Started By
Message
re: Is the "on behalf of" phrase even in the text of the actual rule?
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:44 am to Kingpin
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:44 am to Kingpin
All I know is that in the 2010-2011 Bylaws posted in this thread, there is no mention of anything about soliciting or asking for benefits. Everything in it is about actually receiving benefits. Of that I am 100% sure.
If there is a rule that makes someone that solicits benefits ineligible, it was created so recently that it is not listed in the 2010-2011 Bylaws. Also, the "unverified quote" has no credibility at this point.
If there is a rule that makes someone that solicits benefits ineligible, it was created so recently that it is not listed in the 2010-2011 Bylaws. Also, the "unverified quote" has no credibility at this point.
This post was edited on 11/13/10 at 12:49 am
1
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:52 am to e2drummer
Yeah, I just finished using the search function on that link from Dapado and I'm not seeing that text either.
Oh, well. I've wasted enough of everybody's time on this. Let the NCAA figure it out. Thanks.
Oh, well. I've wasted enough of everybody's time on this. Let the NCAA figure it out. Thanks.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:56 am to Kingpin
Posted on 11/13/10 at 1:57 am to Kingpin
i got that rules quote from another thread. it is HERE. didn't give a source.
i agree with e2drummer. this case is a new area for and is probably going to result in some new rules from the NCAA. on the bright side, Rule 12.3.1.2 makes explicit mention of "relatives or friends", and i bet that will be the spirit of any decision on the matter. the NCAA will not condone fathers obtaining agents to solicit for their sons. any new rules will reflect this.
on the dark side, i bet this takes at least a year or more to conclude. just look at the Reggie Bush case -- 4 years. and this is bad for LSU's title chances this year. sad.
i agree with e2drummer. this case is a new area for and is probably going to result in some new rules from the NCAA. on the bright side, Rule 12.3.1.2 makes explicit mention of "relatives or friends", and i bet that will be the spirit of any decision on the matter. the NCAA will not condone fathers obtaining agents to solicit for their sons. any new rules will reflect this.
on the dark side, i bet this takes at least a year or more to conclude. just look at the Reggie Bush case -- 4 years. and this is bad for LSU's title chances this year. sad.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 2:03 am to Johnny Brannan
As soon as Cam decided to let his dad decide where he went, wasn't anything Cecil had done before, or from that point forward, on Cam's behalf.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 2:17 am to D500MAG
HERE is the original BAMA thread that inspired the unverified rules quote. i cannot vouch for the link's legitimacy, but these are some promising quotes:
"The NCAA adjusted its rules definition at the end of 2009...even the intent to do pay for play deems you ineligible."
"NCAA made a statement when they said there could be serious ramifications if AU does play Cam and he is later deemed ineligible."
let's hope this is true.
"The NCAA adjusted its rules definition at the end of 2009...even the intent to do pay for play deems you ineligible."
"NCAA made a statement when they said there could be serious ramifications if AU does play Cam and he is later deemed ineligible."
let's hope this is true.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News