Started By
Message
re: I don't think Cam is ineligible (yet) based on the NCAA rule
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:46 am to Prodigal Tiger
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:46 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
Where are you getting that from?
Blue Tuna....
seriously, he's got no clue.
0
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:48 am to lowspark12
quote:
dude, please quit bringing up logic and facts to this argument.... we are getting the death penalty and will be kicked out of the SEC and will be brought before SACS, and probably lose our accreditation.
From what's been coming out the past few days I'd say Camgate might be the least of Auburn's worries at this point. There's some majorly shady shite being uncovered from your boosters brah.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:49 am to Prodigal Tiger
Andre Smiths Uncle had dealings with an Agent prior to the Sugar Bowl and Andre had to sit out.... because of that. Doesn't matter if the player knows.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:50 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
It just that no one can solicit money on an athlete's behalf. My point is that everyone is making it seem like this is cut-and-dried and Cam is ineligible. I'm just pointing out that if you applied the SECr's interpretation of the rule you could get to some pretty absurd results.
Most bodies have guidelines that state that rules are not to be interpreted in a manner that produces absurd results. Does this help?
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:51 am to partsman103
quote:
Doesn't matter if the player knows.
How do you know that?
This brings us back to my original point. I am going to call an agent tomorrow and see about getting a deal for Masoli.
LSU 31 OM 0
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:53 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
This brings us back to my original point. I am going to call an agent tomorrow and see about getting a deal for Masoli.
Yep, now I know you don't have a fricking clue.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:54 am to partsman103
"It's why Albert Means was ruled eligible. His high school football coach seeking $ from Bama wasn't in his immediate family and Means didn't know."
"Andre Smiths Uncle had dealings with an Agent prior to the Sugar Bowl and Andre had to sit out.... because of that. Doesn't matter if the player knows."
Exactly!! Those are two clear cut examples involving situations with Alabama players where everyone agreed that the player had no knowledge of a person close to them getting illegal inducements. There is WAY too much precedent with a school located in Alabama ALONE for the "Cam didn't know" defense to work for Auburn. If they walk based on that, then it's BS
"Andre Smiths Uncle had dealings with an Agent prior to the Sugar Bowl and Andre had to sit out.... because of that. Doesn't matter if the player knows."
Exactly!! Those are two clear cut examples involving situations with Alabama players where everyone agreed that the player had no knowledge of a person close to them getting illegal inducements. There is WAY too much precedent with a school located in Alabama ALONE for the "Cam didn't know" defense to work for Auburn. If they walk based on that, then it's BS
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:56 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
This brings us back to my original point. I am going to call an agent tomorrow and see about getting a deal for Masoli
Good, so I assuming you have had numerous phone calls and face-to-face meetings with the Masoli camp like Rogers did with the Newton's prior to this correct?
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:57 am to Prodigal Tiger
if they can reasonably prove mr newton received money, your point is moot. if they can't, there may be some validity to what you say but i can't imagine the NCAA allowing auburn or cam to go unscathed. this would open up the biggest can of worms in sports history. that would be saying its OK for schools to pay dad for son's LOI as long as sonny boy doesn't know about it.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:59 am to Prodigal Tiger
Are you Masoli's dad?
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:59 am to Prodigal Tiger
In talking to a former compliance person for the state of LA, cases are handled on a case by case basis.
I think this one will set some precedence.
The one consistency in all of these cases is some leniency when the school handles it appropriately, and no leniency when they don't.
I feel like Auburn fell on the sword Saturday against Georgia. They don't call the NCAA the Gestapo because of their history of compassion.
Auburn's best hope is the SEC and the 17 million dollars. And, BTW, I think they'll find a way to collect prior to any sanctions.
I think this one will set some precedence.
The one consistency in all of these cases is some leniency when the school handles it appropriately, and no leniency when they don't.
I feel like Auburn fell on the sword Saturday against Georgia. They don't call the NCAA the Gestapo because of their history of compassion.
Auburn's best hope is the SEC and the 17 million dollars. And, BTW, I think they'll find a way to collect prior to any sanctions.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 8:59 am to Govt Tide
I figured the "he didn't know" point would be moot, as Cam himself reported to SI before all this started, that in the recruiting process (after JUCO), he left the final decision up to his Father. His Father is the one that decided "It's Auburn." The Person who made the choice is the same person alleged to be soliciting for cash.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:00 am to Macavity92
quote:
Most bodies have guidelines that state that rules are not to be interpreted in a manner that produces absurd results. Does this help?
