re: NCAA: Cam Newton Is Eligible to Compete

.

quote:

---

The SEC is indisputably boxed in by its own bylaw thanks to the NCAA ruling.

---

quote:

---

“If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.”

---

The intent of this bylaw was clearly written from the perspective of schools offering money to gain an advantage. If an athlete/family received or agreed to receive a benefit, they were guilty. Therefore, if the kid was caught before the transaction took place or if the transaction agreed upon fell through, he was guilty. Furthermore, if they had the evidence of the agreement (tape or witnesses), the SEC could enforce the rule without evidence of the actual transaction.

As reprehensible as it is, there is no unfair advantage created by a father soliciting money from an institution and not receiving anything. For Clay to read this rule a contrario does not make sense.

quote:

---

According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete’s father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment to attend college and play football. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship. Cecil Newton cannot be telling the truth if the NCAA is correct in its statement.

---

Marketing the student does not equal representation if the kid does not know the parties are marketing him (not just being dad). I understand the argument that Cam probably knew but if he did not....

quote:

---

The crime of criminal solicitation

---

Clay gives the crime of criminal solicitation not the crime of what ever is being solicited. Generally, solicitation has its own statute for the same reasons Cam is not being held accountable for his father. Solicitation is not equal to agreeing to receive.

A contract class would spend a month on both offer and acceptance.

Further, It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.

Did his dad say bad idea, I screwed up? Cam, go to Auburn?

After quickly reading, my point at 3:20 without researching this is: It is not indisputable.

quote:

---

Posted by RockyMtnTigerWDE on 12/2 at 7:09 pm to LTC Well after NCAA Pres commented today it is obvious there is nothing more to come in the Cam case concerning play for pay with MSU, Cam and Cecil.

---

Could possibly be the most asinine statement I've read this entire ordeal.

I i find funny in this whole deal, is the SEC purposely included the "Spirit" piece in the rules to prevent something like this.

...something about violatating the "spirit" of yadda yadda....

This whole statement is included so that the commissioner will have wide latitude for interpretation to extend it to instances for which there may ambiguity or loop holes.

Slive could have easily said that Cecil's actions violated that spirit, and therfore Cam is inelgible in the SEC.

Instead, Slive interpreted the rule to say no rule exists, and we need to write rules to prevent this in the future.

to me, this is the biggest joke of all. The SEC payday in the BCSCG has everyting in the world to do with it.

Slive had the authority by the rules to act, and chose not to.

quote:

---

The intent of this bylaw was clearly written from the perspective of schools offering money to gain an advantage. If an athlete/family received or agreed to receive a benefit, they were guilty. Therefore, if the kid was caught before the transaction took place or if the transaction agreed upon fell through, he was guilty. Furthermore, if they had the evidence of the agreement (tape or witnesses), the SEC could enforce the rule without evidence of the actual transaction.

---

Uopon further thought of this I agree with you on this.

The By-Law is written with contract law in mind I think. Normal contracts have the 3 things (I am probably listing these wrong)

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Payment

The SEC By-Law is just basically stating that the first two items are sufficient for a violation. It alleviates the need for them to find a payment and prove it.

It is I think an ill-considered rule and will be ammended in the future.

The problem here is that the rules seem to change based on certain situations and it makes little sense.

Consider that:

If a student's father receives an extra benefit - the student would be ineligible regardless of his knowledge or lack of knowledge of the payment.

If a students father is soliciting payment (or their is no proof of payment...only the solicitation) then the student has to have knowledge of it happening to be a violation.

This odd arrangement of the way things are handled is what has caused this controversy for the NCAA.

In the wake of the NEwton situation, I believe THIS is what the NCAA will be ammending in its rules. They need to make a decision.

The KNOWLEDGE of the player either matters or it doesn't. It makes ZERO sense for it to matter only up until money changes hands. I am actually fine either way. Each direction holds its own challenges.

BIG 10 weighs in...

Probably the best explaination of what the NCAA could have and should have done.

More specifically he is referring to rules about agents. When they investigate agents that are caught workIng for a players behalf they don't look for "proof" that the player authorized the agent. That would basically be impossible. They look for proof that the agent and player have a close connection...phone calls, meetings, etc.

The Delany guy in the article is makin the point that it's his dad and it is silliness to act like you have to prove anything with this kind of closeness.