Started By
Message
re: NCAA: Cam Newton Is Eligible to Compete
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:07 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:07 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Why do people keep saying something so stupid??
Cam would have been ineligible at MSU, even without knowledge. The rules state the player is ineligible at the institution where money was solicited from.
So, in the scenario which dumbasses keep repeating, the player would be ineligible at every institution which was solicited. So, no a player cannot be shopped around.
And the NCAA found no evidence Cam was shopped to AU, only MSU.
---------------------
So exactly why Auburn declare him ineligible? If there was no wrong doing on Auburn's part. Was it because of what happened at MSU the reason Auburn declared him ineligible?
quote:
Why do people keep saying something so stupid??
Cam would have been ineligible at MSU, even without knowledge. The rules state the player is ineligible at the institution where money was solicited from.
So, in the scenario which dumbasses keep repeating, the player would be ineligible at every institution which was solicited. So, no a player cannot be shopped around.
And the NCAA found no evidence Cam was shopped to AU, only MSU.
---------------------
So exactly why Auburn declare him ineligible? If there was no wrong doing on Auburn's part. Was it because of what happened at MSU the reason Auburn declared him ineligible?
1
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:07 pm to MaroonNation
quote:
MaroonNation
Get ready for your pain is coming. The NCAA is coming to Starkville to play.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:08 pm to michaeldwde
quote:
You can't say that we aubies are naive and not have some sort of proof that Cameron and Auburn are guilty
uhh.. they said in that statement, amateurism violations occured.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:08 pm to OneMoreTime
As was Reggie Bush.
I think people forget that the NCAA ruled Masoli ineligible without enough evidence for their ruling, and it was overturned. Had they declared him eligible initially, they could have investigated further. With the way this season has come forth, the NCAA had pressure to make a decision. By declaring him eligible now, it gives them more power to investigate.
It's counter-intuitive, but to take any more from this at this point is desperate and grasping at straws, considering the magnitude this case has on the whole canvas of the college football scene. No one knows how this is going to end up.
I think people forget that the NCAA ruled Masoli ineligible without enough evidence for their ruling, and it was overturned. Had they declared him eligible initially, they could have investigated further. With the way this season has come forth, the NCAA had pressure to make a decision. By declaring him eligible now, it gives them more power to investigate.
It's counter-intuitive, but to take any more from this at this point is desperate and grasping at straws, considering the magnitude this case has on the whole canvas of the college football scene. No one knows how this is going to end up.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:10 pm to bayourant
Whether or not Auburn, Miss St., or Cecil Newton get in trouble remains to be seen. I tried to tell you guys they couldn't pin a thing on Cam. They had zero proof. It's simple. You can't be convicted of things people do in your name without your knowledge. It won't happen anywhere in the US. I agree Cam knew what his dad was doing, but nobody can proove it.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:10 pm to NoleBama
quote:
So exactly why Auburn declare him ineligible? If there was no wrong doing on Auburn's part. Was it because of what happened at MSU the reason Auburn declared him ineligible?
Procedure. Once the facts were brought to Auburns attention they immediately ruled him inelgible and than sought reinstatement and based on all the facts gathered they ruled him eligible because nothing found could keep Cam inelgible. So the NCAA reintated Cam.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:11 pm to michaeldwde
quote:
"The conduct of Cam Newton's father and the involved individual is unacceptable and has no place in the SEC or in intercollegiate athletics," said Mike Slive, Southeastern Conference Commissioner. "The actions taken by Auburn University and Mississippi State University make it clear this behavior will not be tolerated in the SEC."
Was this added by mistake, or is Slive just lying?
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:12 pm to Mantis Toboggan MD
Let me say that I think this will not go well for Auburn, the Newtons, the SEC, or the NCAA as far as the press reaction to this ruling.
I think (my opinion...i understand well the arguments regarding "agree to receive") that this is a clear violation of the SEC bylaw and Slive is just choosing to not enforce.
HOWEVER...and this is important I think. I don't understand the attitude of some of the folks arguing with the Aubies still over this. No other way to look at this...right now we are at:
Auburn Family: 1 Everybody Else: 0
So far they have been right, and many of us were wrong on how this would be looked at. No way around it. One round of crow for everyone.