1. It doesn't help.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about.
How could such a rule not lead to absurd results.
If the rule, like you seem to believe, says that if anyone who claims to represent you asks for money then you are ineligible, you can have absurd consequences almost immediately.
What about my estranged dad example? How does the rule address that?
And who is to say that Andre Smith had no idea what was going on? Is that just your opinion or do you know something? I suspect Andre was in on it.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:01 am to LSU GrandDad
"that would be saying its OK for schools to pay dad for son's LOI as long as sonny boy doesn't know about it."
It would also break NCAA precedent when it was ruled that Andre Smith was ineligible even though his uncle received inducements from an agent without Andre's knowledge or that Alabama was drilled even though Albert Means supposedly had no clue he was being shopped by his high school coach.
It would also break NCAA precedent when it was ruled that Andre Smith was ineligible even though his uncle received inducements from an agent without Andre's knowledge or that Alabama was drilled even though Albert Means supposedly had no clue he was being shopped by his high school coach.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:02 am to Govt Tide
quote:
It's why Albert Means was ruled eligible. His high school football coach seeking $ from Bama wasn't in his immediate family and Means didn't know."
If I'm not mistaken, Albert Means never missed a down of football due to that scandal. He played out his career at Memphis.
It was Alabama, the school that paid for him, that got whacked.
Memphis never got in trouble, did they?
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:06 am to LSU GrandDad
quote:
that would be saying its OK for schools to pay dad for son's LOI as long as sonny boy doesn't know about it.
No no no no no.
Based on what we know right now (which could change, I realize), Dad asked MSU for money, they said "no," and then son committed to Auburn. Like everyone else, I assume that Auburn paid him. But based on what we know right now, we don't yet have the "smoking gun" evidence that Auburn paid.
If it turns out that Auburn did pay, then they will get one of the worst smack downs in history. Their program will be bombed back to the stone age. So there is no fear that there will be a precedent set whereby it is ok to pay players.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:12 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
But my point is that everyone on here is saying that, based on what we know with MSU, Cam is ineligible and it's a done deal. I just don't see it that way.
well, all attorney's would make ambiguity out of any wording for any rule, law, ect.
common sense. we have lost that in america. i don't think the n.c.a.a. meant that it was ok for all parents of athletes to request money for their benefit.
If you say he's eligible based on the money being requested by daddy and going to daddy's church. Then the flip side of the abiguity says it's ok for all parents to request money for their benefit. You think the n.c.a.a. wants that? You think college football wants that?
if you only pick the rule apart then you have to be ready for the reprecussion of such action.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:13 am to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
According to the NCAA, your immediate family is part of the student athlete. Thus, it doesn't matter whether Cam knew or not, he's ineligible if Cecil asked for benefits.
Thank you!!!!
This is what i have been saying to these yahoos for a week!
At best the NCAA would start at "Cam knew" and ask the family to prove he didn't.
Again this is NOT an issue of a shady booster with fuzzy ties to the family...this is THE FAMILY DOING IT. And it isn't even a distant uncle or cousin...ITS HIS DAD!!!
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:18 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
But based on what we know right now, we don't yet have the "smoking gun" evidence that Auburn paid.
But we do have strong indications that they did. According to Schad's report Cam told an MSU recruiter that he wasn't coming to MSU because the "money was too good." We don't know, of course, whether this statement is true or not, yet. But it does point in the direction of payment. So far, what we seem to know is that an offer (explicitly made by Cecil or with his knowledge and consent) was made to MSU. If the witnesses are now seen as generally credible with respect to that point, would it not make sense to lean in the direction of accepting as credible the report from those same sources that Cam made the comment that he was going to Auburn because the money is too good. Granted we will likely need more that report to draw a final conclusion, but there is some credibilty on point, since the other statements from these sources have so far been shown to be very likely true.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:18 am to tigersruledude
quote:
According to the NCAA, your immediate family is part of the student athlete. Thus, it doesn't matter whether Cam knew or not, he's ineligible if Cecil asked for benefits.
Thank you!!!!
This is what i have been saying to these yahoos for a week!
Great. Well that settles it.
Just show me that rule that says the immediate family is part of the athlete and we can wrap this thread up. Surely if you have been saying it for a week it is based on an actual rule.
Thanks.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News