Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:24 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
The NCAA knows the solicitation took place, the bylaw states that soliciting funds is an infraction. How is Cam eligible?
Because the NCAA rules on each individual case based on the information it has at the time.
I'm sure the fact that AU is undefeated and one game away from the BCSCG weighed heavily in the speed in which they ruled on his eligibility, which is as it should be.
I agree that the investigation is far from over, and that more information could come to light which will cause the NCAA to revisit this decision. Perhaps they just wanted to end the foolish speculation that Cam would not be eligible for either the SECCG or, potentially, the BCSCG.
At any rate, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth on this and other forums, the NCAA took what they considered appropriate action for this case. YMMV.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:26 am to BMW7SERIES
Forgetting the NCAA rules, here is a good explanation of what the SEC had to say:
Clarion Ledger
Is this not a contradiction?
Clarion Ledger
quote:
STARKVILLE — The NCAA revealed today that Cam Newton‘s father did shop his son to Mississippi State, but the Auburn quarterback was ruled eligible to play this weekend in the Southeastern Conference Championship.
With the official revelation by the NCAA that Cecil Newton did solicit money in exchange for his son’s commitment to enroll at MSU, another question pops up: Does that mean Newton should therefore be ruled ineligible according to SEC bylaws?
Well, no, says the SEC. For background, here’s the SEC bylaw raised into question:
“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.”
“SEC Bylaw 14.01.3.2 does not apply in this situation,” SEC spokesman Charles Bloom said in an e-mail to The Clarion-Ledger. “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.”
Is this not a contradiction?
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:29 am to RT1941
quote:
You only disagree with me because your hatred for Auburn has blinded you to rational thought processes.
Not everyone who disagrees with you hates Auburn. I strongly disagree with you and I have no hatred for Auburn. In fact, I always preferred Auburn to Bama. That doesn't change the fact that:
- Slive didn't follow SEC rules regarding Cam's eligibility
- the NCAA radically changed the way it views the parent/student-athlete association
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:30 am to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
- Slive didn't follow SEC rules regarding Cam's eligibility
- the NCAA radically changed the way it views the parent/student-athlete association
Exactly. I'm glad I am not the only one comprehending it this way.
I don't have blind hatred for AU either, just think this is a bit absurd when kids get golf cart rides and sell jerseys and are suspended, but soliciting 200k is cool.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:34 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance
Again I think they'd have to prove that there was in fact an agreement.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:34 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
“It only applies when there is an actual payment of an improper benefit
No, it is not a contradiction. See matriculation means that the student athlete in question has to actually attend that particular institution and have a direct/indirect arrangement for pay for play for eligibility to be denied. It's again a gray area in the bylaws.
I know you really want these rules to be black and white and have them apply in your favor, but that's just not what's happening.
So again, Tapes or STFU.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:37 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
I dont read it as a contradiction. It says they have to find the money to enforce the punishment. IMO
Thats why Cams Eligible and Auburns not in any trouble........They havent found the money.
The investigation continues as they try to find the money. IMO
Thats why Cams Eligible and Auburns not in any trouble........They havent found the money.
The investigation continues as they try to find the money. IMO
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:37 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
See matriculation means that the student athlete in question has to actually attend that particular institution and have a direct/indirect arrangement for pay for play for eligibility to be denied. It's again a gray area in the bylaws.
Not it doesn't IMO
quote:
“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
It says member institution meaning a member of the SEC, aka Auburn. Does not state that he has to receive compensation from Auburn.
This post was edited on 12/2/10 at 8:39 am
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:40 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
I know you really want these rules to be black and white and have them apply in your favor, but that's just not what's happening.
So again, Tapes or STFU.
Alright, chief, here is what you are missing. I really don't care whether he can play or not. In fact, keeping the BCS Title in Conference is a good thing.
I'm just trying to figure out the proper way to get paid for my unborn son's athletic ability and keep him eligible, so understanding this ruling is of interest to me for that reason.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:42 am to etm512
quote:
etm512
And that's why it's a gray area. When you have a rule that is open to interpretation you cannot in good faith act upon it as if there is a piece of evidence to fit your needs. Should evidence proving Auburn is guilty of paying Cam/Cecil be uncovered, then yes, obviously we would be in trouble but until then, this was the correct interpretation of the rule, "based on the evidence at the time."
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:42 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
Just get money from schools A, B, and C and then send him to D.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:43 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
I'm just trying to figure out the proper way to get paid for my unborn son's athletic ability and keep him eligible
Well then this case will be of no use to you because in 18-20 years when your unborn son becomes eligible to play a sport in college the rule book will have had been amended many times over. I say start looking for your loophole in about 17 years.
This post was edited on 12/2/10 at 8:45 am
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:44 am to etm512
quote:
Just get money from schools A, B, and C and then send him to D.
If A, B, C, and D are within the SEC, I thought the SEC rule states he would be ineligible at all "member institutions"?
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:45 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
And that's why it's a gray area.
I think we have different definitions of gray area. To me it says if you commit an infraction with one university within the conference, you are ineligible within the conference.
quote:
Should evidence proving Auburn is guilty of paying Cam/Cecil be uncovered
I'm not even talking about that.
quote:
this was the correct interpretation of the rule, "to retrofit our current situation."
FIFY
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:45 am to MTurbo
quote:
college the rule book will have had been amended many times over
Due to Cam. Damn him! We all lose here.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:46 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
Alright, chief, here is what you are missing. I really don't care whether he can play or not. In fact, keeping the BCS Title in Conference is a good thing.
I'm just trying to figure out the proper way to get paid for my unborn son's athletic ability and keep him eligible, so understanding this ruling is of interest to me for that reason.
Fair enough slick, you should have just said so striaght up in the first place. We are going to have to know if the lil tike is going to be white or not. If so, then it won't matter for you.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:50 am to etm512
quote:
quote:
And that's why it's a gray area.
I think we have different definitions of gray area. To me it says if you commit an infraction with one university within the conference, you are ineligible within the conference.
This is the only part of it I will cover. The rest of what you wrote is too stupid to waste my time discussing with you.
What makes it a gray area IS that you don't agree with it AND that someone looking at that ruling from a rational perspective could interpret differently from you. What you are doing is putting language into the bylaw that isn't there to fit your needs thus making it black and white. I am sorry for you that it is not.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:53 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
This is the only part of it I will cover. The rest of what you wrote is too stupid to waste my time discussing with you.
Because you have shown high intellect throughout. Pardon me.
quote:
What makes it a gray area IS that you don't agree with it AND that someone looking at that ruling from a rational perspective could interpret differently from you. What you are doing is putting language into the bylaw that isn't there to fit your needs thus making it black and white. I am sorry for you that it is not.
Show me the language in the bylaw that says the pay to play has to happen at the institution that the student athlete attended. I'll wait.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:57 am to etm512
quote:
Show me the language in the bylaw that says the pay to play has to happen at the institution that the student athlete attended.
That's just it though. I'm sorry this is too difficult for you to understand but when you have a rule that isn't clearly written and its judgement is open to interpretation then it is a gray area. And that's what we have here.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News