Started By
Message
My interpretation of the bylaws...
Posted on 11/13/10 at 3:29 am
Posted on 11/13/10 at 3:29 am
The only rule I can find in the bylaws that may pertain to Cam Newton is this:
Obviously, that means that ineligibility due to violations at one school may not apply to another school.
No rules about "soliciting benefits" are mentioned in the 2010-2011 bylaws anywhere. Everything is about players being ineligible after actually receiving payment, not soliciting payment. If the Newtons didn't take any money, Cam should have been eligible up to this point.
The statement by the NCAA spokeswoman worries me a bit, “The solicitation of cash or benefits by either a potential student-athlete or another person on their behalf is not allowed under N.C.A.A. rules.” From what I can find, it does not say this anywhere in the 2010-2011 NCAA rules, which leaves two options: the spokesperson doesn't know what the frick they are talking about and Cam is eligible at Auburn or the NCAA has recently made an amendment to the bylaws. If they made an amendment, they are creating new rules specifically to make Cam ineligible. Because bylaw 13.01.1 only applies ineligibility from recruiting violations to one university, the next big question would be whether or not the new rule only applies to the university that was solicited or if it makes him ineligible at all universities. Either way, Auburn would be safe from having to vacate wins up to this point because there was no rule up until now, but it could possibly keep Auburn from playing Cam for the rest of the year.
I'm by no means an expert, so take what I say as simply my opinion. Feel free to dispute what I've said and offer your own opinion. Here are the bylaws if anyone wants to see if they can find anything I missed:
LINK
Now, call me a delusional Aubie all you want...
quote:
13.01.1 Eligibility Effects of Recruiting Violation. The recruitment of a student-athlete by a member institution or any representative of its athletics interests in violation of the Association’s legislation, as acknowledged by the institution or established through the Association’s enforcement procedures, shall result in the student-athlete becoming ineligible to represent that institution in intercollegiate athletics.
Obviously, that means that ineligibility due to violations at one school may not apply to another school.
No rules about "soliciting benefits" are mentioned in the 2010-2011 bylaws anywhere. Everything is about players being ineligible after actually receiving payment, not soliciting payment. If the Newtons didn't take any money, Cam should have been eligible up to this point.
The statement by the NCAA spokeswoman worries me a bit, “The solicitation of cash or benefits by either a potential student-athlete or another person on their behalf is not allowed under N.C.A.A. rules.” From what I can find, it does not say this anywhere in the 2010-2011 NCAA rules, which leaves two options: the spokesperson doesn't know what the frick they are talking about and Cam is eligible at Auburn or the NCAA has recently made an amendment to the bylaws. If they made an amendment, they are creating new rules specifically to make Cam ineligible. Because bylaw 13.01.1 only applies ineligibility from recruiting violations to one university, the next big question would be whether or not the new rule only applies to the university that was solicited or if it makes him ineligible at all universities. Either way, Auburn would be safe from having to vacate wins up to this point because there was no rule up until now, but it could possibly keep Auburn from playing Cam for the rest of the year.
I'm by no means an expert, so take what I say as simply my opinion. Feel free to dispute what I've said and offer your own opinion. Here are the bylaws if anyone wants to see if they can find anything I missed:
LINK
Now, call me a delusional Aubie all you want...
This post was edited on 11/13/10 at 12:23 pm
6
Posted on 11/13/10 at 3:38 am to e2drummer
Delusional aubie 
Posted on 11/13/10 at 3:56 am to e2drummer
Mississippi State's getting the death penalty!!!
Posted on 11/13/10 at 4:23 am to Lee County Tiger
Posted on 11/13/10 at 7:01 am to e2drummer
You post on the ITAT board....Nothing else needs to be said, Your team is toast.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:24 pm to e2drummer
bump. I want to see someone make a good argument against what I've posted. 
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:26 pm to e2drummer
10.4 DISCIPLINARY ACTION [#]
Prospective or enrolled student-athletes found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be ineligible for further intercollegiate competition, subject to appeal to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for restoration of eligibility. (See Bylaw 10.3.2 for sanctions of student-athletes involved in violations of Bylaw 10.3.)Institutional staff members found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.2 of the NCAA enforcement procedures, whether such violations occurred at the certifying institution or during the individual’s previous employment at another member institution.
(Revised: 1/10/90, 4/27/00 effective 8/1/00, 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
Prospective or enrolled student-athletes found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be ineligible for further intercollegiate competition, subject to appeal to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for restoration of eligibility. (See Bylaw 10.3.2 for sanctions of student-athletes involved in violations of Bylaw 10.3.)Institutional staff members found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.2 of the NCAA enforcement procedures, whether such violations occurred at the certifying institution or during the individual’s previous employment at another member institution.
(Revised: 1/10/90, 4/27/00 effective 8/1/00, 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:26 pm to e2drummer
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:34 pm to BobBoucher
But for 10.4 to matter,
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;
Can we prove that Cam knew? Until we can, he's eligible.
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;
Can we prove that Cam knew? Until we can, he's eligible.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:35 pm to e2drummer
I can
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:38 pm to e2drummer
quote:
My interpretation of the bylaws...
But for 10.4 to matter,
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;
Can we prove that Cam knew? Until we can, he's eligible.
This is not going before the Supreme Court skooter....It is what it is and the NCAA can do what ever it damn well pleases.
Enjoy it while you can...
This post was edited on 11/13/10 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:43 pm to e2drummer
quote:
Obviously, that means that ineligibility due to violations at one school may not apply to another school.
No it doesn't. It means if Miss State was the one that came to Cam and said "we'll pay you x amount of dollars for your signature" then he'd be ineligible to play there. Cam's case, however,r evolves around his dad being the one to solicit money form the school, not the other way around
As for payment and how it affects amateur status, consult section 12.1.2 of the rule book.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:45 pm to tylerdurden24
No offense, but it really doesn't matter how you, memphis, or anyone other than the NCAA interprets the damn rules.
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:45 pm to e2drummer
Does the quote "The money is too much" seem like Cam was aware, because it does to me. Not to mention he wanted to go to MSU but ended up at AUburn, and it wasn't just a sudden change of heart
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:47 pm to Aubie Spr96
That's not me interpreting the rules. That's me correcting his misuse of the wrong rule. Miss State werent the ones who approached Cam about payment, it was Cam's dad that supposedly approached MIss State. Hence that particular rule wouldnt fit this particular scenario
Posted on 11/13/10 at 12:48 pm to e2drummer
You are looking at the wrong rule. Look at Rule 10, Ethics. It says that if a prospective athlete is engaged in soliciting extra-curricular offers, he is ineligible at all instititions until the NCAA reinstates his eligibility. I posted the rules in another post. Auburn is not in trouble unless they knew about the Cam allegations and played him anyway. They were supposed to petition the NCAA to clear him eligibility. If Auburn waits and plays him anyway, the NCAA can hammer Auburn.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News