In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place for Tiger fans to talk football, basketball and recruiting
The place for Tiger fans to talk about everything Auburn and not!
Buy and sell your Auburn Tiger tickets here.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Straight from the NCAA website:
Danny Sheridan continues to make vague, unsubstantiated claims without backing them up with proof. Contrary to his claims of having an inside source with details on the Auburn investigation, the NCAA has not provided information to Sheridan or anyone else. As a matter of due diligence, the NCAA spoke with Sheridan this week to determine if he had any facts pertaining to the investigation. Sheridan, however, did not provide any information to the enforcement staff and certainly did not provide a name. Instead, he unsuccessfully attempted to gather information for his own use.
I'm confused, is the NCAA saying he is just some fool that is fos or that he is too full of bammer?
All joking aside, it seems to me that Danny Sheridan has mental issues where he assumes he is dealing with idiots that are incapable of understanding what he is saying. You don't have to be of above average intelligence to realize he is saying one thing, then saying something else, and then saying maybe he said something and maybe he didn't such that in his mind, no matter what happens he can say he was right. But in reality he isn't saying anything factual.
I briefly worked with a fool like that and it was no fun. In many ways he seemed intelligent but I swear when you needed to run a situation by him where you had to make decisions which way to proceed based on what you currently knew, you left him feeling like he was an idiot. I think if you asked him which horse to bet on winning an 8 horse race he would act like he had told you the winner no matter which horse won when all he had told you was if horse #1 won the race that was the one you should have placed the bet with because he was the winner, if horse #2 won the race that was the one you should have placed the bet with because he was the winner, if horse #3 won the race that was the one you should have placed the bet with because he was the winner, etc. By his logic his advice was always spot on.
I always thought those were synonyms
Performance stands out like a ton of diamonds. Nonperformance can always be explained away.
Only in Alabama could Sheridan stay relevant...actually...let me be more specific...only with Bammers can Sheridan stay relevant.
Malzahn approves of NOW Boot Camp! Well...not really...but he would if he knew about it :) www.nowbootcamp.com
ON TO VICTORY - STRIKE UP THE BAND
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports