Started By
Message
re: You do realize...
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:53 pm to APIEE
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:53 pm to APIEE
Negative podnuh. Anyone that represents Cam's interests (most certainly his dad) that solicits money makes Cam ineligible wherever. Also the NCAA will not let them get away with that because it opens up a loophole that will allow anyone and everyone to extort money as long as said player "doesn't know about it". bullshite Cam didn't know about it. I guess when Cecil said you have to go to Auburn they gave us more money, it just didn't register with him?
Having said that, you guys paid the guy a hefty ransom and we all know that. All your big money alumns have been bankrolling players and bribing politicians. Blame Lowder, Dye, and McGregor. They are going to set your program ablaze.
Having said that, you guys paid the guy a hefty ransom and we all know that. All your big money alumns have been bankrolling players and bribing politicians. Blame Lowder, Dye, and McGregor. They are going to set your program ablaze.
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 10:57 pm
1
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:54 pm to Ross
i have a sneaky feeling that msu is taking a hit and urban maybe pushed mullen into this. there was a leak and it probably started at uf, not that it will ever be proven.`
wait to see on AU
wait to see on AU
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 10:56 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:54 pm to im4LSU
quote:
im4LSU
quote:
quote:
“The solicitation of cash or benefits by a prospective student-athlete, the student athlete's family, or anyone acting on the student's behalf is not allowed under NCAA rules."
It is against the rules. What are the penalties prescribed by the rules? Ineligibility at THAT school (13.01.1)
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:54 pm to APIEE
quote:
That regulation specifies he must have "KNOWING INVOLVEMENT".
burden of proof is on Cam and Co. to show that he DIDN'T.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:54 pm to APIEE
He can't be ineligible for a "team", he would be ineligibe for all of NCAA athletics.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:55 pm to APIEE
quote:
he must have "KNOWING INVOLVEMENT
"The Moneys too much"
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:57 pm to ThirdAndChavis1234
quote:You are wrong -
ThirdAndChavis1234
13.01.1 Eligibility Effects of Recruiting Violation.
The recruitment of a student-athlete by a member institution or any representative of its athletics interests in violation of the Association’s legislation, as acknowledged by the institution or established through the Association’s enforcement procedures, shall result in the student-athlete becoming ineligible to represent that institution in intercollegiate athletics. The Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement may restore the eligibility of a student involved in such a violation only when circumstances clearly warrant restoration. A student is responsible for his or her involvement in a violation of NCAA regulations during the student’s recruitment, and involvement in a major violation (see Bylaw 19.02.2.2) may cause the student to become permanently ineligible for intercollegiate athletics competition at that institution.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:00 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
Geauxld Finger
There isn't a loophole opened because if an offer is made to anyone (family etc.) then the player becomes ineligible at that school. The asking for the $ makes the player ineligible there.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:01 pm to APIEE
quote:that I
You do realize...
quote:am a dumbass? Right?
APIEE
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:03 pm to APIEE
quote:
You are wrong -
13.01.1 Eligibility Effects of Recruiting Violation.
The recruitment of a student-athlete by a member institution or any representative of its athletics interests in violation of the Association’s legislation, as acknowledged by the institution or established through the Association’s enforcement procedures, shall result in the student-athlete becoming ineligible to represent that institution in intercollegiate athletics. The Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement may restore the eligibility of a student involved in such a violation only when circumstances clearly warrant restoration. A student is responsible for his or her involvement in a violation of NCAA regulations during the student’s recruitment, and involvement in a major violation (see Bylaw 19.02.2.2) may cause the student to become permanently ineligible for intercollegiate athletics competition at that institution.
You'll find out soon enough.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:04 pm to APIEE
quote:
That regulation specifies he must have "KNOWING INVOLVEMENT". If he didn't know he hasn't violated that rule.
So, just to recap, Cam can give 100% of the decision making to his father (which he has openly stated is why he went to Auburn), but when his father (who is now representing 100% of his recruitment decision) violates NCAA regulations Cam is unharmed because he didn't know?!?! Despite the fact he's not even part of the process anymore.
Riddle me this, would you be this adamant on this position if we replaced every rumor and every allegation with "Julio Jones" or "Patrick Peterson" instead of "Cam Newton"???
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:04 pm to APIEE
quote:
KNOWING INVOLVEMENT
What makes you think they are just going to take Cam and his dads word on the subject??
This isn't a court of law the NCAA is completely within their discretion to say "sorry we don't believe you, we think cam knew"
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:05 pm to APIEE
you are a fricking moron
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:09 pm to APIEE
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:11 pm to APIEE
Yea I agree with what it says.
