Started By
Message
Is the "on behalf of" phrase even in the text of the actual rule?
Posted on 11/12/10 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 11/12/10 at 10:21 pm
I don't have the actual rule.
I think a few Auburn fans are seizing on a phrase used by the spokesperson in summarizing the rule when that phrase may not even be in the actual rule.
I think a few Auburn fans are seizing on a phrase used by the spokesperson in summarizing the rule when that phrase may not even be in the actual rule.
This post was edited on 11/12/10 at 10:24 pm
4
Posted on 11/12/10 at 10:41 pm to Kingpin
quid pro quo is the operative phrase.
if I give an old lady a kidney dialysis machine worth $600K and in return her nephew signs with my alma mater, Old Ky U, then the kid was guilty of inducing Old Ky U to do QUID PRO QUO. its against the rules.
while its lovely that the old church got fixed up by gifts to the church 501C3,
those gifts were QUID PRO QUO.
if I give an old lady a kidney dialysis machine worth $600K and in return her nephew signs with my alma mater, Old Ky U, then the kid was guilty of inducing Old Ky U to do QUID PRO QUO. its against the rules.
while its lovely that the old church got fixed up by gifts to the church 501C3,
those gifts were QUID PRO QUO.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 10:44 pm to ottothewise
It's like rebating in insurance...you do this for me and I'll do this for you.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 10:45 pm to Kingpin
I don't know. The official bylaws on NCAA.org require a username and password.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 10:52 pm to e2drummer
Posted on 11/12/10 at 10:53 pm to e2drummer
I don't feel like looking throught it but here are links to the 09-10 and 10-11 NCAA manuals. Post the bylaw/article numbers if you find it...
2009-2010
2010-2011
ETA: Make sure you check both because there may be a question about when exactly this bylaw went into effect.
2009-2010
2010-2011
ETA: Make sure you check both because there may be a question about when exactly this bylaw went into effect.
This post was edited on 11/12/10 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 11/12/10 at 10:53 pm to e2drummer
quote:
My question to the NCAA: If a person related to a prospective student-athlete solicits money for that student-athlete at a certain school then that student-athlete is ineligible. Is that true no matter where he signs? This e-mail came back from NCAA spokesperson Stacey Osburn: Generally speaking, eligibility issues are tied to the student-athlete, not the school. So if a student-athlete is ineligible at one school and then transfers to a second school, the school the student-athlete transferred to would need to seek reinstatement. I then reiterated my question saying a "prospective" student-athlete -- in other words a recruit -- not a "transfer". Osburn came back with: Correct.
Per Dodd article on cbs.
The NCAA person that answered the email did not dispute that a player would be ineligible if a related party solicited money.
If you read the article he thinks it is not an open and shut case but it does not look good.
This post was edited on 11/12/10 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:17 pm to Kingpin
here are a few things i've gathered:
“The solicitation of cash or benefits by either a potential student-athlete or another person on their behalf is not allowed under N.C.A.A. rules,” Stacey Osburn, an N.C.A.A. spokeswoman
an unverified quote:
per NCAA rules.."it shall be a violation if any student-athlete or any party in connection to a student-athlete, whether such actions are implicit or explicit, demands or receives compensation for their participation in athletic contests for a member institution. Such activity shall result in said student-athlete's exclusion of eligibility."
and this is from the Reggie Bush case:
LINK
12.3.1.2 Benefits from Prospective Agents. An individual shall be ineligible per Bylaw 12.3.1 if he or she (or his or her relatives or friends) accepts transportation or other benefits from:
(a) Any person who represents any individual in the marketing of his or her athletics ability. The receipt of such expenses constitutes compensation based on athletics skill and is an extra benefit not available to the student body in general; or
(b) An agent, even if the agent has indicated that he or she has no interest in representing the student-athlete in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation and does not represent individuals in the student-athlete's sport.
the facts are Cam's father obtained the services of an agent who solicited benefits on Cam's behalf. whether Cam knew about it is irrelevant.
Cam Newton will be declared ineligible.
“The solicitation of cash or benefits by either a potential student-athlete or another person on their behalf is not allowed under N.C.A.A. rules,” Stacey Osburn, an N.C.A.A. spokeswoman
an unverified quote:
per NCAA rules.."it shall be a violation if any student-athlete or any party in connection to a student-athlete, whether such actions are implicit or explicit, demands or receives compensation for their participation in athletic contests for a member institution. Such activity shall result in said student-athlete's exclusion of eligibility."
and this is from the Reggie Bush case:
LINK
12.3.1.2 Benefits from Prospective Agents. An individual shall be ineligible per Bylaw 12.3.1 if he or she (or his or her relatives or friends) accepts transportation or other benefits from:
(a) Any person who represents any individual in the marketing of his or her athletics ability. The receipt of such expenses constitutes compensation based on athletics skill and is an extra benefit not available to the student body in general; or
(b) An agent, even if the agent has indicated that he or she has no interest in representing the student-athlete in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation and does not represent individuals in the student-athlete's sport.
the facts are Cam's father obtained the services of an agent who solicited benefits on Cam's behalf. whether Cam knew about it is irrelevant.
