Started By
Message
re: USA Today: Investigation still underway - sorry if Germans
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:02 am to BMW7SERIES
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:02 am to BMW7SERIES
Seems to me the "gray area" was created yesterday by the NCAA and SEC. Prior to yesterday, the rules seemed to be pretty black and white.
2
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:06 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
Seems to me the "gray area" was created yesterday by the NCAA and SEC. Prior to yesterday, the rules seemed to be pretty black and white.
Not neccessarily. They "seemed" that way but in actuality, this gray area existed long before Auburn recruited Cam.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:06 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
Seems to me the "gray area" was created yesterday by the NCAA and SEC. Prior to yesterday, the rules seemed to be pretty black and white.
Exactly.
Let's have a few yes or no questions:
1) Is MSU a member institution of the SEC?
2) Is Auburn a member institution of the SEC?
3) Did the NCAA find that Cecil Newton negotiated a pay for play at MSU?
4) Is Cecil Newton a representative of Cam Newton?
5) Did Cam Newton attend Auburn?
This post was edited on 12/2/10 at 9:07 am
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:08 am to etm512
But Cam was never "matriculated" into MSU. He was matriculated into Auburn where pay for play was never discussed, with the evidence at hand.
This post was edited on 12/2/10 at 9:09 am
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:10 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
But Cam was never "matriculated" into MSU. He was matriculated into Auburn where pay for play was never discussed, with the evidence at hand.
I get that.
By the way the answers to all of those questions were "yes".
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
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:10 am to superman
quote:That's exactly what I have been saying.
We're talking about two different processes and departments within the NCAA.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:17 am to etm512
quote:
If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution
The instituation that offerend the money was Miss St NOT Auburn.
Not once does the rule say "if at any time before or after matriculation TO ANY member institution." That is the part to which you assume the rule suggests. It does not say that and hence, we have ourselves a gray area.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:30 am to BMW7SERIES
Auburn did it they cheated and noone will ever convince me and most fans who have watched SEC football the past 25 years otherwise. They are and have been a dirty program with Pat Dye and his cronies doing what ever they can to keep up with the Gumps and the rest of the leauge. I doubt the money trail will be found becuase it is obivious they are good at hiding it. I believe in the end the NCAA statement will read, " We found not enough supporting evidence to levy santions agianst Auburn and Cam Newton for his recruitment" But we all really know you did it, hey you got away with it and may win a National Title. I know your fan base will still feel warm and fuzzy at night thinking about how you outsmarted the FBI and the NCAA.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:39 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
Not once does the rule say "if at any time before or after matriculation TO ANY member institution." That is the part to which you assume the rule suggests. It does not say that and hence, we have ourselves a gray area.
Ok let's go down that road. So I'm a recruit and I want to go to LSU. Let's say Bama will be my top rival in the division and my biggest competition. So I can solicit payment from Bama and then go to LSU and Bama will get in trouble while I play within the conference. Clearly this rule would not try to guard against this situation, right? I mean it doesn't say "any member institution". But wait, later it says that I will be ineligible "within the conference". Wait, why would it say that if it would only apply to the school to which I matriculated after receiving payment? Oh of course, clearly to guard against ONLY those athletes that have enrolled at one school, get in trouble, and want to transfer to another within the conference. No one can ever imagine a recruit doing this kind of thing and clearly this rule wouldn't apply. Glad I understand this thought process now.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:39 am to TigerFanNKaty
quote:
TigerFanNKaty
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:41 am to etm512
quote:
etm512
Look ace, you don't have to like it, but it's there. It exists. Get over it.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:44 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
Look ace, you don't have to like it, but it's there. It exists. Get over it.
Thanks, sport. You're little fun nicknames are weak attempts at belittling others by the way.
I just want to understand if you actually believe the stuff you are saying and agree with the ruling or if you are just playing defense lawyer/Auburn fan boy here?
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:44 am to etm512
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
Cecil Newton did not agree or agree to receive compensation. He tried to solicit it, and was apparently shot down by Miss. St. Therefore there is no agreement, which is why the rule didn't apply.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:48 am to TheGame33
quote:
Cecil Newton did not agree or agree to receive compensation. He tried to solicit it, and was apparently shot down by Miss. St. Therefore there is no agreement, which is why the rule didn't apply.
Seriously?Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:49 am to MandevilleLSUTiger
quote:
It is certainly open to interpretation, but I'll have to search for the bylaw that specifically mentions solicitation (I believe I have read it here), regardless of whether or not anything was received.
What you are looking for is in SEC bylaws.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:50 am to D500MAG
AU still has enforcement to go through. AU might get punished for not ruling Cam ineligible in a timely manner.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:53 am to etm512
quote:
I just want to understand if you actually believe the stuff you are saying and agree with the ruling or if you are just playing defense lawyer/Auburn fan boy here?
Well bud, to answer your question, I'm an Auburn grad so what do you think I'm doing? You should have figured that out several posts ago. And FTR, if this was LSU under fire here our positions would more than likely be reversed.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:56 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
Well bud, to answer your question, I'm an Auburn grad so what do you think I'm doing?
So what do you actually believe?
I don't think his eligibility will come back into question based on your posts here.
So, assuming this ordeal was taking place at, lets say, Vanderbilt, what would your opinion be?
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:56 am to D500MAG
Dude I ain't butt hurt at all, just saying what I believe. You beat us on field and that was over a month ago. Fair or not you will alwasy be percieved as cheaters, I for one believe it is a fair assumption, everyone knows Pat Dye will do anything to win, everyone knows him and Tubby didn't get along and that Tubby kept him out as much as he could when it came to running the program. Everyone knows you guys were taking a nose dive in recruiting then Tubby gets shite canned. In comes Mr. Dye and boom 12-0 and a controversy. Butt hurt naw dude, I like watching exciting football on the field, but if something don't add up off the field I damn sure make note of it. And like I said you maybe able to get away with it, but I will never believe out of all this smoke your boosters haven't been up to their old tricks.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:01 am to BMW7SERIES
quote:
And FTR, if this was LSU under fire here our positions would more than likely be reversed.
So you do agree that the ruling is bullshite? Yall can admit it. Slive isn't going to make a ruling based on message board fodder (sp?).
It's hard to say what my stance would be because I have never been in that position and don't ever want to be. However, I have been able to take off my P&G glasses in the past and assess LSU with reasonable neutrality. So no, I don't think my stance would be quite as strong as yours has been FYI.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News