. I haven't gone to their website, turned on their channel, or read their magazine.

They're a joke. From the Cam Newton story to the pathetic coverage of Joe Paterno's firing to the Saints circus - it's all been hack journalism at its finest.

Was going to say about the same thing. In Chad's defense, this is Schad and ESPN. I take everything they say now with a grain or 20 of salt. The story doesn't sound like it has a lot of evidence substantiating the claims. I will say that much.

AUChizad · « **Reply #95 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:48:32 PM »

Quote from: GH2001 on April 24, 2012, 02:36:03 PM

Was going to say about the same thing. In Chad's defense, this is Schad and ESPN. I take everything they say now with a grain or 20 of salt. The story doesn't sound like it has a lot of evidence substantiating the claims. I will say that much.

To be fair, my evoking of Joe Schad was rhetorical. He exclusively covers the college game. Still, it's the same bunch of zero-credibilty hacks at ESPN that have turned their network into a professional wrestling/Jerry Springer circus. They have long ago wiped their ass with journalistic integrity, taking the word of one anonymous source without any fact checking whatsoever before plastering their website with 50 polls about what the implications and punishment should be for the Saints after their most recent transgression, as if it's 100% factual.

In all seriousness, completely removing myself from this situation AND the Cam Newton situation, while hard to do, this absolutely disgusts me. This is the worldwide leader in sports. Because of their monopoly, we're force-fed this bullshit, and what's worse is 95% of the country lacks the critical thinking to do anything besides gulp down each spoonful, and vote "Shut the program down and strip them of their Super Bowl" or "Strip him of the Heisman and his school of the BCS trophy", or "Scrape every last trace of dignity from Joe Paterno in the last days of his life, and let's make sure his legacy will forever be that he was equally as vile as Sandusky in this whole child rape thing."

They are TMZ, and they don't even give a shit. And neither does the public. They buy right in and sharpen their pitchforks, loving every second of it.

Saniflush · « **Reply #96 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:49:47 PM »

and yet people want them on campus?

Buzz Killington · « **Reply #97 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:50:39 PM »

Quote from: Saniflush on April 24, 2012, 02:49:47 PM

and yet people want them on campus?

^^^This^^^

AWK · « **Reply #98 on:** April 24, 2012, 02:57:12 PM »

Quote from: Saniflush on April 24, 2012, 02:49:47 PM

and yet people want them on campus?

Computer programs...not people.

wesfau2 · « **Reply #99 on:** April 24, 2012, 03:49:13 PM »

Quote from: AUChizad on April 24, 2012, 02:48:32 PM

"Scrape every last trace of dignity from Joe Paterno in the last days of his life, and let's make sure his legacy will forever be that he was equally as vile as Sandusky in this whole child rape thing."

You had me until right here. Fuck JoePa.