Started By
Message
re: This is no longer about Auburn, it is about the next university...
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:01 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:01 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
I never said there was. I did say that, per Kevin Lennon's statement today, IF Cecil was paid by Auburn, it wouldn't have mattered.
That was more of a general statement not neccessarily directed at you. Many people on this board have taken that stance. Carry on.
0
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:02 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
I think you have made one key error.
We'll see...
quote:
Now that we know players aren't held accountable if they "didn't know", it seems only reasonable that schools will also be given a pass if they "didn't know".
In other words, you're assuming that they'll treat a university with the same light touch they'd treat an 18, 19, 20 or 21 year old student? Are you sure I'm the one making key errors?
quote:
At the very least, they can make a strong argument in this direction.
And be laughed at. While I might buy it from an individual student, I wouldn't hold a fricking UNIVERSITY to the same standards of responsi-fricking-bility.
quote:
Also, why would Z be laughing all the way to the bank? He didn't know about the money that his father received.
Yeah. Right. He "didn't know" about it. Tell me another one. Just because Cecil claimed Cam didn't know doesn't mean Cam didn't fricking know.
quote:
Putting both of those issues aside, it still seems that college football has never had a shortage of boosters willing to pay players. It never will.
True, and a reasonable assumption. The thing is, it's also a reasonable assumption that the money people are going to be a LOT more careful in light of what's going on with Cam right now. They may wait for it to die down for a couple years, but they're watching.
quote:
What kept things in check in the past was the potential consequences for the student-athlete
What consequences? Loss of eligibility? If they're younger students, sure. They still need face time to show the NFL scouts what they've got. If they're JUCO transfers in the situation Cam is in, what the frick does eligibility matter? Just show up at the combine and strut your stuff.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:04 pm to BMW7SERIES
quote:
All this really did was make us all aware that a loophole we didn't know existed, actually does exist. NCAA will be under a tremendous amount of pressure to close that up.
This is more than a "loophole" that exists because the violation occurred relative to MSU but Cam went to Auburn. That is a Slive smokescreen. Read the Kevin Lennon quote at the beginning of this thread, this is about Cam's responsibility/knowledge of events. The NCAA has established that if a player doesn't know about a violation, he can't be punished for it. This isn't a small loophole to be plugged, this is a cataclysm.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:04 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
The thought has crossed my mind that you really haven't read the actual press release from the NCAA, and have only read the one sentence you keep misinterpreting over and over again.
Here are Lennon's comments, in their entirety. For clarity's sake, I have emphasized the key statements:
“Our members have established rules for a fair and equal recruitment of student-athletes, as well as to promote integrity in the recruiting process,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs. “In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete’s eligibility, we must consider the young person’s responsibility. Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement. From a student-athlete reinstatement perspective, Auburn University met its obligation under NCAA bylaw 14.11.1. Under this threshold, the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible.”
Hopefully you have no trouble understanding the context of his comments now, but just in case:
Generally speaking, a student-athlete's knowledge of violations occurring on his/her behalf must be taken into consideration when determining the student-athlete's eligibility.
IN THE CASE OF THIS SPECIFIC VIOLATION, the Reinforcement Staff determined that THIS SPECIFIC STUDENT-ATHLETE (they even mention him by name!) was unaware of the SPECIFIC VIOLATION (in this case an unsuccessful solicitation of benefits from an institution other than the one where the SPECIFIC STUDENT-ATHLETE BEING DISCUSSED is currently enrolled). Therefore he was reinstated.
Here is a link to the actual NCAA press release on their website, so you can read for yourself if you still have trouble with the concept.
Now I'll ask you one last time: is it your contention that Lennon's remarks mean that under no circumstances can any factor other than the "student-athlete's responsibility" be considered in reinstatement cases?
In other words, if the 'information available to the Reinforcement Staff' had included, say, wiretapped phone conversations of an AU booster agreeing to pay Cecil Newton $180,000, and supported by bank records that indicate that the transaction took place, that Cam would still be reinstated if there was no evidence that he was aware of the transaction?
Here are Lennon's comments, in their entirety. For clarity's sake, I have emphasized the key statements:
“Our members have established rules for a fair and equal recruitment of student-athletes, as well as to promote integrity in the recruiting process,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs. “In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete’s eligibility, we must consider the young person’s responsibility. Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement. From a student-athlete reinstatement perspective, Auburn University met its obligation under NCAA bylaw 14.11.1. Under this threshold, the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible.”
Hopefully you have no trouble understanding the context of his comments now, but just in case:
Generally speaking, a student-athlete's knowledge of violations occurring on his/her behalf must be taken into consideration when determining the student-athlete's eligibility.
IN THE CASE OF THIS SPECIFIC VIOLATION, the Reinforcement Staff determined that THIS SPECIFIC STUDENT-ATHLETE (they even mention him by name!) was unaware of the SPECIFIC VIOLATION (in this case an unsuccessful solicitation of benefits from an institution other than the one where the SPECIFIC STUDENT-ATHLETE BEING DISCUSSED is currently enrolled). Therefore he was reinstated.