HOWEVER
If the NCAA lets them get away with that, it allows open solicitation from any and every player that wants to do so as long as he isn't directly involved. So say grandma tell Mullen that she wants 100k for her grand son to go to MSU. They say no and then report the solicitation to the SEC and NCAA. Then she does the same solicitation to Auburn and they pay, and all parties agree to go tight lipped and deny deny deny.
Do you know how many times this will play out? You would basically be saying "It's ok to solicit pay for play. Just as long as the player isn;t directly in contact with any of the dealings"
Now go bury your head in the sand a little deeper.
HOWEVER
If the NCAA lets them get away with that, it allows open solicitation from any and every player that wants to do so as long as he isn't directly involved. So say grandma tell Mullen that she wants 100k for her grand son to go to MSU. They say no and then report the solicitation to the SEC and NCAA. Then she does the same solicitation to Auburn and they pay, and all parties agree to go tight lipped and deny deny deny.
Do you know how many times this will play out? You would basically be saying "It's ok to solicit pay for play. Just as long as the player isn;t directly in contact with any of the dealings"
Now go bury your head in the sand a little deeper.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:12 pm to APIEE
LINK
1) It is an interpretive thing, so don't get so excited that explicit terminology was not used. A Semantical word issue will not buy Cam and his father the free-and-clear release as you are saying
2) See the argument in the attached link. Yes, I know it is "just the bleacher report", but sometimes a squirrel finds a nut, and this article about "precedent" is as dead on as anything written on the subject you will find. The NCAA requires ZERO investigation to make this ruling. 100% of what is required is available to them at this very instant to make this call.
They need no specific additional information whatsoever, as all they need is
a)their interpretation of their already existing rulebook and
b)Cecil's admission.
This decision can be made tomorrow with out any additional information or information, and anything the FBI is investigating is not germane to the most salient issues at hand, which is cited in this article. Any other information is important in making other determinations, but is 100% not needed to make this call. If they let Cecil/Cam off, it is extremely clear what they are saying/allowing, and if they claim the have "no enforcement role" now, they will need to keep it that way indefinately as they cheapen their name and status.
1) It is an interpretive thing, so don't get so excited that explicit terminology was not used. A Semantical word issue will not buy Cam and his father the free-and-clear release as you are saying
2) See the argument in the attached link. Yes, I know it is "just the bleacher report", but sometimes a squirrel finds a nut, and this article about "precedent" is as dead on as anything written on the subject you will find. The NCAA requires ZERO investigation to make this ruling. 100% of what is required is available to them at this very instant to make this call.
They need no specific additional information whatsoever, as all they need is
a)their interpretation of their already existing rulebook and
b)Cecil's admission.
This decision can be made tomorrow with out any additional information or information, and anything the FBI is investigating is not germane to the most salient issues at hand, which is cited in this article. Any other information is important in making other determinations, but is 100% not needed to make this call. If they let Cecil/Cam off, it is extremely clear what they are saying/allowing, and if they claim the have "no enforcement role" now, they will need to keep it that way indefinately as they cheapen their name and status.
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 11:16 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:17 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
Geauxld Finger
I understand what you are saying but I don't know if the incentive is there like you think it is. What incentive is there to make solicitations if by doing so the player becomes ineligible to play for whomever the solicitation was made to? If the school gets caught paying a kid hammer them. The NCAA doesn't want to open the can of worms that is punishing them for stuff they don't even know about or for recruiting violations at other schools.
If you did that then School X could get School Y's player ineligible simply by offering or enticing a kid or his folks.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:22 pm to APIEE
The point is that if you open up solicitation as it is, then there is no foul for someone to ask for money. If they get ratted out for their asking its just hirsay. If they ask the other university and get what they want, then it all just gets kept quiet.
It basically opens the door to openly soliciting money. If the kid isn't directly involved he can;t get hurt. So even of the solicitation is reported, he won't go to that school anyway. So there is no harm really.
It basically opens the door to openly soliciting money. If the kid isn't directly involved he can;t get hurt. So even of the solicitation is reported, he won't go to that school anyway. So there is no harm really.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:27 pm to Geauxld Finger
Yeah well they could always close the loophole
going forward to prevent the scenario you speak of.
going forward to prevent the scenario you speak of.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 11:30 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
opens the door to openly soliciting money
without question. this is as simple as it gets. it is precedent setting. It is not the school that did wrong, it is the student via his father. Unfortunate for Cam (if you are stupid enough to believe he did not know), but the NCAA CANNOT allow this to go with an exception, as this would preclude them indefinitely from preventing this behavior. The NCAA cannot afford to do that, and everyone other than Auburn folks will readily and completely agree.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News