Started By
Message
re: If CN was ineligible as of Monday, . . .
Posted on 12/2/10 at 7:48 am to Diamondawg
Posted on 12/2/10 at 7:48 am to Diamondawg
Stolen from another board:
If everyone was as curious as I was as to why Auburn ruled Cam ineligible, here is why. Im sick of hearing thoughts and opinions, so I did some leg for for us all. Of course everything within a regulation is subject to interpretation. Attached is straight out of the NCAA rule book. I am still astonished that the NCAA came back by the deadline with the ruling they did. This is going to be long, but i summarized this out of 431 pages....and your going to see it first hand
31.2.1 Institutional Eligibility. To be eligible to enter teams or individual student-athletes in NCAA championships, an institution shall recognize the sport involved as a varsity intercollegiate sport (see Bylaw 17.02.12) and shall meet the institutional requirements set forth in Bylaw 18.4.2 applicable to the division in which the institution is a member or for which it is petitioning for eligibility in a sport. An institution that holds membership in a member conference may not enter teams or individuals in an NCAA championship unless they are eligible for such competition under the rules of that conference [see Bylaw 18.4.2.1-(a)].
31.2.1.2 Deadline. The institutional eligibility requirements for entry into NCAA championships (see Bylaw18.4.2) must be met by the following dates [in addition to the deadline for the academic reporting form required for Division I set forth in Bylaw 18.4.2.2-(c)]:
(a) September 15 for fall championships;
(b) December 1 for winter championships; and
(c) March 1 for spring championships.
.......I thought this was interesting considering that Auburn requested for an immediate ruling after dubbing him ineligible; the NCAA managed to get it back to them by December 1st....fast work, huh? and then follow it up with this rule...
31.2.1.7.1.1 Failure to Report Ineligible Student-Athlete Prior to Selection. If an institution fails to report an ineligible student-athlete prior to being selected to participate in the championship,the governing sports committee may declare the institution ineligible to participate in the tournament for one or two years.
.....so no wonder Auburn ruled him ineligible; however they waited until the very last minute...after the regular season.....
31.2.1.7.1.2 Discovery of Ineligibility of Student-Athlete After Selection. If an institution fails to report an ineligible student-athlete and the omission is not discovered until after the institution is selected to participate in the championship, necessitating the institution’s withdrawal from the championship, that withdrawal shall be considered as one of the years of ineligibility, provided another institution participates in the championship in place of the disqualified institution. If the discovery of the ineligible student-athlete occurs so near the beginning of the championship that the governing sports committee does not have a reasonable period of time to replace the disqualified institution in the
bracket, that fact shall be taken into consideration in determining the number of years the disqualified institution shall be ineligible to participate.
some additional tidbits:
12.1.2 Amateur Status. An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate
competition in a particular sport if the individual:
(a) Uses his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport;
............this was done indirectly through his father, with a statement made by Cam saying the pay was to good at Auburn.......
12.1.2.1 Prohibited Forms of Pay. “Pay,” as used in Bylaw 12.1.2 above, includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
12.1.2.1.4.6 Expenses for Parents/Legal Guardians of Participants in Athletics Competition. Expenses received by the parents or legal guardians of a participant in athletics competition from a nonprofessional organization sponsoring the competition in excess of actual and necessary travel, room and board expenses, or any entertainment expenses, unless such expenses are made available to the parents or legal guardians of all participants in the competition. (Adopted: 1/16/93, Revised: 1/11/97)
ill stop here, this is too long and nobody is probably even going to read to this point.....hope you got something out of this
If everyone was as curious as I was as to why Auburn ruled Cam ineligible, here is why. Im sick of hearing thoughts and opinions, so I did some leg for for us all. Of course everything within a regulation is subject to interpretation. Attached is straight out of the NCAA rule book. I am still astonished that the NCAA came back by the deadline with the ruling they did. This is going to be long, but i summarized this out of 431 pages....and your going to see it first hand
31.2.1 Institutional Eligibility. To be eligible to enter teams or individual student-athletes in NCAA championships, an institution shall recognize the sport involved as a varsity intercollegiate sport (see Bylaw 17.02.12) and shall meet the institutional requirements set forth in Bylaw 18.4.2 applicable to the division in which the institution is a member or for which it is petitioning for eligibility in a sport. An institution that holds membership in a member conference may not enter teams or individuals in an NCAA championship unless they are eligible for such competition under the rules of that conference [see Bylaw 18.4.2.1-(a)].
