Started By
Message
re: I don't think Cam is ineligible (yet) based on the NCAA rule
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:23 am to tigerinridgeland
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:23 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
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.
I am totally convinced that Auburn paid for Cam. I really am, and there is no point in debating that point at this time.
The only point I am making by this thread is that it's absurd to say a guy is ineligible if someone, without his knowledge, asked a school for money.
1
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:24 am to Prodigal Tiger
________
How could such a rule not lead to absurd results.
________
By the way it is interpreted. You are a perfect example of the reason we have guidelines for interpreting rules. You've thrown out at least 3 degrees of inquiry:
(1) My dad, who is making the decision on my behalf, with my permission, solicits --- not much evidence needed beyond that --- all facts here are known and admitted;
(2) My estranged dad makes the request --- there will need to be a little more inquiry into the relationship before eligibility is determined;
(3) Someone I've never met calls. There will need to be a large inquiry into the relationship.
This is why they investigate. To determine the likelihood of an agency relationship. The closer the relationship, the higher the likelihood, the less need for an investigation into that part of the equation. You can try to mince words all you want but it is really clear you have no idea how to apply rules.
How could such a rule not lead to absurd results.
________
By the way it is interpreted. You are a perfect example of the reason we have guidelines for interpreting rules. You've thrown out at least 3 degrees of inquiry:
(1) My dad, who is making the decision on my behalf, with my permission, solicits --- not much evidence needed beyond that --- all facts here are known and admitted;
(2) My estranged dad makes the request --- there will need to be a little more inquiry into the relationship before eligibility is determined;
(3) Someone I've never met calls. There will need to be a large inquiry into the relationship.
This is why they investigate. To determine the likelihood of an agency relationship. The closer the relationship, the higher the likelihood, the less need for an investigation into that part of the equation. You can try to mince words all you want but it is really clear you have no idea how to apply rules.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:24 am to c on z
quote:
Someone from another thread hinted that Rogers asked for the money.
Newton would still be ineligible in this case.
Yes...on Cecils behalf.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:30 am to Prodigal Tiger
The rule also doesnt say the punishment for such a case as this would mean he is ineligible. A investigator for the NCAA on ESPNU said that last night. They could decided that Cecil being charged with a crime is enough and since Cam and Auburn had nothing to do with it, no issues for them. Which is what this guy seems to think will be the case.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:30 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
The only point I am making by this thread is that it's absurd to say a guy is ineligible if someone, without his knowledge, asked a school for money.
If we had no evidence that he didn't know, I might sympathize. But the "money was too good" argument makes the "I didn't know" argument not believable. It is far more likely that Cam knew why his father insisted that Cam sign with Auburn than he signed without knowing. The "money was too good" conversation, if true, certainly indicates he did know, either at the time he signed or immediately thereafter.
In addition, it is seemingly undisputed that Cam designated his father as the person who was going to make the decision and presumably to manage the discussions with the schools in which he was interested. If that is so, it isn't the same as some complete stranger, with whom the recruit has no relationship.
This post was edited on 11/18/10 at 9:32 am
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:31 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
But the "money was too good" argument makes the "I didn't know" argument believable.
Keep in mind, no MSU recruiter has verefied that statment.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:32 am to Macavity92
quote:
You can try to mince words all you want but it is really clear you have no idea how to apply rules.
I actually have a lot of training and experience in applying rules just like this. That is why I am pointing out to less informed people like you that the rule does not mean what you think it means.
The words "on the athlete's behalf" are critical to understanding the rule. It means that you are doing it for the athlete, not for yourself. In this case, if Cam's dad was doing it on his own behalf, then Cam is not ineligible.
Why do you think the NCAA hasn't declared him ineligible yet? It's because they obviously don't think they have the evidence yet to apply it. Do you not think they NCAA has teams of lawyers who are knowledgeable in this field who are helping them determine if the rules have been broken?
I am pointing out that the rule can't mean what you want it to mean, because that allows too many crazy things to happen.
If it means what I think it means - that "on behalf of" means with the person knowledge and consent, then you get no absurd results.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:34 am to parkjas2001
quote:
Keep in mind, no MSU recruiter has verefied that statment.
Not publicly, but someone, whom Schad found reliable, did. For the most part we are operating on reports by reporters who are quoting sources they deem reliable. We don't know the identity of the source, but Schad identifies the person as a participant in that conversation.
This post was edited on 11/18/10 at 9:40 am
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:36 am to Macavity92
If this was the result of the investigation then all division 1 athletes country wide should let their parents handle their recruitment and request for money of varying amounts depending on skills.....then the parents can use the money however they wish as long as it is not spent on the player. The parents can then tell the player where they are going to school when the process is over......NO this is retarded....the NCAA realizes that if they let this slide whether Cam knew or not or benefited or not then they are opening up something that is more than they can handle....it would be like the jr. nfl.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:38 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
Prodigal Tiger
Thats exactly what the NCAA investigaor on ESPNU said last night.
The FBI will go after Cecil but no NCAA punishment for Cam or Auburn.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:39 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
If it means what I think it means - that "on behalf of" means with the person knowledge and consent, then you get no absurd results.
