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.”

The intent of this bylaw was clearly written from the perspective of schools offering money to gain an advantage. If an athlete/family received or agreed to receive a benefit, they were guilty. Therefore, if the kid was caught before the transaction took place or if the transaction agreed upon fell through, he was guilty. Furthermore, if they had the evidence of the agreement (tape or witnesses), the SEC could enforce the rule without evidence of the actual transaction.

As reprehensible as it is, there is no unfair advantage created by a father soliciting money from an institution and not receiving anything. For Clay to read this rule a contrario does not make sense.

quote:
According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete’s father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment to attend college and play football. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship. Cecil Newton cannot be telling the truth if the NCAA is correct in its statement.

Marketing the student does not equal representation if the kid does not know the parties are marketing him (not just being dad). I understand the argument that Cam probably knew but if he did not....

quote:
The crime of criminal solicitation

Clay gives the crime of criminal solicitation not the crime of what ever is being solicited. Generally, solicitation has its own statute for the same reasons Cam is not being held accountable for his father. Solicitation is not equal to agreeing to receive.

A contract class would spend a month on both offer and acceptance.

Further, It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.

Did his dad say bad idea, I screwed up? Cam, go to Auburn?

After quickly reading, my point at 3:20 without researching this is: It is not indisputable.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by ironsides

Nashville, TN

Member since May 2006

8153 posts

Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:45 am to Tigerlaw28

Why is everybody assuming that the us court system is applicable to the NCAA? Double jeopardy is in play etc;

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by tigersruledude

Member since Oct 2005

1484 posts

Posted on 12/3/10 at 9:38 am to Tigerlaw28

quote:
The intent of this bylaw was clearly written from the perspective of schools offering money to gain an advantage. If an athlete/family received or agreed to receive a benefit, they were guilty. Therefore, if the kid was caught before the transaction took place or if the transaction agreed upon fell through, he was guilty. Furthermore, if they had the evidence of the agreement (tape or witnesses), the SEC could enforce the rule without evidence of the actual transaction.

Uopon further thought of this I agree with you on this.

The By-Law is written with contract law in mind I think. Normal contracts have the 3 things (I am probably listing these wrong)

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Payment

The SEC By-Law is just basically stating that the first two items are sufficient for a violation. It alleviates the need for them to find a payment and prove it.

It is I think an ill-considered rule and will be ammended in the future.

The problem here is that the rules seem to change based on certain situations and it makes little sense.

Consider that:

If a student's father receives an extra benefit - the student would be ineligible regardless of his knowledge or lack of knowledge of the payment.

If a students father is soliciting payment (or their is no proof of payment...only the solicitation) then the student has to have knowledge of it happening to be a violation.

This odd arrangement of the way things are handled is what has caused this controversy for the NCAA.

In the wake of the NEwton situation, I believe THIS is what the NCAA will be ammending in its rules. They need to make a decision.

The KNOWLEDGE of the player either matters or it doesn't. It makes ZERO sense for it to matter only up until money changes hands. I am actually fine either way. Each direction holds its own challenges.

2 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board