Started By
Message
This is no longer about Auburn, it is about the next university...
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:26 pm
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:26 pm
...who has a player whose parent/uncle/grandparent/sibling asks for money and the country finds out about it. It doesn't even matter if they get the money. Now that the floodgates are open, this will probably happen next season. And people are going to be brazen about it. People are going to look in the TV cameras and laugh when they get discovered. It will be impossible to prove that a kid knew he was being shopped. We all know this is true.
Auburn fell arse-backwards in to an interpretation of the rules no one could have ever expected, considering the past decisions of the NCAA. Good for the Tigers. Maybe Cam can pull a Carmelo Anthony and bring in a long awaited title in his one year at his school. Maybe he won't. But from this day forward, after the dozens, if not hundreds, of instances of player shopping come to light in the near future, Auburn fans will hear the fanbases of the other schools cry out, "But Cecil.....". Auburn will constantly be reminded of the new arms race that it unknowingly triggered. More money will end up being paid out to kids' families because of this precedent regardless of the intentions of the NCAA. Will Auburn be able to outspend the rest of the SEC in this shameful new world? I don't think so. In fact, it won't even be close.
Auburn fell arse-backwards in to an interpretation of the rules no one could have ever expected, considering the past decisions of the NCAA. Good for the Tigers. Maybe Cam can pull a Carmelo Anthony and bring in a long awaited title in his one year at his school. Maybe he won't. But from this day forward, after the dozens, if not hundreds, of instances of player shopping come to light in the near future, Auburn fans will hear the fanbases of the other schools cry out, "But Cecil.....". Auburn will constantly be reminded of the new arms race that it unknowingly triggered. More money will end up being paid out to kids' families because of this precedent regardless of the intentions of the NCAA. Will Auburn be able to outspend the rest of the SEC in this shameful new world? I don't think so. In fact, it won't even be close.
4
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:34 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
Maybe so, but based on this ruling today (and who knows what will come down the road) it appears that if money actually does change hands and it can be proved, that the schools will still be in a shitton of trouble. If schools want to take that risk, hey go ahead, but then don't complain when you get busted for it.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:40 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
it appears that if money actually does change hands and it can be proved, that the schools will still be in a shitton of trouble. If schools want to take that risk, hey go ahead, but then don't complain when you get busted for it.
Wrong.
It fact, it appears that even if MSU or Auburn had paid Cecil, Cam would have been in absolutely no trouble at all. Why do I say this? Because this is what the NCAA said today.
quote:
Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs, said: "In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete's eligibility, we must consider the young person's responsibility. "
LINK
Auburn could have paid Cecil a million bucks but if Cam didn't know, there would be ZERO consequences. Cam wasn't responsible.
Going forward, if you are a father of a stud athlete, you are a fricking idiot if you don't secretly ask for money while keeping it from your son.
Going forward, all boosters will know they can play player's families as long as they never do anything in front of the player.
The money changing hands makes no difference in terms of the player's responsibility/knowledge. Disagree with me? Post a link where the NCAA says differently.......
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:47 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
This is no longer about Auburn, it is about the next university...
...who has a player whose parent/uncle/grandparent/sibling asks for money and the country finds out about it. It doesn't even matter if they get the money. Now that the floodgates are open, this will probably happen next season. And people are going to be brazen about it. People are going to look in the TV cameras and laugh when they get discovered. It will be impossible to prove that a kid knew he was being shopped. We all know this is true.
Agree, the NCAA just turned college athletics into the biggest legal whorehouse in the world, until, of course, they close the loophole
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:56 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:OK, so taking that as gospel truth, Cam wouldn't have been in any trouble, but you can bet your arse that the school(s) and any boosters associated with the payments would be.
It fact, it appears that even if MSU or Auburn had paid Cecil, Cam would have been in absolutely no trouble at all. Why do I say this? Because this is what the NCAA said today.
That was my initial point, even if it doesn't impact the player's eligibility, it still is a violation on the part of the institution if money changes hands and that is where the schools would be playing with fire.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 9:58 pm to MaroonNation
Based on what Kevin Lennon said, it is all about the degree of responsibility of the student-athlete.
Cecil can ask for money. That is a violation.
Auburn and/or MSU could pay Cecil money. That is even a more serious violation.
Still, neither would have resulted in any punishment for Cam since he would have had the same degree of responsibility in both cases, which is zero.
Many Auburn fans think Cam's eligibility was saved because no money changed hands. That is irrelevant. In the eyes of the NCAA, Cecil could have done absolutely anything and could have been given anything by anyone and Cam would have still had the same degree of responsibility....which is zero, because Cam didn't know.
