re: NCAA Proposes Cecil Newton Law to Close Loophole That AU Slipped Through

quote:

---

everything the government has told you

---

the NCAA is the government

quote:

---

the NCAA is the government

---

No. Nor did i say they were. Is your reading comprehension that bad, or are you functionally retarded?

quote:

---

Lying mutherphukker

You prolly still believe in Santa too

That dik was paid $200K +++

DEATH AWAITS YOUR SCUMBAG SCHOOL NCAA BOOGEYMAN

---

See why is this shite tolerated? We had to walk around on damn eggshells based on the no flaming post. Even if that meant providing a link to a possibly (although not likley) infringment upon the rules. Yet a retarded post like this, one that offers nothing, and i do mean nothing is accepted and generally the cause of most of the "god this shite needs to stop" talk.

quote:

---

There wasn't any loophole. If there was a loophole, then why did USC get f'cked over Reggie Bush's parents getting a rent-free house.

---

Because they proved reggie bush's parents got a free house. When the NCAA says Auburn we have the knowlege with which to say by our evidentiary standards that we can prove sufficiently that you gave that man 200k what do you thinks going to happen. The same damn thing that happend to USC.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that the NCAA punished USC before they found reggie bush to have broken the rules.

Let me simlify this for you, I don't think you have a grasp on the difference between an investigation and a ruling on those findings.

quote:

---

Because they proved reggie bush's parents got a free house.

---

I don't follow that distinction at all - if the athlete is ineligible for seeking illicit benefits, and neither the parents nor the athlete can receive illicit benefits - why is it ok for the parent to seek illicit benefits?

just doesn't make sense - either the parent/child are being considered as equivalent or they aren't

The distinction is simple. Reggie bush was found to have received money. To compare the penalties auburn woudl face before you can prove cam took money is irresponsible and foolhardy.

I see your point about ineligibility. However, that was ruled on and at some point with the facts you have, that the NCAA deemed his father soliciting money from MSU and then being eligible at auburn, you've just got to accept it and move on. If the NCAA found/finds he recieved money (like bush) prayers will be answered and auburn will burn.

Also the reason im making that comparison/distinction is because it was eloquently asked why USC got fricked. USC got fricked because reggie bush was proven to have received improper benefits. Something that has yet to be show with auburn.

quote:

---

I see your point about ineligibility. However, that was ruled on and at some point with the facts you have, that the NCAA deemed his father soliciting money from MSU and then being eligible at auburn, you've just got to accept it and move on. If the NCAA found/finds he recieved money from the school in which he played(like bush) prayers will be answered and auburn will burn.

---

quote:

---

Fixed. Even if they find that MSU paid him, which they haven't as of now, Auburn is still in the clear.

See the Albert Means case, and how he was allowed to play at Memphis.

---

Are you trying to say that if Cecil Newton received payment of any kind from MSU, that his son would still be eligible to play at Auburn?

quote:

---

Fixed. Even if they find that MSU paid him, which they haven't as of now, Auburn is still in the clear.

---

quote:

---

That's where you have to break into the legal speak and the way the NCAA worded their bylaws. NCAA rules states that player or agent must agree to receive benefits. They don't have to actually receive them but have to agree to it. Legally an agreement is between two or more persons, and since MSU said "No Way" then there was not the agreement in the legal sense.

---

I thought I understood your argument but then you added in another sentence - now what we are left with would be a pretty irrational policy - because in order to be punished for seeking illicit benefits you have to find someone willing to provide them?

that doesn't make sense to me - seems to me the spirit of the NCAA rules has been to rule players ineligible for seeking or receiving illicit benefits... and it seems to me the NCAA is perfectly capable of twisting rulings in whatever way they wish depending on the circumstance

The result of that this time was a pretty major PR disaster - with most people outside auburn thinking the NCAA twisted and turned the situation to avoid disqualifying a probable BCS bowl participant