Cam Newton will be declared ineligible.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:44 pm to Johnny Brannan
quote:
an unverified quote:
I doubt there is another "unverified" quote out there from Stacey Osburn. Her quote in the article is the NCAA's official stance.
As for the NCAA bylaws, I searched and searched, but couldn't find anything mentioning their stance on "soliciting" or "asking for" benefits. The only thing mentioned is that actually receiving benefits makes a player ineligible.
Obviously, they have only just recently taken a stance on the "solicitation of cash or benefits" because it's nowhere in the bylaws.
This post was edited on 11/13/10 at 12:21 am
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:47 pm to e2drummer
I think if Auburn fans are hanging their hat on the idea that Cams dad didnt do it on his behalf they have a long 2 months ahead of them
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:49 pm to tigerguy121
I agree that it's a technicality, but technicalities work in the American legal system. I just hope the NCAA sees it the same way. 
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:54 pm to e2drummer
This rule is fricked up. Though in this case it's clear that if the dad asked for $$$ then Cam is ineligible, what happens if it's like a third cousin or some shite like that
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:14 am to castorinho
quote:
This rule is fricked up. Though in this case it's clear that if the dad asked for $$$ then Cam is ineligible, what happens if it's like a third cousin or some shite like that
Agreed. It looks like the NCAA just recently created the rule about "the solicitation of cash or benefits," so they have not yet clarified the phrase "on his or her behalf." They need to draw a line on what constitutes "his or her behalf" and IF Cam truly didn't know, this particular instance falls very close to the line between "on his behalf" and "not on his behalf."
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:14 am to castorinho
"played a student athlete whose father is pretty much admitting he tried to get money from Miss St which would make him ineligible?"
Thats where you are wrong!!! The rule is you or your Representative has to ask for extra beifets.....Nobody can be your Representative without you even knowing it!!! Sorry Can't wait until Saturday WAR EAGLE!!! For the slow ones that means if you asked for something and i didn't even know you were doing it then you are not Representing me,,,,ie I didn't ask you to do that!!
Great link you posted you will see where he said Cam knew nothing and no extra befits were given by state or AUBURN LINK
Thats where you are wrong!!! The rule is you or your Representative has to ask for extra beifets.....Nobody can be your Representative without you even knowing it!!! Sorry Can't wait until Saturday WAR EAGLE!!! For the slow ones that means if you asked for something and i didn't even know you were doing it then you are not Representing me,,,,ie I didn't ask you to do that!!
Great link you posted you will see where he said Cam knew nothing and no extra befits were given by state or AUBURN LINK
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:17 am to Kingpin
Are you just stupid or do you play a moron in real life?
Why would Ms State have any evidence on Auburn?
They have evidence on Cecil and his buddy runner. That is all they have and that is all anyone has claimed that they have.
Try again, but first please go spend a night at a Holiday Inn express to raise your IQ a bit.
Why would Ms State have any evidence on Auburn?
They have evidence on Cecil and his buddy runner. That is all they have and that is all anyone has claimed that they have.
Try again, but first please go spend a night at a Holiday Inn express to raise your IQ a bit.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:19 am to TigerMyth36
By the way, are all of you forgetting the alleged conversation with Cam stating he was sorry but the money was too good at Auburn.
Keep dreaming he didn't know.
Keep dreaming he didn't know.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:20 am to Johnny Brannan
quote:
it shall be a violation if any student-athlete or any party in connection to a student-athlete, whether such actions are implicit or explicit, demands or receives compensation for their participation in athletic contests for a member institution. Such activity shall result in said student-athlete's exclusion of eligibility."
If legit, this is what I was looking for. The actual text of the actual regulation. Not a spokesperson's wording in summary. Thanks.
I bolded the most relevant part to this discussion. I'd say his father is a "party in connection to" Cam.
So all this discussion about what "on behalf of" means is irrelevant. That's not even part of the actual regulation. So it's not even a "technicality" than can be argued.
This post was edited on 11/13/10 at 12:22 am
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:29 am to Kingpin
Well this just matters in the short term for Cam's 2010 eligibility. But the can of worms is wide open for Auburn.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:31 am to Kingpin
quote:
If legit, this is what I was looking for. The actual text of the actual regulation. Not a spokesperson's wording in summary. Thanks.
That's not in the bylaws. He claims it is an unverified quote.
I can guarantee that there is nothing like that in the NCAA bylaws because I read through the relevant portions and searched for key terms in the pdf files linked above. I found nothing. Whatever the rule actually is, it was created very recently and is not posted in the official bylaws yet.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:36 am to e2drummer
quote:
That's not in the bylaws. He claims it is an unverified quote.
You say you haven't seen the new bylaws. So how do you "guarantee" that isn't the actual new bylaw as quoted by another poster? Sounds like the language of a bylaw to me.
Are you sure you didn't get confused and think the poster above was saying that was an unverified quote from the spokesperson when he was actually saying it was an unverified quote of the bylaw from another poster? That's how I took it.
This post was edited on 11/13/10 at 12:38 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News