re: CAMGATE - What YOU need to know

perhaps a pretty important thing to consider in all this is the actual rules alleged to have been broken and the effect on a recruits eligibility.

here is the 2010-2011 ncaa D1 manual

LINK

the rules being referenced by many of the auburn fans is this one:

"13.01.1 E ligibility Effects of Recruiting Violation. The recruitment of a student-athlete by a member
institution or any representative of its athletics interests in violation of the Association’s legislation, as acknowledged
by the institution or established through the Association’s enforcement procedures, shall result in the
student-athlete becoming ineligible to represent that institution in intercollegiate athletics. The Committee on
Student-Athlete Reinstatement may restore the eligibility of a student involved in such a violation only when circumstances
clearly warrant restoration. A student is responsible for his or her involvement in a violation of NCAA
regulations during the student’s recruitment, and involvement in a major violation (see Bylaw 19.02.2.2) may
cause the student to become permanently ineligible for intercollegiate athletics competition at that institution."

this would indicate that the individual in question is only ineligible to participate at that institution from which money was requested. this would clearly cause cam to be unable to play at msu, but not effect his eligibility at other schools.

however, theres more rules:

credit to LTDan for bringing these to light

10.1 UNETHICAL CONDUCT
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following: (Revised: 1/10/90, 1/9/96, 2/22/01)
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid; (Revised: 1/9/96)

10.4 DISCIPLINARY ACTION [#]
Prospective or enrolled student-athletes found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be ineligible for further intercollegiate competition, subject to appeal to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for restoration of eligibility. (See Bylaw 10.3.2 for sanctions of student-athletes involved in violations of Bylaw 10.3.)Institutional staff members found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.2 of the NCAA enforcement procedures, whether such violations occurred at the certifying institution or during the individual’s previous employment at another member institution.

heres where it gets interesting. if the recruit involved has "knowing involvement" they would be ineligible to play at any school. this would indicate that if the rumors of cam stating that "the money was too much" to be true, he would then be ineligible to participate at auburn.

please note, the burden of proof for the ncaa is not the same as a court of law. the ncaa chooses to interpret their rules how they see fit. with or without tapes, they could choose to declare cam ineligible, but the simple act of his father shopping him to msu doesnt necessarily make him ineligible to play at auburn. a case which has been widely referenced to prove this point is the albert means case, where his services were being unknowingly shopped by his high school coach, which caused him to become ineligible at alabama, however, means continued his collegiate career at memphis. again note, this is a similar, but not identical case.

quote:

---

to my knowledge, BleacherReport is the only source saying there are tapes.

---

uh, no

quote:

---

Rogers said that on Nov. 28, 2009, he and Cecil Newton followed each other out of Starkville, Miss., after the Ole Miss-Mississippi State game. He said Newton asked him: "What do you think is going to happen? You think it's going to go through?"

Rogers said he was referred to a Mississippi State booster named Bill Bell. Rogers said he left Bell a message telling him he was with Cecil Newton, who wanted to know if the deal was going to happen.

---

Now how exactly do you leave a message? On a tape. And no way in hell is Bell going to erase that, especially when his answer was "NO." He saved the message for self-prservation.

The FBI will have the tape this week. Slive and the Newtons will be copping pleas soon after.

quote:

---

The problem with this: The question is whether there are tapes of either of the Newtons asking for money or implying that money has been paid. A tape of Rogers leaving a message for Bell, while perhaps leading to other evidence down the line, is not the same as a tape of either of the Newtons. It is the existence of a tape of either of the Newtons making incriminating statements that is at issue, not a message from a third party to another third party. There is a difference.

That isn't to say the tapes don't exist, but so far there doesn't seem to be any confirmation by a reliable reporter or by public statement of anyone who actually knows.

---

well said

quote:

---

Point #1 - the tape exists. Rogers left the message

Point #2 - The relationship between the Newtons and Rogers exists. Mullen was intro'd to Rogers by the Newtons

Point #3 - Cecil and his wife met with the NCAA on Thurs.

Point #4 - Cecil is now said to have confirmed he sought money without Cam knowing. If this came out during Thurs. meeting, then the dots are connected to where the call by Rogers WAS made in Cecil's presence & authorized by Cecil

---

I wasnt referring to the voicemail left by Rogers for Bell. Im referring to the purported tapes MSU recruiters have of Cam saying "the money was too good" and his dad saying "it will take more than a scholarship" and refers the MSU recruiter to Rogers.

If im not mistaken, i think thats what the bleacher report was referring to.

You know what is really neat about rules? You can include catch-alls like this.

quote:

---

10.1 UNETHICAL CONDUCT
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following: (Revised: 1/10/90, 1/9/96, 2/22/01)
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid; (Revised: 1/9/96)

---

So...hanging your hat on the "knowing involvement" element isn't going to get you anywhere. The NCAA doesn't follow precedent like courts of law, and they have a catch-all in the unethical conduct statute.

Does anyone know the answer to this question:

If FATHER shops STUDENT to school A (without STUDENT's knowledge), does this make STUDENT ineligible at any school or just ineligible at school A?

If ineligible only at shopped school(s), then kids will pick one school to sign with, but shop everywhere else for $$$ as there is no penalty for doing so.

I think he DID know, but the Newts may make their case on this point. If one is disqualified everywhere for shopping anywhere, then the aubies will have a Christmas VACATion. Seems like the shopping can be proven now- if so, why wait till after the season?

quote:

---

If FATHER shops STUDENT to school A (without STUDENT's knowledge), does this make STUDENT ineligible at any school or just ineligible at school A?

---

All schools. His father became his agent

quote:

---

His father became his agent

---

thats quite a stretch, but who knows with the ncaa

for the record, the ncaa definition of agent is:

"According to NCAA rules, an agent is any individual who markets or promotes a student-athlete."

quote:

---

RobbBobb

---

so how do you explain the albert means case? he was clearly being promoted and marketed