Here is a link to the actual NCAA press release on their website, so you can read for yourself if you still have trouble with the concept.
Now I'll ask you one last time: is it your contention that Lennon's remarks mean that under no circumstances can any factor other than the "student-athlete's responsibility" be considered in reinstatement cases?
In other words, if the 'information available to the Reinforcement Staff' had included, say, wiretapped phone conversations of an AU booster agreeing to pay Cecil Newton $180,000, and supported by bank records that indicate that the transaction took place, that Cam would still be reinstated if there was no evidence that he was aware of the transaction?
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:06 pm to Schwaaz
quote:
"The Commissioner has the duty and power to investigate the validity of violations and impose penalties and sanctions against member institutions, their athletic staff members or student-athletes, for practices and conduct which violate the spirit, as well as the letter of NCAA and SEC rules and regulations.
Sounds to me and any decent lawyer that that paragraph is open to interpretation, which is exactly what constitutes a loophole/gray area.
If you don't have a black and white version of the law then what you get is things like "well, he didn't know what was happening." You might not like it, but that's what's going on.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:09 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
it's also a reasonable assumption that the money people are going to be a LOT more careful in light of what's going on with Cam right now. They may wait for it to die down for a couple years, but they're watching.
I don't think this will make "the money people" (your words) more careful, in fact, it will make them more aggressive. A shady booster can send someone to the father of a 5* kid and say, "Look at what happened with Cam Newton. If I give you $1,000,000, as long as your kid never finds out, he is 100% safe. Put the money in the bank and pay the gift taxes. Do everything on the up and up but don't spend it until your kid is out of school so no one gets wise. If this stays between you and me, the NCAA has already said that your son will never be held responsible."
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:10 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
If this stays between you and me, the NCAA has already said that your son will never be held responsible.
But the school the booster is representing will. (Years of probation, loss of TV, loss of scholarships, etc)
And, if Logan Young was any indication, the booster himself might - in the eyes of the law.
This post was edited on 12/1/10 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:14 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
Read the Kevin Lennon quote at the beginning of this thread
Yeah, I did read it. Any time you let a person decide upon "the spirit" of a law you get something that can be left open to interpretation. Or, as this board likes to believe, lets someone "get paid off." Either way, THAT is the gray area.
Since its reasonable to assume that the circumstances behind Cam's recruitment happen often, then wouldn't it be also reasonable to assume that the NCAA has a rule regarding it? The fact that you have Slive judging the "spirit" should tell us all that they don't.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:15 pm to cyde
Dr Drunkenstein is trying to see something that simply isn't there.
If it comes out eventually that Cecil took money from someone identified as a representative of Auburn University athletic interests, AU will get hammered and the games Cam played in after the improper benefits were provided will be vacated/forfeited. It won't matter whether Cam knew about it or not.
All today's ruling said was, BASED ON WHAT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN, Cecil solicited, but never received, improper benefits on Cam's behalf, jeopardizing Cam's eligibility. The NCAA determined that Cam was unaware of this solicitation, and based on the current status of the investigation, remains eligible.
Which, BTW, is exactly what Donald Jackson, the Montgomery-area sports attorney, said three weeks ago:
If it comes out eventually that Cecil took money from someone identified as a representative of Auburn University athletic interests, AU will get hammered and the games Cam played in after the improper benefits were provided will be vacated/forfeited. It won't matter whether Cam knew about it or not.
All today's ruling said was, BASED ON WHAT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN, Cecil solicited, but never received, improper benefits on Cam's behalf, jeopardizing Cam's eligibility. The NCAA determined that Cam was unaware of this solicitation, and based on the current status of the investigation, remains eligible.
Which, BTW, is exactly what Donald Jackson, the Montgomery-area sports attorney, said three weeks ago:
quote:
“I can’t think of a single case in which the NCAA has even attempted to penalize a school or individual for solicitation of an extra benefit. The solicitation and the circumstances surrounding it are often used as circumstantial evidence to prove that a violation involving extra benefits occurred — but not the solicitation itself.”
This post was edited on 12/1/10 at 11:29 pm
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:16 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
Dr Drunkenstein is trying to see something that simply isn't there.
Yes. And he's quoting himself now as well.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:18 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
FearlessFreep
I give up. Maybe it's the fact that I'm physically capable of recognizing shades of gray in the blacks and whites of the world, but whatever the reason, I'm not getting through to Dr Drunkenstein.
This post was edited on 12/1/10 at 11:20 pm
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:19 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
FearlessFreep, just because you keep capitalizing "SPECIFIC VIOLATION", that doesn't change the fact that Kevin Lennon said, "In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete’s eligibility"
I am at a loss to think of another factor which would cause a student-athlete to become ineligible if he wasn't responsible (didn't know about the violation) based on Mr Lennon's statement. Your refuse to share specifically what other factor merits our attention here or, based on Mr Lennon's statement, why it matters. I am still waiting patiently for this response from you.
