Started By
Message
NCAA not expected to pass legislation on the Newton loophole at
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:23 am
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:23 am
the winter meetings opening today.
LINK
quote:
NCAA President Mark Emmert suggested last month that emergency legislation could be proposed and maybe passed at the convention to avoid a repeat of the Newton pay-for-play case involving his father. But some people are concerned that rushing into new rules could result in unintended consequences.
ACC Associate Commissioner Shane Lyons, the chairman of the NCAA Legislative Council, said he hasn't seen a draft of any legislative proposal and does not anticipate any proposal at the convention.
quote:
"I'd be surprised if emergency legislation was proposed without consultation (with members)," Pac-10 commmissioner Larry Scott said. "I fully expect there will be consultation and greater transparency about what this so-called loophole is, because right now it's not very clear to me. On the surface, it seems like it's not really plausible for 'I didn't know' to carry the day when it's someone extremely close to the student-athlete (who is soliciting the money)."
LINK
6
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:27 am to Alahunter
Victory
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:29 am to Alahunter
Figures.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:35 am to hwnd
For instance, imagine if a high school coach could harm a student-athlete's eligibility at every institution just by discussing a pay-for-play plan with a booster at one school, regardless of whether the prospect knows about it," Infante wrote. "Third parties (such as a high school coach) gain a valuable tool to dictate where prospects enroll, and gain allies in boosters who have control of a stick, in addition to the existing carrots, to entice prospects to enroll at their favorite institution."
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:39 am to auburntiger77
quote:
For instance, imagine if a high school coach could harm a student-athlete's eligibility at every institution just by discussing a pay-for-play plan with a booster at one school, regardless of whether the prospect knows about it,"
Does that mean we get everything back and are absolved of the Albert Means situation?
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:41 am to Alahunter
The difference is that you had BOOSTERS involved who game money, not just solicited... If Bama (Logan) had not given money, Alabama would not be in trouble... Remember the coaches solicitied money from Arkie, UT and UGA and NONE of those got in trouble.. Should they all have gotten in trouble...
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:41 am to Alahunter
quote:
Does that mean we get everything back and are absolved of the Albert Means situation?
Money switched hands on that deal, yo.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:42 am to auburntiger77
yeah, but Albert didn't know.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:42 am to Alahunter
I'm sorry but this loophole is not something people can intentionally take advantage of so I doubt it's that pressing of an issue
It only applies if you ask for money but don't get it
Why would anyone intentionally ask for money and not get it?
It only applies if you ask for money but don't get it
Why would anyone intentionally ask for money and not get it?
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:43 am to auburntiger77
quote:
Remember the coaches solicitied money from Arkie, UT and UGA and NONE of those got in trouble.. Should they all have gotten in trouble
Money exchanged from some of those schools, and they didn't get in trouble. Federal testimony was provided about that in the Logan Young trial.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:44 am to Alahunter
I think they are just going to close the loophole by giving AU the permanent Death Penalty. JMO.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:47 am to WDE24
I think they're just going to remain inconsistent on punishments, as they've always done.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 10:47 am to WDE24
quote:
I think they are just going to close the loophole by giving AU the permanent Death Penalty. JMO.
So guys, who do we want as the new 12th?
List at will.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 12:33 pm to auburntiger77
quote:
For instance, imagine if a high school coach could harm a student-athlete's eligibility at every institution just by discussing a pay-for-play plan with a booster at one school,
This is why "agent" of the player must be carefully defined. In your scenario I would not consider the HS coach of the player an agent of the player unless there is a documented agreement between the player and the coach. However, a parent is clearly an agent of their child. Unfortunately this puts kids like Newton in a tough situation when you have an unscrupulous parent. Still, in such a situation Newton should have to legally disconnect himself from his father if he knows that his father is not trustworthy, otherwise it leaves the existing loophole allowing parents to market their student athletes with impunity.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 12:38 pm to davesdawgs
quote:FWIW-As an adult (legally speaking), Newton was already legally disconnected from his father.
However, a parent is clearly an agent of their child. Unfortunately this puts kids like Newton in a tough situation when you have an unscrupulous parent. Still, in such a situation Newton should have to legally disconnect himself from his father if he knows that his father is not trustworthy, otherwise it leaves the existing loophole allowing parents to market their student athletes with impunity.
This post was edited on 1/12/11 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 1/12/11 at 12:39 pm to WDE24
quote:
As an adult (legally speaking), Newton was already legally disconnected from his father.
That's what makes the NCAA decision really disagreeable.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 12:43 pm to Alahunter
quote:Not really. IMO that is one of the reasons they felt like they needed proof that Cam knew of his father's dealings before they occurred. Legally one can not act as an agent if they are not given permission to be an agent. If Cam didn't know, then he could not have authorized his dad to act as his agent. I think Emmert is talking about defining "agent" differently than civil law does. JMO.
That's what makes the NCAA decision really disagreeable.
Posted on 1/12/11 at 12:44 pm to WDE24
IMO, it does, when Cam said in interviews that he left the decision up to his dad. Being an adult and leaving that decision to his dad, made him culpable to any decisions or actions his dad made in his recruitment.
This post was edited on 1/12/11 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 1/12/11 at 12:47 pm to WDE24
quote:21 yrs old and he allowed his dad to make the decision. He was an adult and culpable.
November 01, 2010
Newton let his father make the final decision, and a few days before Christmas, while sitting at the dinner table in his brother's house in Jacksonville, Cecil Sr. uttered two words that would radically alter the college football landscape: "It's Auburn."
Posted on 1/12/11 at 12:49 pm to Alahunter
quote:There are a couple of problems with this. First, leaving the decision up to his dad likley means that he was going to take his dad's advice, the decision was still ultimately his. Secondly, the question of timing comes into play. When did he leave it up to his dad? Before or after his dad had solicited money without his knowledge. If it could be proven that Cam told his father before the solicitation that the decision was Cecil's, then your theory might hold a slight amount of merit (although not really because unless Cam knew about the solicitation, then Cecil was still likely acting outside of his agency). If it was after the solicitation, Cam letting his dad make the decision with no knowledge of the solicitation does not then cause Cam to be culpable for his dad's past dealings that Cam was unaware of (allegedly).
Being and adult and leaving that decision to his dad, made him culpable to any decisions or actions his dad made in his recruitment.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News