Started By
Message
re: "...a giant loophole in the recruiting process has been exposed."
Posted on 12/3/10 at 9:30 am to RT1941
Posted on 12/3/10 at 9:30 am to RT1941
quote:
Picture a baseball player drafted
This is puzzling to me. There are several baseball players at NCAA schools who have already negotiated and signed contracts to play Pro Ball yet are still allowed to play at their college. At least one of which currently plays football(Parker).
How are they allowed to do this?
0
Posted on 12/3/10 at 9:43 am to militarycut
quote:
The reasoning for ruling in the quarterback's favor was that there isn't enough evidence that he or anyone from Auburn knew about the pay-for-play scheme.
The way I see it, the NCAA's decision is logically flawed in the Cam Newton scenario. Cam Newton has publicly stated that he left the entire decision on which school to attend to his father. As a result, I find it completely illogical for the NCAA to give Cam this "plausible deniability." By giving his father complete discretion, he should be held accountable for the actions of his father.
And, for anyone with an IQ above 10 (this, of course, pretty much excludes anyone associated with Auburn), this should be all the "proof" you need to see that Cam KNEW.
This post was edited on 12/3/10 at 9:50 am
Posted on 12/3/10 at 9:44 am to AnakinTWH
quote:My thoughts exactly. Thanks for expressing them so well.
AnakinTWH
In addition, I am totally unaware of any instance where the NCAA severely punished a school for solicitation in the absence of any other major violation. Every other case that has been cited where solicitation was listed, it has been merely one of a list of other charges.
That may in fact be the case with Cam, but the NCAA has found no evidence to support that contention. No matter how much of a jerk he is, or how much of a liar his father is.
This case isn't over, but the idea that the recent ruling exposed some sort of 'loophole' for a school to get away with major violations of any kind is totally unfounded.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:11 pm to AUTigLN11
Quote
AUTigLN11
________________________________________________
There is no loophole and there is no "Pandora's Box". You can't give a player money then, you can't now, and you won't be able to in the future. Who gives a rat's dick if you have a conversation about money that can't change hands?
_______________________________________________
Are we sure no money was exchanged?
AUTigLN11
________________________________________________
There is no loophole and there is no "Pandora's Box". You can't give a player money then, you can't now, and you won't be able to in the future. Who gives a rat's dick if you have a conversation about money that can't change hands?
_______________________________________________
Are we sure no money was exchanged?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:21 pm to Roymg
quote:
This is puzzling to me. There are several baseball players at NCAA schools who have already negotiated and signed contracts to play Pro Ball yet are still allowed to play at their college. At least one of which currently plays football(Parker). How are they allowed to do this?
Cause that player signed a MLB contract and plays football at Clemson(i think). C Weinke and many 25 year old quarterbacks have come back with eligibility in other sports and been totally legit.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:24 pm to cigtyme
But Parker is currently under contract with an MLB team yet he is playing for Clemson.
Can he play Baseball for Clemson?
Can he play Baseball for Clemson?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:41 pm to BRTiger2005
quote:This is the heart of the matter. They knowingly played an ineligible player and the NCAA let them do it.
He was ruled ineligible for less than 24 hours. What new evidence did AU receive that they didn't have prior to the UGA game? Or 4 days earlier before the Bama game? You're telling me they didn't have any reason to believe violations were committed prior to those games?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 4:15 pm to Coach in Waiting
It is so amazing to me that you AUburn folks don't see the issue here.
Let's illustrate why this is an issue:
Take the exact Cam Newton case and remove Cecil Newton from the equation completely. If this were a case just involving evidence that Kenny Rogers and a guy named Bob Smith attempted to get MSU to pay 180000 for Cam Newton to go to MSU, was turned down, and then after that Newton decided to go to another school after being attached to MSU for a good bit of time. Again...no news of Cecil anywhere. We just have Rogers and Bob Smith asking for money for Cam signing.
After the NCAA uncovered proof of the violation, how would they go about proving or disproving whether Cam Newton knew about it and authorized it?
The answer is they would look for evidence of connection between the parties involved. Were their phone calls during that time between the parties that would confirm case details with the timeline? Have the parties ever met and when along the timeline? What kind of relationship exists between the parties involved and the player?
IMO, if those were the details here, the investigation would have included the entire Newton family nucleaus and ANY major timeline confirming connections involving his family would have gotten him suspended.
In the USC case (which i know is vastly different...not going there) the connection between the University and the agents involved was made from one photo (which included the agents, the RB, and a celebrity) and one two and a half minute phone call from the agent to the coach. There was no "proof" in the hard terms as we are speaking of it being needed in the Newton case. Once they connected the coach to the agents at all...done deal for USC.
