Started By
Message
re: considering Bell confirmed last night Newton did ask for money
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:35 am to geauxjo
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:35 am to geauxjo
quote:
Confirm MSU boosters stories are true. (FWIW-I believe them).
2. Determine AUs involvment, if any.
3. Determine if any money actually changed hands.
quote:You could be right, but as of now they haven't declared him ineligible, so they must need more before they are willing to do so. How much more? IDK.
For you maybe, but it's hilarious if you think the NCAA needs any of that to decide that Newton is ineligible. Ask us about Lester Earl sometime.
This post was edited on 11/12/10 at 11:36 am
1
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:37 am to BamaScoop
quote:
Cam is their entire team.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:37 am to WDE24
quote:
You could be right, but as of now they haven't declared him ineligible, so they must need more before they are willing to do so. How much more? IDK.
I doubt they really need more... its been coming so fast they are probably just trying to keep up and organize everything they have to present it to someone who can make a decision.
Think about it.. every time you think this shite has plateau'd, something new comes out.
This post was edited on 11/12/10 at 11:39 am
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:38 am to WDE24
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong. All they have to do is determine that the Newton's were soliciting the pay for play, which has basically already been proven. We're not talking about what has to happen for Auburn to get put on probation, we're talking about Newton not playing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what we are talking about, but people assume that because the letter of the rule says solicitation is against NCAA rules that perpetual ineligibility is automatically assumed. I don't know if it is or isn't, but an attorney in Montgomerey, who may be the foremost attorney in defending players/schools against the NCAA, went on record as saying he didn't believe solicitation is enough to rule a player ineligible.
Also, I have yet to see anything relating to a given penalty should solicitation be proven. The NCAA has a lot of different types of violations with differing penalties (ie secondary violations that are pretty meaningless). With one of the foremost experts on the matter stating that to his knowledge a player has never been ruled ineligible for this, what exactly are all the people basing the automatic vacating of all wins for solicitation on?
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:38 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
who is bell?
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:40 am to dreaux
quote:
dreaux
considering Bell confirmed last night Newton did ask for money
who is bell?
MSU booster.
Lives in Destin, or close to it (I think).
Was contacted by Rogers asking for money.
Currently in Costa Rica (as of last Friday).
Connected with John Bond.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:42 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
That has been my point all along in this thread. I do not know one way or the other, but it seems to me everyone on here just assumed automatic ineligibility and I haven't seen anyone state why they assume that. That very well might be the punishment, but has anyone confirmed that?
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:42 am to joeyb147
ok. thanks.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:42 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
dude, they suspend that green kid at georgia for what? 4 games or something for selling a damn jersey he wore to someone and your telling me that the NCAA would not consider cam ineligible for the remainder of this season? I am not debating whether Auburn or MSU will get the hit here but how the hell can they not sit newton afet rwhat they pull on other players eligibility for minor stuff? Seems Auburn will be in a hell of a bind for not sitting him when the punishment phase begins..
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:43 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
I said this last night and I will say it again today. Just because attorney Jackson says that the precendent is for the NCAA to not rule a player ineligible, just for solicitation, doesn't count for shite.
The NCAA does not, repeat does not, follow precedent the same way an appellete court does. The doctrine of stare decisis isn't something they give a shite about.
The NCAA does not, repeat does not, follow precedent the same way an appellete court does. The doctrine of stare decisis isn't something they give a shite about.
This post was edited on 11/12/10 at 11:45 am
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:44 am to pittmanmt
I am not saying you are wrong, but the Green case is not similar at all. He actually received an extra benefit. We still don't know if Cam ever did.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:46 am to NBamaAlum
That is not entirely true. They don't rely on precedent to the extent the court system does, but past precedent is exactly how Ole Miss was succesful in its appeal to get Masoli eligible. So it must count for something. I do agree though that it is not the end all be all.
Are you in law school? Just wondering, not flaming you at all.
Are you in law school? Just wondering, not flaming you at all.
This post was edited on 11/12/10 at 11:48 am
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:47 am to pittmanmt
Rogers' story on the meeting with the MSU coaches at the Hilton is going to prevent barners from saying Cecil knew nothing about it it was Rogers trying to get money himself. Sounds like there will be 3 people witnessing Cecils knowledge of this.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:47 am to NBamaAlum
Ok. If you say so on not following precedent. I don't know. I know how the courts work and Stare decisis, but the NCAA does at least need to have some degree of consitancy in its rulings. Maybe they are not governed by anything in particular, but I maintain a certain degree of consitency in its rulings is a necessity.
And I concede they could change course from past precedent in this case, but it sure as hell is not a given like people on here seem to think.
And I concede they could change course from past precedent in this case, but it sure as hell is not a given like people on here seem to think.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:48 am to WDE24
i use the green case as an example from the standpoint that in my opinion which along with a dollar might get you a cup of coffee is that if they suspend a player for selling a jersey how can they not at least suspend a player who has these allegations hanging over them? It is obvious big daddy cecil benefited somehow here otherwise the FBI would certainly not have their hands in it and i doubt bell and this other guy would be hiring attorneys and talking about this as they could be in big trouble as well from a legal standpoint if this was false information..
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:49 am to WDE24
quote:
That is not entirely true. They don't rely on precedent to the extent the court system does, but past precedent is exactly how Ole Miss was succesful in its appeal to get Masoli eligible.
The sanctity of it is simply just not there. Yes, they may use it. But ask an Alabama fan if they won't reverse a position quicker than a California CoA..
quote:
Are you in law school? Just wondering, not flaming you at all.
Nope. Card toting.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:51 am to WDE24
quote:
I do not know one way or the other, but it seems to me everyone on here just assumed automatic ineligibility and I haven't seen anyone state why they assume that. That very well might be the punishment, but has anyone confirmed that?
not sure if you're serious
but if you ask for money or have an agent then you become ineligible player
and if a team plays an ineligible player they vacate the wins... if a team knowingly plays an ineligible player they should expect sanctions
This doesn't even extend to the point that if someone associated with Auburn paid Cam there's going to be consequences for that as well
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:51 am to pittmanmt
Well, life and consequences are not fair. I saw something the other day on show about a certain court case. In it, they noted in Missouri, sex trafficking can carry the same penalty as crossing state lines with weed (which can be considering trafficking a controlled substance). In either case the penalty was 5 years in jail.
Why the reason the punishment does not always fit the crime was coined.
Why the reason the punishment does not always fit the crime was coined.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:52 am to lctiger
quote:
lctiger
considering Bell confirmed last night Newton did ask for money
Rogers' story on the meeting with the MSU coaches at the Hilton is going to prevent barners from saying Cecil knew nothing about it it was Rogers trying to get money himself. Sounds like there will be 3 people witnessing Cecils knowledge of this.
So you think MSU coaches will confirm meeting with an agent and parent in the same room?
If they did this, and DIDN'T REPORT IT...... that is purty serious.
Posted on 11/12/10 at 11:53 am to molsusports
at the end of the day whether something happens this year or next i am surprised the upper crust at Auburn is allowing chizik to play him seems like a hell of a gamble for the school..
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News