Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/14/11 at 10:40 am to auburntiger77
Even if the NCAA rule is not explicit for parents selling their kids, it is explicit in the SEC bylaws is it not?
Posted on 1/14/11 at 10:41 am to bbvdd
You are correct, Albert did not know and if fact was eligible to play at Alabama, he later transferred to Memphis... In fact, that was part of Auburn's arguement to the NCAA, there was precident that Cam/Alber were still eligible to play football regardless.....
Posted on 1/14/11 at 10:44 am to auburntiger77
quote:
Albert did not know and if fact was eligible to play at Alabama, he later transferred to Memphis...
I thought it was ruled that he could not play in the SEC?
Posted on 1/14/11 at 11:05 am to LSUthrilla
quote:
If Bush had talked to Cal about a pay for play and went to USC instead it would be the same issue. Since Bush went to USC and took money, well he could have gone anywhere and taken money, he was going to be ruled ineligible. If the NCAA finds out that MSU or Auburn paid for Newton then the NCAA could rule him ineligible. Right now we have people mixing up actually being paid and talking about being paid.
What you and AU77 are saying does not apply. the fact is in the SEC there is a rule and it was broken.
"If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career."
Cam's father agreed to accept the money by shopping him. Per the SEC he can not compete within the SEC in any SPORT. WHat did the SEC office say:
"SEC Bylaw 14.01.3.2 does not apply in this situation it only applies when there is an actual payment of an improper benefit, or an agreement (such as a handshake agreement) to pay and receive an improper benefit. The facts in this case, as we understand them, are that the
student-athlete's father, without the knowledge of the student-athlete, solicited improper payments (which were rejected) from an institution the young man did not attend, and that the institution where the young man is enrolled was not involved."
So what the SEC office is saying is that Cecil did not agree to take money even though he requested it! And there must not have been a hand shake.
Then the SEC totally ignored the "within the conference" clause by saying even if he did ask, it was at a different school.
AU got protected in the interest of the ... money.
Posted on 1/14/11 at 11:20 am to tigerbill002
quote:
But we don't have a rule that makes that clear."
Complete B.S. The NCAA has the power and flexibility to interpret and apply the spirit of the rules. It as abundantly clear that a founding premise of the NCAA rules, No Solicitation, was violated. For whatever reason they did not have the balls to enforce the rules.
Posted on 1/14/11 at 11:38 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
In a court of law (or any judicial source) will normally throw out any case if there is any doubt.
You misspelled "reasonable". And that's just a criminal case. Civil standard is lower.
Posted on 1/14/11 at 7:20 pm to auburntiger77
If everyone thinks that Auburn or Cam 'cheated', please the SI article regarding Phil Knight of Nike. He has single handedly changed Oregon University athletics. Why isn't the university, Phil and Nike being investigated? So far, his tab is $41mil. Not the $180k chump change Cecil wanted....
Posted on 1/14/11 at 7:24 pm to tigerbill002
You LSU folks made Emmert out to be a hard arse who would do the right thing at the NCAA.
I'm disappointed.
I'm disappointed.
Posted on 1/14/11 at 7:34 pm to BamaChick
quote:
You LSU folks made Emmert out to be a hard arse who would do the right thing at the NCAA.
I'm disappointed.
You think you're disappointed? I haven't been this disappointed in a verdict since OJ.
Posted on 1/15/11 at 1:35 am to rangers911
quote:whether money changed hands or not is not the primary issue. whether cam knew about it or not is irrelevant.
Right now we have people mixing up actually being paid and talking about being paid.
cecil was acting as an AGENT for cam which is a blatant violation of amateurism. the ncaa has already acknowledged that there was wrongdoing. the ncaa has known that auburn was playing with an ineligible player since before the georgia game and did nothing about it. the 2010 season was basically a sham
Posted on 1/15/11 at 8:24 am to SportzIQ3235
quote:
quote: Emmert told reporters afterward. "The answer to that is no, it isn't. But WE WILL LOSE MILLIONS IF WE ENFORCE IT.
Posted on 1/15/11 at 8:38 am to JaboStokes
Mike Slive bought them the time they needed to lawyer up and get their case ready. When the ncaa came in and talked, don't you think they were threatened with a law suit. Ncaa did not want to take on a law suit especially involving a Bishop. Not willing to take on the church. If you research you know Cecil's churchs are a sham. Several business Cecil has are a sham. Laundered money. You really think the ncaa is willing to go there? Auburn had them over a barrel and the ncaa knew it. Now Cam and Cecil have Auburn over a barrel. Wonder how much money they got as a bonus after the NC. Of course, money is tight now, Louder has less and the Yellowood is in deep financial trouble. FBI snooping all over the place makes things a little hard for them but not impossible if you look at all the PAC's involved with Auburn. I truly believe the ncaa said let the FBI do their work and well be back after they find what we need.
This post was edited on 1/15/11 at 8:56 am
Posted on 1/15/11 at 10:18 am to tigerbill002
Thank you Mark Emmert your the best.
Posted on 1/15/11 at 10:23 am to Godfather1
quote:
USC and the Bush family are wondering about this.
Major fricking differences in the Newton and Bush cases are:
Money/goods actually changed hands between USC/USC Boosters and Bush/Bush's family, it hasn't in Newtons case.
The NCAA had proof of it in Bush's case, the NCAA doesn't have proof of it in Newton's case.
Bush played for USC, Newton didn't play for MSU where this all happened.
A USC coach had knowledge of it and didn't report it, MSU reported it.
Bottom line: Only the super clueless cite Bush/USC as comparable.
This post was edited on 1/15/11 at 10:26 am
Posted on 1/15/11 at 10:25 am to davesdawgs
quote:
Complete B.S. The NCAA has the power and flexibility to interpret and apply the spirit of the rules. It as abundantly clear that a founding premise of the NCAA rules, No Solicitation, was violated. For whatever reason they did not have the balls to enforce the rules.
Wrong.
Posted on 1/15/11 at 10:26 am to davesdawgs
They can try to enforce things "in the spirit of the rules", but time and time again it's been proven that such rulings are reversed upon appeal. It's all about the letter of the law.
Posted on 1/15/11 at 10:27 am to Ross
The NCAA can be sued, and won't "enforce" rule that doesn't exist.
Posted on 1/15/11 at 10:27 am to Buck Sweep
You should remain one of the children to be seen and not heard. Your opinions are wrong quite a bit, and they are right.
Posted on 1/15/11 at 10:28 am to Alahunter
You should go eat shite and die.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News