31.2.1.2 Deadline. The institutional eligibility requirements for entry into NCAA championships (see Bylaw18.4.2) must be met by the following dates [in addition to the deadline for the academic reporting form required for Division I set forth in Bylaw 18.4.2.2-(c)]:
(a) September 15 for fall championships;
(b) December 1 for winter championships; and
(c) March 1 for spring championships.
.......I thought this was interesting considering that Auburn requested for an immediate ruling after dubbing him ineligible; the NCAA managed to get it back to them by December 1st....fast work, huh? and then follow it up with this rule...
31.2.1.7.1.1 Failure to Report Ineligible Student-Athlete Prior to Selection. If an institution fails to report an ineligible student-athlete prior to being selected to participate in the championship,the governing sports committee may declare the institution ineligible to participate in the tournament for one or two years.
.....so no wonder Auburn ruled him ineligible; however they waited until the very last minute...after the regular season.....
31.2.1.7.1.2 Discovery of Ineligibility of Student-Athlete After Selection. If an institution fails to report an ineligible student-athlete and the omission is not discovered until after the institution is selected to participate in the championship, necessitating the institution’s withdrawal from the championship, that withdrawal shall be considered as one of the years of ineligibility, provided another institution participates in the championship in place of the disqualified institution. If the discovery of the ineligible student-athlete occurs so near the beginning of the championship that the governing sports committee does not have a reasonable period of time to replace the disqualified institution in the
bracket, that fact shall be taken into consideration in determining the number of years the disqualified institution shall be ineligible to participate.
some additional tidbits:
12.1.2 Amateur Status. An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate
competition in a particular sport if the individual:
(a) Uses his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport;
............this was done indirectly through his father, with a statement made by Cam saying the pay was to good at Auburn.......
12.1.2.1 Prohibited Forms of Pay. “Pay,” as used in Bylaw 12.1.2 above, includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
12.1.2.1.4.6 Expenses for Parents/Legal Guardians of Participants in Athletics Competition. Expenses received by the parents or legal guardians of a participant in athletics competition from a nonprofessional organization sponsoring the competition in excess of actual and necessary travel, room and board expenses, or any entertainment expenses, unless such expenses are made available to the parents or legal guardians of all participants in the competition. (Adopted: 1/16/93, Revised: 1/11/97)
ill stop here, this is too long and nobody is probably even going to read to this point.....hope you got something out of this
1
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:14 am to PuntBamaPunt
Excerpt from SI article prior to Camgate:
"Last December the choice of which college to attend came down to two schools—Auburn and Mississippi State. Newton preferred Starkville because of his close relationship with Bulldogs coach Dan Mullen, who had been Newton's offensive coordinator at Florida. But Cecil thought his son should choose Auburn, which had an experienced offensive line (four starters were returning) and was only a two-hour drive from Atlanta. Newton let his father make the final decision, and a few days before Christmas, while sitting at the dinner table in his brother's house in Jacksonville, Cecil Sr. uttered two words that would radically alter the college football landscape: "It's Auburn."
My question would be that if Cam, of legal adult age, had admittedly granted his father the power to determine which college he would attend shouldn't any actions of the father as authorized "agent" or representative of his son be an action attributable to Cam?
I realize there was no written contract between the two, but in my line of work entities can be punished or fined due to unlawful actions of a 3rd party they hire for services.
I mean we aren't talking about a minor child. We are talking about an adult whose father (not a cousin, uncle or high school coach) solicited money on behalf of his son, who expressly granted to his father the decision making power in choosing his college.
If the father is deemed to have violated a rule or policy then what is the punishment? None?
If only the delivery of benefits constitutes a violation that is truly absurd. It would seem to me that a solicitation is just as egregious as the assumption can be made that acceptance of extra benefits would be a foregone conclusion if agreed upon. Give the schools credit for saying "no".
"Last December the choice of which college to attend came down to two schools—Auburn and Mississippi State. Newton preferred Starkville because of his close relationship with Bulldogs coach Dan Mullen, who had been Newton's offensive coordinator at Florida. But Cecil thought his son should choose Auburn, which had an experienced offensive line (four starters were returning) and was only a two-hour drive from Atlanta. Newton let his father make the final decision, and a few days before Christmas, while sitting at the dinner table in his brother's house in Jacksonville, Cecil Sr. uttered two words that would radically alter the college football landscape: "It's Auburn."
My question would be that if Cam, of legal adult age, had admittedly granted his father the power to determine which college he would attend shouldn't any actions of the father as authorized "agent" or representative of his son be an action attributable to Cam?
I realize there was no written contract between the two, but in my line of work entities can be punished or fined due to unlawful actions of a 3rd party they hire for services.