The NCAA in this case decided to implement a criteria that renders things unprovable. They don't want players or their parents out fishing for payouts whether they receive it or not. The NCAA regards that as a violation of its rules. With this case and the standard they chose to apply they made it just about impossible to deter parents of players from soliciting whoever they want. Under this standard of proof it is UNPROVABLE THAT A PLAYER KNOWS OR DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HIS PARENT IS INVOLVED IN.
Let's illustrate why this is an issue:
Take the exact Cam Newton case and remove Cecil Newton from the equation completely. If this were a case just involving evidence that Kenny Rogers and a guy named Bob Smith attempted to get MSU to pay 180000 for Cam Newton to go to MSU, was turned down, and then after that Newton decided to go to another school after being attached to MSU for a good bit of time. Again...no news of Cecil anywhere. We just have Rogers and Bob Smith asking for money for Cam signing.
After the NCAA uncovered proof of the violation, how would they go about proving or disproving whether Cam Newton knew about it and authorized it?
The answer is they would look for evidence of connection between the parties involved. Were their phone calls during that time between the parties that would confirm case details with the timeline? Have the parties ever met and when along the timeline? What kind of relationship exists between the parties involved and the player?
IMO, if those were the details here, the investigation would have included the entire Newton family nucleaus and ANY major timeline confirming connections involving his family would have gotten him suspended.
In the USC case (which i know is vastly different...not going there) the connection between the University and the agents involved was made from one photo (which included the agents, the RB, and a celebrity) and one two and a half minute phone call from the agent to the coach. There was no "proof" in the hard terms as we are speaking of it being needed in the Newton case. Once they connected the coach to the agents at all...done deal for USC.
The NCAA in this case decided to implement a criteria that renders things unprovable. They don't want players or their parents out fishing for payouts whether they receive it or not. The NCAA regards that as a violation of its rules. With this case and the standard they chose to apply they made it just about impossible to deter parents of players from soliciting whoever they want. Under this standard of proof it is UNPROVABLE THAT A PLAYER KNOWS OR DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HIS PARENT IS INVOLVED IN.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 4:23 pm to AnakinTWH
quote:
And I should take some random person on the internet's word over what Auburn and the NCAA so far have revealed? Not exactly credible.
Don't want to believe me? Ok, i don't have a problem with that. How about your own Senior AD for Compliance:
"If a person, in this case Kenny Rogers, was acting on behalf of the school, then it's the school's problem. If that person acted on behalf of the family without their knowledge then the player is eligible. If the person acted on behalf OF the family and ANYBODY in the family had knowledge of the action then there is a problem. As we have said, the Newton family, his dad, and Cam himself have said there was no contact."
- Rich McGlynn, Senior Athletic Director for Compliance
This statement was made by YOUR head of compliance BEFORE the voicemails were handed over and Cecil eventually changed course and admitted guilt. Now, let's compare this with the NCAA's statements:
"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 Press Release
So you'd rather trust Auburn and the NCAA? Here's a recap: Auburn said Cam/Cecil knew nothing, BUT if either of them did it'd be a problem. Weeks later Cecil admits he actually DID KNOW, and the NCAA confirms.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 4:49 pm to BRTiger2005
I never denied the fact that there was information relating to confirming contact between Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers. I'm just wondering how you know they are voicemails. I think the proof they have is Cecil confessing. I just wanted to know how you knew what kind of evidence there was against Newton.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:07 pm to AnakinTWH
quote:
I never denied the fact that there was information relating to confirming contact between Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers. I'm just wondering how you know they are voicemails. I think the proof they have is Cecil confessing. I just wanted to know how you knew what kind of evidence there was against Newton.
You're right. Bill Bell has acknowledged multiple times handing over voicemails to the NCAA, but he was apparently lying as well? I certainly don't want to get into a pointless semantics debate if we BOTH agree Cecil is guilty.
What I'm more interested in, is the fact that BEFORE Cecil confessed AU said that if he knew it would be a problem, but not to worry because nobody had any contact at all. Yet AFTER they find out he was lying and he confessed....it's not a problem after all?
Please explain....
This post was edited on 12/3/10 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:44 pm to militarycut
quote:
"...a giant loophole in the recruiting process has been exposed."
It hasn't been exposed... It's been CREATED. Case-specific/Situational interpretation by the NCAA's investigators and (to an even greater degree) the SEC's "enforcers" have opened up the floodgates of "plausible deniability" to irrigate the recruiting landscape.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News