What will be interesting is when we find out who the first college team is with multiple student-athletes whose families were paid over a million bucks. How embarrassing would it be for a team like that to lose to a team who plays it 'straight'?!?
Cecil can ask for money. That is a violation.
Auburn and/or MSU could pay Cecil money. That is even a more serious violation.
Still, neither would have resulted in any punishment for Cam since he would have had the same degree of responsibility in both cases, which is zero.
Many Auburn fans think Cam's eligibility was saved because no money changed hands. That is irrelevant. In the eyes of the NCAA, Cecil could have done absolutely anything and could have been given anything by anyone and Cam would have still had the same degree of responsibility....which is zero, because Cam didn't know.
What will be interesting is when we find out who the first college team is with multiple student-athletes whose families were paid over a million bucks. How embarrassing would it be for a team like that to lose to a team who plays it 'straight'?!?
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:02 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
PJinAtl
Yeah, but what do the players and their families care about that shite? If they got their money, it doesn't matter to them if the school never competes again.
Besides, if their kid is that big a stud athlete, he'll probably be pulling down even more money in the NFL, right?
If I were an Auburn fan, I would spend every night praying for lightning to strike that fricking "church" of Cecil's and for it to burn down to the ground... though, he'd probably just fill out an insurance claim for a bunch of shite that was never there to begin with.
That guy is a serious lowlife.
This post was edited on 12/1/10 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:03 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
That was my initial point, even if it doesn't impact the player's eligibility, it still is a violation on the part of the institution if money changes hands and that is where the schools would be playing with fire.
Now that we have seen this ruling, it only seems reasonable that if a school "didn't know", just like a player "didn't know", that they will be held to the same standard. If the NCAA tried to punish a university without being able to prove that they knew anything, based on the Cam/Cecil precedent, it sure seems like the NCAA would be on the losing end of a lawsuit. And when this happens dozens or hundreds of times, like it will, just how much legal costs can the NCAA afford.
As for boosters, some rich guy will still have access to the team & games regardless of what anyone says......they'll just get a new person to give money to the players' families the next time, and the next, and the next, and the next.....
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:05 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
...who has a player whose parent/uncle/grandparent/sibling asks for money and the country finds out about it. It doesn't even matter if they get the money. Now that the floodgates are open, this will probably happen next season. And people are going to be brazen about it. People are going to look in the TV cameras and laugh when they get discovered. It will be impossible to prove that a kid knew he was being shopped. We all know this is true.
Auburn fell arse-backwards in to an interpretation of the rules no one could have ever expected, considering the past decisions of the NCAA. Good for the Tigers. Maybe Cam can pull a Carmelo Anthony and bring in a long awaited title in his one year at his school. Maybe he won't. But from this day forward, after the dozens, if not hundreds, of instances of player shopping come to light in the near future, Auburn fans will hear the fanbases of the other schools cry out, "But Cecil.....". Auburn will constantly be reminded of the new arms race that it unknowingly triggered. More money will end up being paid out to kids' families because of this precedent regardless of the intentions of the NCAA. Will Auburn be able to outspend the rest of the SEC in this shameful new world? I don't think so. In fact, it won't even be close.
But but but Slive has promised to put the genie back in the bottle.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:05 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:How about you post a link where the NCAA says that player responsibility is the ONLY consideration, no matter what the nature of the violation.
The money changing hands makes no difference in terms of the player's responsibility/knowledge. Disagree with me? Post a link where the NCAA says differently......
Your interpretation of the NCAA's statement is totally without merit.
Let's hypothesize that the NCAA eventually uncovers clear evidence of a money trail from AU to Cecil. Is it your contention that, absent any proof that Cam was aware of the transaction, that his eligibility for games that took place after the money changed hands would remain unaffected?
That's exactly what happened with Bush at USC. The NCAA determined that his family received improper benefits, and retroactively declared him inelgible for all games he played in after the benefits wre provided.
Haden is an idiot for trying to make the comparison.
This post was edited on 12/1/10 at 10:08 pm
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:05 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
no college in this nation "PLAYS IT STRAIGHT" meaning they dont pay players..because this happens in EVERY university
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:06 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
Dr Drunkenstein
When you look at it that way, this was a pretty shortsighted attempt to protect a revenue stream in the 2010 postseason games on the NCAA's part.