I mean we aren't talking about a minor child. We are talking about an adult whose father (not a cousin, uncle or high school coach) solicited money on behalf of his son, who expressly granted to his father the decision making power in choosing his college.
If the father is deemed to have violated a rule or policy then what is the punishment? None?
If only the delivery of benefits constitutes a violation that is truly absurd. It would seem to me that a solicitation is just as egregious as the assumption can be made that acceptance of extra benefits would be a foregone conclusion if agreed upon. Give the schools credit for saying "no".
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:23 am to LSUChamps03
quote:
My question would be that if Cam, of legal adult age, had admittedly granted his father the power to determine which college he would attend shouldn't any actions of the father as authorized "agent" or representative of his son be an action attributable to Cam?
Up to now, there has never been a distinction between the parent and the student-athlete. Yesterday's comments by NCAA VP Kevin Lennon radically changed all of this. It is new world in college football. It is the Wild West now.....it is going to get crazier than any of us can imagine.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 8:25 am to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
It is the Wild West now.....it is going to get crazier than any of us can imagine
People gonna be asking for money they never receive (remember those are the facts now as they stand, of course that can change).
What ever will we do?
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:09 am to piggidyphish
Will change the entire foundation of college ball
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:36 am to piggidyphish
quote:
piggidyphish
If CN was ineligible as of Monday, . . .
quote:
It is the Wild West now.....it is going to get crazier than any of us can imagine
People gonna be asking for money they never receive (remember those are the facts now as they stand, of course that can change).
What ever will we do?
Well that's a moronic statement if I've ever read one. What he's saying is with the current ruling of eligible at this times, it opens the door for parents & others close to the recruit to start asking for (or demanding) money to get said recruit's signature without fear of the recruit getting in any trouble. If a deal is made and money does end up changing hands then obviously they would be in trouble, but in those solicitor's minds, they'll cross that bridge when they get there. It's going to make recruiting a lot harder even for your precious weagles.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:53 am to Schwaaz
quote:
SEC will strip them of their SEC championship as will the BCS but not the AP. The AP would have to vote to do that.
Because Cam was ruled ineligible then reinstated before the SEC championship game, the national championship game, and the heisman vote, he will be eligible for all three.
Even if later the crap hits the fan and he is ruled ineligible for the rest of this season, Auburn will have to vacate or forfeit the 12 wins he played in, but not the last two (SEC championship and NC game) because he was eligible for those two. He will also get to keep his heisman because he was ruled eligible before the vote.
This is a bunch of bull hockey that the SEC head office has drummed up with the NCAA and lawyers to help get AU it's first NC since 1957 and to help the SEC keep the national championship streak going.
Also, Slive is salivating over the $17 million AU can get by going to the national championship game.
Screw the by-laws; win at all costs.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:55 am to Hootie
2-0 BCSNC? haha. how about just 0-2 without Cam Newton.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:59 am to piggidyphish
quote:
People gonna be asking for money they never receive (remember those are the facts now as they stand, of course that can change).
What ever will we do?
You are a f'ing idiot! That's EXACTLY what the NCAA should want to prevent -- parents having a free pass to even ASK for money. But that's what the NCAA has just sanctioned. ASK all you want. If a school pays, do you seriously think this story gets out? In that case, we're encouraging non-compliance. If a school does not pay, simply commit somewhere else and no one gets in any trouble.
The NCAA's ruling yesterday is just like the intentional grounding call in college, the penalty of which is loss of down and ball placed at the spot of the foul. In other words, if a QB is about to get sacked, he's got nothing to lose to intentionally ground the ball, because maybe he'll get away with it. If not, oh well, same outcome at the sack. Nothing to lose. Thanks, NCAA, for extending this to recruiting methods.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:08 am to Hootie
Ask USC about all those wins after OJ Mayo was ruled eligibile by the NCAA....
When facts change so does his eligibility. If they paid for him he's ineligible to participate in any games this season.
When facts change so does his eligibility. If they paid for him he's ineligible to participate in any games this season.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:29 am to LSUChamps03
quote:
granted his father the power to determine which college he would attend shouldn't any actions of the father as authorized "agent" or representative of his son be an action attributable to Cam?
Being deemed an agent or does not mean an agent can act outside of the scope of his agency. e.g. Self Deal
A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a business. In the case of a corporation, since a corporation is a fictitious legal person, it can only act through human agents. The principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so long as the agent performs within the scope of the agency.
A third party may rely in good faith on the representation by a person who identifies himself as an agent for another. If it is subsequently found that the alleged agent was acting without necessary authority, the agent will generally be held liable.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News