I think (my opinion...i understand well the arguments regarding "agree to receive") that this is a clear violation of the SEC bylaw and Slive is just choosing to not enforce.
HOWEVER...and this is important I think. I don't understand the attitude of some of the folks arguing with the Aubies still over this. No other way to look at this...right now we are at:
Auburn Family: 1 Everybody Else: 0
So far they have been right, and many of us were wrong on how this would be looked at. No way around it. One round of crow for everyone.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:12 pm to Alahunter
quote:
uhh.. they said in that statement, amateurism violations occured.
They did. The person I'm having my paticular discussion with said:
quote:
Auburn paid Cam
not:
quote:
amateurism violations occured
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:12 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
They declared him eligible for the remaining games. They've said nothing about past games, and it's not implied. See the Textbook situation for Alabama and Reggie Bush.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:13 pm to Alahunter
The evidence they have can go one of two ways as the investigation continues: it's either solidified and becomes sufficient enough to make another ruling, or it doesn't. None of us know what's going to happen, and I'm not going to argue either way because of that. I do know that if this was happening at a rival school, I'd call them cheaters and feel slighted, even if they were cleared in the end.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:13 pm to Mantis Toboggan MD
quote:
BFeldmanESPN:
Interesting ruling by the NCAA, opening the door for parents to try and cut deals in recruiting as long as the kid isn't involved. Wow.
LINK
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:14 pm to Duke
This is stupid. The kid wants to go to Miss St and can't because his dad says Auburn will pay more. bullshite on the NCAA's part.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:16 pm to michaeldwde
Everyone knows somebody paid that kids dad. Auburn is a bunch of fricking cheaters by public opinion. Here's hoping SC beats there arse this Saturday.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:16 pm to Bellabama
quote:
I think people forget that the NCAA ruled Masoli ineligible without enough evidence for their ruling, and it was overturned. Had they declared him eligible initially, they could have investigated further. With the way this season has come forth, the NCAA had pressure to make a decision. By declaring him eligible now, it gives them more power to investigate.
It's counter-intuitive, but to take any more from this at this point is desperate and grasping at straws, considering the magnitude this case has on the whole canvas of the college football scene. No one knows how this is going to end up.
I fully agree with this. All we have now is a reinstatement. Yes the investigation is still open as of today and can turn out bad for Auburn, or it can end along the lines of todays news. Yes I initially celebrated, but I also realize the enforcement side of the NCAA still needs to make their findings known.
So I will remain cautiously optimistic and go on with the rest of the season. Only time will tell the end to this story.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:18 pm to peopleschamp
quote:
Whether or not Auburn, Miss St., or Cecil Newton get in trouble remains to be seen. I tried to tell you guys they couldn't pin a thing on Cam. They had zero proof. It's simple. You can't be convicted of things people do in your name without your knowledge. It won't happen anywhere in the US. I agree Cam knew what his dad was doing, but nobody can proove it.
Agree.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:20 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Tiger n Miami AU83
You just agreed with one of the biggest idiots on the boards....congrats
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:20 pm to arty
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try again, learn to read, etc.
I am tired of handholding and explaining to dumbasses on this board that cannot read and interpret rules correctly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a prime example of the failure of the public school system.
SEC 14.01.3.2
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support),
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What part of that don't you understand dumbass?
Listen you fricking halfwit...
It is painfully obvious you know nothing about law (rules in this case) and how they are written.
This particular one is written from an institutional standpoint and basically providing for a rule against a player receiving money to play. The key part is receives or agrees to receive. This does not just imply the need for a payment to have been made, it stipulates an agreement is sufficient. An agreement is sorta like a verble contract requiring scienter or a "meeting of the minds" in legalese.
Was there an AGREEMENT in place at any time between Cecil and any SEC school?
If the rule had been meant to include solicitation, it would have been written that way.
The people who write these types of rules are not halfwits like yourself. The rule applies as it was written, not as it makes you happy.
Now STFU.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:21 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete’s involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation.
Posted on 12/1/10 at 1:22 pm to memphisplaya
I do not think I have ever agreed with your stupid arse, so STFU. 
Page 11 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News