I have to wonder if they realize just how much they may have sold out.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:08 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
Let's hypothesize that the NCAA eventually uncovers clear evidence of a money trail from AU to Cecil. Is it your contention that, absent any proof that Cam was aware of the transaction, that his eligibility for games that took place after the money changed hands would remain unaffected?
The point is that it won't affect Cam in any way one way or the other. So Auburn has to vacate some wins. Big deal. So they're on probation for the next century. Who gives a frick? Cam is off making money in the NFL and he couldn't be fricking bothered.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:11 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
How about you post a link where the NCAA says that player responsibility is the ONLY consideration, no matter what the nature of the violation.
I already did.
quote:
Your interpretation of the NCAA's statement is totally without merit.
I didn't 'interpret' anything. The NCAA VP who ruled on the matter said:
quote:
"In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete's eligibility, we must consider the young person's responsibility. "
He didn't mention solicitation or any specific offense, he was speaking generally about any violation.
Auburn could have given Cecil $10,000,000 and a house and could have hired a hitman on his behalf to kill a personal enemy of his and if Cam didn't know, his degree of responsibility is zero.
I know this makes you nervous. It makes all of us nervous. None of us ever thought it would be like this in college football.....but it is......thanks to Cecil and the NCAA.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:11 pm to cyde
I'm still not sure where this whole 'revenue stream' argument is coming from.
Are you implying that ESPN has ordered the NCAA to clear Cam, because they think Oregon vs TCU would draw fewer viewers?
You ARE aware, aren't you, that the NCAA makes the same amount of money from the TV rights regardless of what two teams end up playing in it, don't you?
Are you implying that ESPN has ordered the NCAA to clear Cam, because they think Oregon vs TCU would draw fewer viewers?
You ARE aware, aren't you, that the NCAA makes the same amount of money from the TV rights regardless of what two teams end up playing in it, don't you?
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:14 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete's eligibility, we must consider the young person's responsibility. "
Do you know what the word underlined in the sentence above means?
It appears that you don't.
Now, if the NCAA rep had said, "In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete's eligibility, we must consider ONLY the young person's responsibility AND NO OTHER FACTORS" then your argument would be vaild.
He didn't. It isn't.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:15 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
Let's hypothesize that the NCAA eventually uncovers clear evidence of a money trail from AU to Cecil. Is it your contention that, absent any proof that Cam was aware of the transaction, that his eligibility for games that took place after the money changed hands would remain unaffected?
I'm not hypothesizing anything......based on what the NCAA VP who ruled on the matter said, it is all about the degree of responsibility of the student-athlete. If we find out tomorrow that Cam's dad was paid ten million bucks, and Cam didn't know, Cam's responsibility is still zero, per Kevin Lennon.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:15 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
FearlessFreep
Just to clarify:
Are we skipping around in the fricking thread, or following the posts in a linear fashion?
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:17 pm to cyde
quote:I think we can all agree on that point. Where I disagreed with the OP was that it will open the floodgates to pay players either from the schools directly or from big money boosters fo the schools. I think that as long as the institutions can be held responsible and punished, that will continue to be a big enough deterrent to keep it from expanding.
The point is that it won't affect Cam in any way one way or the other. So Auburn has to vacate some wins. Big deal. So they're on probation for the next century. Who gives a frick? Cam is off making money in the NFL and he couldn't be fricking bothered.
I admit that most, if not all major programs (and a lot of smaller ones) have boosters sliding some cash toward their big name players, hell a guy I graduated HS with in the mid 90s was supposeldy offered a couple of thousand a month and a car to come play at MTSU (he chose the MLB draft instead). However, the threat of major sanctions against the program should keep this from mushrooming on that side of the equation because nothing in the ruling today changes that, because whether or not the father is an extension of the athlete (I don't think that is spelled out in NCAA rules) I think we can agree that by NCAA rule (printed, non-arguable) tha a booster is an extension of the institution.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 10:20 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
Now, if the NCAA rep had said, "In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete's eligibility, we must consider ONLY the young person's responsibility AND NO OTHER FACTORS" then your argument would be vaild.
If other factors mattered, he would have mentioned them. He mentioned nothing about astrology, penis length of the player or the amount of rainfall in the student-athlete's hometown but I doubt they factor in to the discussion. You see, with your idiotic open-ended argument, EVERY FACTOR IN THE WORLD COULD BE BROUGHT IN TO THE EVALUATION. The price of brie in Paris, the cost of a hooker in Thailand. Yours is a silly argument.
I'll stick to what the NCAA plainly says, thank you very much.
This post was edited on 12/1/10 at 10:28 pm
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News