re: The Latest from Chris Low... interesting comments

quote:

---

Here I click into a thread supposedly selling "interesting" comments and all I find is "repetitive", "trite", and "unoriginal".

---

department of redundancy department

quote:

---

It already started with Pat Dye did it not?

---

It started back in the 50s.

For anyone questioning the ruling, specifically in regards to the SEC bylaws.


After hearing multiple talk radio personalities declare that Cam Newton clearly violated an SEC bylaw, I thought I’d put my lawyer hat on and try to make some sense of this situation. First, let’s take a look at the bylaw everyone is pointing to in this situation:

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), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.

Those highlighted words – “receives or agrees to receive” – are the key here, and I see why it’s confusing to some. This is one of those times that my three years and mountain of law school debt actually pays off.

When I first heard that the SEC had declared there was no violation, but first thought was that they must be interpreting this provision in terms of contract law. It’s logical to read “agrees to receive” and think, “Hey, Cam’s father told Mississippi State he would take x amount of money for Cam to go to school there; that’s agreeing to receive.” Not in the world of contract law, however.

In contract law, Cecil Newton’s statements were merely an offer, or perhaps a solicitation for bids. An offer is a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain. Basically, you’re saying to the other person, ”If you’re willing to do x, then y will happen.”

In order to have a completed contract, one party has to make an offer, the other has to accept (on the same terms proposed by the offer) and there must be consideration (the money actually changing hands would have been consideration).

Cecil Newton made an offer, which Mississippi State was free to accept (and create a contract), but did not. Alternatively, you could say Cecil Newton was merely soliciting bids, which doesn’t even constitute an offer. In that case, Mississippi State would have had to make the offer and then Cecil could have accepted.

I found this quote from SEC spokesman, Charles Bloom, in The Clarion-Ledger that confirms my suspicions about why there was no violation here:

SEC Bylaw 14.01.3.2 does not apply in this situation. It only applies when there is an actual payment of an improper benefit, or an agreement (such as a handshake agreement) to pay and receive an improper benefit. The facts in this case, as we understand them, are that the student-athlete’s father, without the knowledge of the student-athlete, solicited improper payments (which were rejected) from an institution the young man did not attend, and that the institution where the young man is enrolled was not involved.

Notice I highlighted “agreement” – they’re looking for a completed contract. Could they have worded the bylaw better and made it a violation for a student-athlete or his parent to solicit an offer? Of course, and I would imagine that’s what they’re planning to do now that they’re saying they’re going to revisit the provision. This is absolutely a loophole they need to close.

Could they have interpreted this bylaw differently and declared Cam Newton in violation because of his father’s actions? Sure, but they would have opened themselves to a lawsuit by Cam and possibly Auburn. The decision may defy logic for some, but it was absolutely the decision the SEC had to make in order to protect itself.

It's obvious that peoples opinions can differ on this. Mine will not soon change. NCAA and SEC are frauds. Auburn's soul is for sale.

quote:

---

For anyone questioning the ruling, specifically in regards to the SEC bylaws.


After hearing multiple talk radio personalities declare that Cam Newton clearly violated an SEC bylaw, I thought I’d put my lawyer hat on and try to make some sense of this situation. First, let’s take a look at the bylaw everyone is pointing to in this situation:

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), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.

Those highlighted words – “receives or agrees to receive” – are the key here, and I see why it’s confusing to some. This is one of those times that my three years and mountain of law school debt actually pays off.

When I first heard that the SEC had declared there was no violation, but first thought was that they must be interpreting this provision in terms of contract law. It’s logical to read “agrees to receive” and think, “Hey, Cam’s father told Mississippi State he would take x amount of money for Cam to go to school there; that’s agreeing to receive.” Not in the world of contract law, however.

In contract law, Cecil Newton’s statements were merely an offer, or perhaps a solicitation for bids. An offer is a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain. Basically, you’re saying to the other person, ”If you’re willing to do x, then y will happen.”