Not necessarily: An agent, who is authorized to act on someone's behalf, can bind the principal, even if the agent makes representations not known to the principal or goes beyond what his instructions are. Whether the principal is bound by the agent's acts depends on a variety of factors. But it isn't necessarily true that "acting on behalf" applies only if the principal knew what the agent said or was doing.
Many contracts have been upheld based on an agent's actions despite the principal's protestations that he didn't authorize the agent's specific actions, when the principal gave the agent authority to act.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:39 am to dcwtiger01
quote:
.....then the parents can use the money
And they will be charged by the FBI. But the kids will not be punished by the NCAA.
Just watch and see.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:45 am to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
And they will be charged by the FBI. But the kids will not be punished by the NCAA.
It might come down to a question of reinstatement even if he was ineligible. But of course we still have the problem of the "money was too good" conversation. That will be an important factor. What happens if Cam found out shortly after he signed with Auburn that his dad received money and he kept silent? Does his silence matter? That is, accepting the truth of the "money is too good" conversation in its most favorable light toward Cam, that he didn't know until after he signed with Auburn, but he still didn't report the payment to anyone at Auburn, the SEC or the NCAA.
This post was edited on 11/18/10 at 9:46 am
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:45 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
An agent, who is authorized to act on someone's behalf,
Right. But in that example, you have specifically given the person authority to act on your behalf. For instance, if Cam says "Hey Kenny, go see what you can get for me from MSU," then he is clearly ineligible, even if he didn't authorize a specific deal or specific amount.
But what a lot of people seem to think is that a person can act on your behalf and get you in trouble when you have never given them permission to do so. That is absurd.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:47 am to Prodigal Tiger
Can any one say FBI. They got caught.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:50 am to Prodigal Tiger
quote:
But what a lot of people seem to think is that a person can act on your behalf and get you in trouble when you have never given them permission to do so. That is absurd.
That is correct. But the question is whether Cam authorized his dad to act on his behalf in dealing with his recruitment decisions. Even if he didn't know the specifics of what his dad did, that puts it in somewhat of a different light than a complete stranger with no relationship purporting to act on a recruit's behalf. And from what little we know, apparently Cam had decided to defer to his dad's acting on his behalf. To not consider that his dad was then acting on his behalf leads to an absurd situation that recruits can designate someone to act for them in dealing with schools and then conveniently deny all knowledge of the specific representations or acts taken by their repesentative.
This post was edited on 11/18/10 at 9:52 am
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:53 am to Ray Ray Rodman
The only reason I can see for Cam still being eligible is that Auburn is saying frick you to the NCAA and saying prove it instead of being cautious like 99% of the athletic depts around the country would be in the same situation. Alabama couldn't declare Andre Smith ineligible for the Sugar Bowl fast enough when his uncle was dealing with an agent at the end of the regular season. I haven't seen any evidence that Andre knew what his uncle was doing.
Rival fans were giving Alabama fans hell for taking advantage of innocent clueless Albert Means saying he was be traded as a slave without his knowledge. How did that work out for Alabama?
As for Means playing at Memphis, sure he did. Memphis and Means also had to go through a formal re-instatement process before he could play there. Did Auburn and Newton go through this same formal instatement process? Has Auburn ever even held him out at any point and applied for re-instatement based on his possibly compromised eligibility. If not, that could be a big problem right there.
Rival fans were giving Alabama fans hell for taking advantage of innocent clueless Albert Means saying he was be traded as a slave without his knowledge. How did that work out for Alabama?
As for Means playing at Memphis, sure he did. Memphis and Means also had to go through a formal re-instatement process before he could play there. Did Auburn and Newton go through this same formal instatement process? Has Auburn ever even held him out at any point and applied for re-instatement based on his possibly compromised eligibility. If not, that could be a big problem right there.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:55 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
But of course we still have the problem of the "money was too good" conversation
And that may be whats taking this much time. Other than that, nothing says the punishment for any of this means Cam is ineligible.
Thats why he is still playing.
The FBI will charge Cecil with a crime and Cam and Auburn will not be punished by the NCAA. Watch and see.
Posted on 11/18/10 at 9:59 am to Ray Ray Rodman
quote:
The FBI will charge Cecil with a crime and Cam and Auburn will not be punished by the NCAA. Watch and see.
Nothing will surprise me. Often times things get blown up beyond all proportion in the internet age, especially. But there is an awful lot of smoke, and it may be harder to accept the "I didn't know" story if there is credible evidence that he did, i.e., the "money is too good."
Posted on 11/18/10 at 11:58 am to tigerinridgeland
quote:
But there is an awful lot of smoke, and it may be harder to accept the "I didn't know" story if there is credible evidence that he did, i.e., the "money is too good."
As someone who gets a good bit of info from time to time on the State side of things, that statement made by Cam to Dan and Megan Mullen was too much in all this. That is the reason State decided to turn the Newton's in.
Why did State keep recruiting Cam? We didnt believe anybody was going to pay up and they would come to their senses and sign with State as Cam wanted.
When Mullen was told Cam wasnt coming because "the money is too good"- that's when the decision was made to turn the Newtons in. And why State did it in January
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News