Based on what Mr Lennon said, about the consideration of the student-athlete's responsibility, yes, if the had the these wiretaps you speak of, Cam would still be eligible.
Mr Lennon never said that a student-athlete's responsibility is only considered up to a certain level of infraction. You seem to have some personal threshold, above which a student-athlete would be punished regardless of his knowledge of the situation, but that is not the case for Mr Lennon and the NCAA.
quote:
Now I'll ask you one last time: is it your contention that Lennon's remarks mean that under no circumstances can any factor other than the "student-athlete's responsibility" be considered in reinstatement cases?
I am at a loss to think of another factor which would cause a student-athlete to become ineligible if he wasn't responsible (didn't know about the violation) based on Mr Lennon's statement. Your refuse to share specifically what other factor merits our attention here or, based on Mr Lennon's statement, why it matters. I am still waiting patiently for this response from you.
quote:
In other words, if the 'information available to the Reinforcement Staff' had included, say, wiretapped phone conversations of an AU booster agreeing to pay Cecil Newton $180,000, and supported by bank records that indicate that the transaction took place, that Cam would still be reinstated if there was no evidence that he was aware of the transaction?
Based on what Mr Lennon said, about the consideration of the student-athlete's responsibility, yes, if the had the these wiretaps you speak of, Cam would still be eligible.
Mr Lennon never said that a student-athlete's responsibility is only considered up to a certain level of infraction. You seem to have some personal threshold, above which a student-athlete would be punished regardless of his knowledge of the situation, but that is not the case for Mr Lennon and the NCAA.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:21 pm to BMW7SERIES
so you really dont think cecil wanted money for cams services?? then tell me why was he declared INELIGIBLE..monday or tuesday...please explain that one..
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:26 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
But the school the booster is representing will. (Years of probation, loss of TV, loss of scholarships, etc)
Boosters have always had these consequences and they have still tried to cheat like crazy. They won't stop now. In fact, with Mr Lennon clearing Cam because he didn't know about the violation, shady boosters have a new weapon in their arsenal.
quote:
If it comes out eventually that Cecil took money from someone identified as a representative of Auburn University athletic interests, AU will get hammered and the games Cam played in after the improper benefits were provided will be vacated/forfeited. It won't matter whether Cam knew about it or not.
That is your opinion of how things "should be". I agree with you that is how things "should be". However, Kevin Lennon didn't say that a student-athlete's responsibility is considered for some violations but not others, for minor violations but not for major violations. Just because one is worse than the other makes no difference, per Mr Lennon's statement where he talked about how he evaluates "a violation".
quote:
Maybe it's the fact that I'm physically capable of recognizing shades of gray
Where is the shade of gray in Mr Lennon's statement?
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:43 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
At this point I can only assume you are being deliberately dense.
Lennon said that based on the information they currently have, Cam Newton is eligible.
You want to pretend that the absolute and only piece of that information that has any bearing whatsoever on that decision is whether or not he was aware of his father's actions.
At this point it's quite clear to me that simple English and basic logic will never be able to dissuade you from your cherished belief in this obvious delusion.
Go ahead and do your victory dance. You have, in the words of the old aphorism, drug me down to your level and beaten me with experience.
Lennon said that based on the information they currently have, Cam Newton is eligible.
You want to pretend that the absolute and only piece of that information that has any bearing whatsoever on that decision is whether or not he was aware of his father's actions.
At this point it's quite clear to me that simple English and basic logic will never be able to dissuade you from your cherished belief in this obvious delusion.
Go ahead and do your victory dance. You have, in the words of the old aphorism, drug me down to your level and beaten me with experience.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:45 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
You want to pretend that the absolute and only piece of that information that has any bearing whatsoever on that decision is whether or not he was aware of his father's actions.
That is all that Lennon has mentioned. If you have read a quote where he mentions other factors, please quote it and link it.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:46 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
FearlessFreep
You know, I'm pretty tired so I probably need a second opinion. You'll help me out, right Freep? At what point in my discussion with Dr Drunkenstein was I talking about what fricking Mr. Lennon said? I seem to remember talking about the risks boosters run by paying players.
This is why I don't want to talk to this guy anymore and why you're right that he's dense. Either that, or he's using every logical fallacy in the book and masturbating while reading his own posts.
This post was edited on 12/1/10 at 11:47 pm
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:47 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
I did. You refuse to comprehend it, so you pretend it means something else.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:49 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
I follow what Dr. Drunk may be trying to get across as Why was Cam even ruled ineligible then be ruled eligible so fast if there was no wrong doing. This whole deal is fishy any way you look at it.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 11:50 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
I did. You refuse to comprehend it, so you pretend it means something else.
I read through the link you posted and I saw nothing from the NCAA explaining the justification of exonerating Cam other than not knowing what his father did.......
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News