Started By
Message
re: NCAA had no choice
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:07 pm to secftw
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:07 pm to secftw
quote:
BRB entertaining all SEC bids on my 17yo cousin who's a center, and my 13yo cousin who's a QB. Don't worry, they don't know.
And anyone who actually bids on him has made your nephew ineligible to play for them. See how that works?
0
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:07 pm to Thracken13
quote:
Thracken13
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:08 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
They would be opening up a pandora's box if Cam were ruled ineligible. Let's throw out the fact that there is no proof Cam knew, no proof Cecil got money, and no proof that Auburn did anything whatsoever.
Think about next time when a high school coach (a father figure so to speak) for Johhny Stud Muffin says to Coach Big Time BCS, I'll get you Johnny for half a million. They turn it down. He signs elsewhere because Coach Big Time BCS says screw that, and subsequently Coach Big Time BCS reports it to Big BCS conference and NCAA.
Does Johnny Stud Muffin need to pay for a greed high school coaches' greed or bad decision?
I don't think so.
Are you aware that "Little Johnny's" dad "Big Stud Muffin" admitted to whoring out little Johnny?
I DON'T THINK SO!
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:10 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
Point is, you can't just rule someone ineligible because someone they know wanted money for a commitment. It doesn't matter if it's his coach, parent, acting agent, cuz, best friend, or some crackhead off the street.
If Cam didn't know, he didn't know. You have to prove he knew. You would be creating a precedent in which friends, even enemies could approach schools with the same proposition, and there would have to be daily reports to the NCAA in mass numbers.
NCAA couldn't set that precedent.
But by reinstating Johnny Stud Muffin, I think they have set a precedent.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:10 pm to RT1941
Of course he did. But what does that have to do with Johnny Stud Muffin. What if it were Johnny Stud Muffin's brother, cousin, or best friend who really hates Johnny and is a bama fan.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:11 pm to tylerdurden24
quote:
if they had ruled Cam ineligible then Cam's family, Auburn, and perhaps even the SEC would sue the hell out of the NCAA
On what grounds? Enforcing the rules that are already on the books?
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:11 pm to ThatAUguy
RTR1941 - They set the precedent when Albert Means played ball for Memphis. This is only different in the fact that in the Albert Means case, there was proof that money WAS indeed exchanged.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:14 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
Of course he did. But what does that have to do with Johnny Stud Muffin. What if it were Johnny Stud Muffin's brother, cousin, or best friend who really hates Johnny and is a bama fan.
Here's a question for you. Do you think Johnny is so fricking dumb that he doesn't know he bought a stolen laptop, and he doesn't know that cheating on academics is wrong, and he doesn't know that his dad is trying to get $$ in addition to a scholly?
But, Johnny is smart enough to understand, apply himself and execute a highpowered offensive scheme that ultimately takes the third (3rd) college team he's played for to an undefeated season.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:15 pm to Music City Hog
You do realize that IF they would have ruled that:
1. Parent and player are the same as far as violations are concerned.
2. Soliciting benefits is the same as receiving them.
They would have merely been firmly establishing what just about EVERY SCHOOL THOUGHT WAS THE RULES ANYWAY.
Would have been an actual common sense ruling that cut off any thought of this from most anyone else that would attempt it.
1. Parent and player are the same as far as violations are concerned.
2. Soliciting benefits is the same as receiving them.
They would have merely been firmly establishing what just about EVERY SCHOOL THOUGHT WAS THE RULES ANYWAY.
Would have been an actual common sense ruling that cut off any thought of this from most anyone else that would attempt it.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:15 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
RTR1941 - They set the precedent when Albert Means played ball for Memphis. This is only different in the fact that in the Albert Means case, there was proof that money WAS indeed exchanged.
Here's the problem though. They didn't prove money was exchanged until after the NCAA hammer. In fact I never once saw a piece of evidence the money was actually exchanged.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:15 pm to RT1941
quote:
Do you think Johnny is so fricking dumb that he doesn't know he bought a stolen laptop
Smart enough to throw it out the window. Oh, wait...
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:17 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
Point is, you can't just rule someone ineligible because someone they know wanted money for a commitment. It doesn't matter if it's his coach, parent, acting agent, cuz, best friend, or some crackhead off the street.
