Started By
Message
re: NCAA had no choice
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:07 pm to partsman103
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:07 pm to partsman103
Point is, you can't just rule someone ineligible because someone they know wanted money for a commitment. It doesn't matter if it's his coach, parent, acting agent, cuz, best friend, or some crackhead off the street.
If Cam didn't know, he didn't know. You have to prove he knew. You would be creating a precedent in which friends, even enemies could approach schools with the same proposition, and there would have to be daily reports to the NCAA in mass numbers.
NCAA couldn't set that precedent.
If Cam didn't know, he didn't know. You have to prove he knew. You would be creating a precedent in which friends, even enemies could approach schools with the same proposition, and there would have to be daily reports to the NCAA in mass numbers.
NCAA couldn't set that precedent.
This post was edited on 12/2/10 at 2:08 pm
4
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:10 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
Point is, you can't just rule someone ineligible because someone they know wanted money for a commitment. It doesn't matter if it's his coach, parent, acting agent, cuz, best friend, or some crackhead off the street.
If Cam didn't know, he didn't know. You have to prove he knew. You would be creating a precedent in which friends, even enemies could approach schools with the same proposition, and there would have to be daily reports to the NCAA in mass numbers.
NCAA couldn't set that precedent.
But by reinstating Johnny Stud Muffin, I think they have set a precedent.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:17 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
Point is, you can't just rule someone ineligible because someone they know wanted money for a commitment. It doesn't matter if it's his coach, parent, acting agent, cuz, best friend, or some crackhead off the street.
If Cam didn't know, he didn't know. You have to prove he knew. You would be creating a precedent in which friends, even enemies could approach schools with the same proposition, and there would have to be daily reports to the NCAA in mass numbers.
NCAA couldn't set that precedent.
Supposedly Means in the Bama case did not know his mother and high school coach were shopping him right?
That wasn't viewed as a defense by Alabama
Prior rulings and clarifications from the NCAA have seemed to treat the parent and recruit as the same (not knowing is not a defense and/or no credibility given to the idea they didn't know).
Posted on 12/2/10 at 2:37 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
If Cam didn't know, he didn't know. You have to prove he knew. You would be creating a precedent in which friends, even enemies could approach schools with the same proposition, and there would have to be daily reports to the NCAA in mass numbers.
Cam knew .
Posted on 12/2/10 at 3:24 pm to ThatAUguy
quote:
Point is, you can't just rule someone ineligible because someone they know wanted money for a commitment. It doesn't matter if it's his coach, parent, acting agent, cuz, best friend, or some crackhead off the street.
You can't just throw parent in that list. That is the issue as far as precedent setting. It would not be setting up any issue to firmly state that the player and immediate family are one entity as far as violations are concerned.
There is almost no way to "prove" that a player knows what his parents are doing. Normal avenues of doing that don't apply (phone calls, etc.)
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News