In order to have a completed contract, one party has to make an offer, the other has to accept (on the same terms proposed by the offer) and there must be consideration (the money actually changing hands would have been consideration).

Cecil Newton made an offer, which Mississippi State was free to accept (and create a contract), but did not. Alternatively, you could say Cecil Newton was merely soliciting bids, which doesn’t even constitute an offer. In that case, Mississippi State would have had to make the offer and then Cecil could have accepted.

I found this quote from SEC spokesman, Charles Bloom, in The Clarion-Ledger that confirms my suspicions about why there was no violation here:

SEC Bylaw 14.01.3.2 does not apply in this situation. It only applies when there is an actual payment of an improper benefit, or an agreement (such as a handshake agreement) to pay and receive an improper benefit. The facts in this case, as we understand them, are that the student-athlete’s father, without the knowledge of the student-athlete, solicited improper payments (which were rejected) from an institution the young man did not attend, and that the institution where the young man is enrolled was not involved.

Notice I highlighted “agreement” – they’re looking for a completed contract. Could they have worded the bylaw better and made it a violation for a student-athlete or his parent to solicit an offer? Of course, and I would imagine that’s what they’re planning to do now that they’re saying they’re going to revisit the provision. This is absolutely a loophole they need to close.

Could they have interpreted this bylaw differently and declared Cam Newton in violation because of his father’s actions? Sure, but they would have opened themselves to a lawsuit by Cam and possibly Auburn. The decision may defy logic for some, but it was absolutely the decision the SEC had to make in order to protect itself.

---

Unilateral Contract

unilateral contract - a one-sided agreement whereby you promise to do (or refrain from doing) something in return for a performance (not a promise)agreement, understanding - the statement (oral or written) of an exchange of promises; "they had an agreement that they would not interfere in each other's business"; "there was an understanding between management and the workers"

Cecil agreed to accept money for the promise he would deliver Cam to MSU.

Your area code is where the NCAA needs to look for the money men. Are you one of the bag men for AU?

quote:

---

Absolutely not

---

Reminds me of Clinton asking what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Bottom line is that no matter what the NCAA rules the court of public opinion is what matters the most. Its obvious that 99% of the country thinks Cam being eligible is complete crap. Just read the news articles out there. Maybe only a handful actually support the decision.

While Auburn might go on to win the BCS championship it will forever have an * next to it in most people's mind. No one disputes any BCS champion up to this point. Everyone recognizes TN having 1, LSU 2, FL 2 and Bama 1. While some may think certain teams didn't deserve to be in the BCS game it doesn't matter. History has been written in these cases and since nothing controversial occured people will only remember who won.

In Auburn's case they have been marked by a dark cloud before they even get to the game. If they go on to play in the BCS champ game and win that dark cloud will hang over it forever. No matter what you Aubie fans say about how you don't care what everyone else thinks, you deep down really do. Every program wants to be respected by its peers, even if they are hated rival. So you can go and claim your hollow championship and enjoy it for a while, but everytime you bring it up its going to be met by opposing fans with ridicule and you will never get the full credit your program would have deserved had you won it fair and without a tainted player.

quote:

---

But if you don’t reside in that 334 area code, it’s a season that will forever have an asterisk attached to it.

---

boo frickin hoo.....

quote:

---

Well then why don't you explain it to us so we can all be better edified.

It would be better to add to the conversation, have a clear rebuttal than just your normal diarrhea.

---

Well, because it can be a convoluted point to try to explain on a message board. If you really care, look at a contract law texbook or look it up in Black's legal dictionary, which provides an example to make it more easily understood.

Again, no offense, but unilateral contract is not a good argument to the point you were making. Your laymen's definition of "agreement" is a fair argument, just not the only argument. Legally, Cecil's actions would not fit the definition of agreement. NCAA and SEC don't have to adhere to it, but since most of those decision makers are lawyers, my guess is they would find it persuasive.