If Cam didn't know, he didn't know. You have to prove he knew. You would be creating a precedent in which friends, even enemies could approach schools with the same proposition, and there would have to be daily reports to the NCAA in mass numbers.
NCAA couldn't set that precedent.
Supposedly Means in the Bama case did not know his mother and high school coach were shopping him right?
That wasn't viewed as a defense by Alabama
Prior rulings and clarifications from the NCAA have seemed to treat the parent and recruit as the same (not knowing is not a defense and/or no credibility given to the idea they didn't know).
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:20 pm to molsusports
quote:
Supposedly Means in the Bama case did not know his mother and high school coach were shopping him right?
That wasn't viewed as a defense by Alabama
Prior rulings and clarifications from the NCAA have seemed to treat the parent and recruit as the same (not knowing is not a defense and/or no credibility given to the idea they didn't know).
Here's what happened though. The NCAA didn't have squat until the FBI entered the arena. After the FBI got involved they were able to force the financial records of Logan Young to be turned over, giving the NCAA the go ahead to hammer bama.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:20 pm to tylerdurden24
quote:
You're half irght, IMO. NCAA didn't lower the boom because if they had ruled Cam ineligible then Cam's family, Auburn, and perhaps even the SEC would sue the hell out of the NCAA, creating a media firestorm and a lawsuit that would cost the NCAA millions. Like everything else with this case, this is a money issue, and letting Cam play while citing lack of evidence was the safe way to save cash and face with the SEC office
The Newton family would NEVER sue over this. BIG DIFFERENCE between lying to NCAA investigators and getting on the stand at trial. A lawsuit would require them to testify under oath aas to:
1. Exactly what happened Cecil did and with whom.
2. Whether Cam knew or not.
3. Whether any money moved anywhere.
I tend to think these are questions that the Newton DO NOT WANT TO ANSWER UNDER OATH.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:21 pm to GeauxTigersLee
RT1941 - It's not a matter of what I think. It's a matter of what I can PROVE. Do I think Cecil Newton is a piece of shite, YEP. Do I think Cam knew? YEP. Do I think money was exchanged with MSU or Auburn, Not really, but irrelevant (didn't prove that either).
Point is, whether it be a guardian, school teacher, dad, cousin, neighbor, if there is no proof that Cam knew about it, you can't declare him ineligible.
Point is, whether it be a guardian, school teacher, dad, cousin, neighbor, if there is no proof that Cam knew about it, you can't declare him ineligible.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:22 pm to tigersruledude
quote:
The Newton family would NEVER sue over this. BIG DIFFERENCE between lying to NCAA investigators and getting on the stand at trial. A lawsuit would require them to testify under oath aas to:
That's a very good point.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:22 pm to molsusports
quote:
That wasn't viewed as a defense by Alabama
That is because benefits were actually received.
For some reason you guys can't understand that the NCAA is just clarifying through the ruling that if solicitation happens from one school without the player's knowledge, and no benefit was ever given, and the player goes to play for another school, the the other school and player who had nothing to do with anything are innocent.
This isn't some door into shopping kids to play places. This just protects players from here on out from being liable for people who just ask for benefits without their knowledge. Now if The Newton's had received money and he was ruled eligible, that would open the door to shopping kids.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:23 pm to dslsufan80
quote:
You'd think free education is good enough for some people...
For the most part the people that are trying to get money don't care much about education.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:24 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
Of course he did. But what does that have to do with Johnny Stud Muffin. What if it were Johnny Stud Muffin's brother, cousin, or best friend who really hates Johnny and is a bama fan.
Why do y'all keep using false, pie in the sky hypotheticals to prove this ruling just?
THIS WAS HIS DAD!
Don't you think if a shady cousin, once removed, with Facebook pictures of himself in Alabama gear, went to the NCAA and said he shopped an AU star, that the NCAA would - OH I DON'T KNOW - do some investigating and easily prove a rival motivated scam as false????
Y'all are spinning like tops over this and trying to use absolutely unrelated and over the top hypotheticals to make this ruling not look like a pile of horseshite.
Again.
This was Cam's DAD - not some hanger on.
Stop getting it twisted and play within the facts.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:24 pm to tigersruledude
tou-fricking-che...
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News