Started By
Message
What I believe would be an appropriate ruling on the camgate
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:53 pm
issue at this time.
In this unique situation, we have a school that may play for the n.c. with a, more likely than not, ineligible player. (base this on daddy's admition to requesting money.)
The appropriate ruling at this time would be to declare C.N. ineligible. all games c.n. has played in would have to be vacated.
As to if Au has done any wrong doing, that investigation is pending.
you punish the player and leave the school open to be cleared or sanctioned pending the outcome of the investigation.
college football avoids a black eye with a team playing in the n.c. with a player who isn't eligible.
In this unique situation, we have a school that may play for the n.c. with a, more likely than not, ineligible player. (base this on daddy's admition to requesting money.)
The appropriate ruling at this time would be to declare C.N. ineligible. all games c.n. has played in would have to be vacated.
As to if Au has done any wrong doing, that investigation is pending.
you punish the player and leave the school open to be cleared or sanctioned pending the outcome of the investigation.
college football avoids a black eye with a team playing in the n.c. with a player who isn't eligible.
7
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:54 pm to dos crystal
quote:
(base this on daddy's admition to requesting money.)
Got a quote from daddy saying this?
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:55 pm to dos crystal
dos......what are you trying to say?
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:56 pm to dos crystal
Right, end a team's season based on hearsay from rival schools. Either show the proof or gtfo.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:57 pm to dos crystal
so if i call the ncaa and say that i talked with a player at any major college and said we talked about money and pay for play deals... they should be ineligable until the investigation is complete....
so if ncaa does what you say and auburn comes out clean(unlikely but), that would be an even worse black eye for the ncaa, to have taken a conference championship(possible), national championship and heisman trophy away for nothing..... come on man...
so if ncaa does what you say and auburn comes out clean(unlikely but), that would be an even worse black eye for the ncaa, to have taken a conference championship(possible), national championship and heisman trophy away for nothing..... come on man...
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:57 pm to NorthGwinnettTiger
i just cant see the ncaa setting the precedent of: "the player didnt know momma and daddy got shite tons of money, so hes eligible"
theyll be having 40 of these investigations a year. they better cut the head off this monster before its past their control
theyll be having 40 of these investigations a year. they better cut the head off this monster before its past their control
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:58 pm to dos crystal
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 2:59 pm to Angry LLAMA
quote:
i just cant see the ncaa setting the precedent of: "the player didnt know momma and daddy got shite tons of money, so hes eligible"
What about the precedent of "hey some ex-Ohio State players said Michigan was cheating, better vacate all their wins"?
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:08 pm to AUTigLN11
quote:
Right, end a team's season based on hearsay from rival schools. Either show the proof or gtfo.
you're saying cecil didn't admit to requesting money from m.s.u.?
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:09 pm to dos crystal
Let me see if I can interpret: You want the NCAA to make a preliminary ruling during the season, before their investigation is complete and without going through the due process set out in their by-laws because you think that gives LSU the best chance to play for the MNC. Is that about right?
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:13 pm to AUTigLN11
Honestly I think the appropriate punishment is this:
Note: This is assuming that the allegation that Cecil Newton shopped his son to MSU is true and the details regarding it we have heard are accurate.
Cam Newton: Like it or not Aubies...under this scenario he should be ineligible. The "he didn't know defense" can't fly when its your Dad that did it. I don't see any circumstance where the NCAA lets that go.
MSU: Nothing. Again this is if the allegation are like it has been stated. If MSU said no thanks and then turned it in...then they should be clear.
Auburn: Nothing...Outside of losing the ineligible player for the rest of the season. IF the allegations are as stated I find it quite unfair to vacate wins for a school that had nothing to do with it and didn't really have any reasonable reason to be aware of the issue. THey should keep their wins. No vacating...no forfeitures.
I think this is fair. No reason to punish institutions that didn't do anything to deserve it.
Note: This is assuming that the allegation that Cecil Newton shopped his son to MSU is true and the details regarding it we have heard are accurate.
Cam Newton: Like it or not Aubies...under this scenario he should be ineligible. The "he didn't know defense" can't fly when its your Dad that did it. I don't see any circumstance where the NCAA lets that go.
MSU: Nothing. Again this is if the allegation are like it has been stated. If MSU said no thanks and then turned it in...then they should be clear.
Auburn: Nothing...Outside of losing the ineligible player for the rest of the season. IF the allegations are as stated I find it quite unfair to vacate wins for a school that had nothing to do with it and didn't really have any reasonable reason to be aware of the issue. THey should keep their wins. No vacating...no forfeitures.
I think this is fair. No reason to punish institutions that didn't do anything to deserve it.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:14 pm to WDE24
Let it play out. If both Tigers take care of business (as things stand right now) AU goes to Glendale and LSU goes to the big party in the Big Easy! After the ups and down of the LSU play this year I would gladly take a Sugar Bowl bid.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:14 pm to NorthGwinnettTiger
quote:
Got a quote from daddy saying this?
Yes...his lawyer said it and said that Cam and the mother had no knowledge of it.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:15 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
dos......what are you trying to say?
i'm trying to say that i love college football and would hate to see a n.c. game with this scandal involved.
I realize they can't investigate this thoroughly by the end of the season. make a ruling based on what you have. cam is not eligible. his daddy requested money. you punish him. Not Au. You pend the ruling on Au until your investigation is finished. if they are clear of any wrong doing, then Au go's free w/o probation in the future. if they paid, then rule on their wrong doing later.
it takes care of the current issue. it's the right thing to do for college football. Au may not see it that way, however, they are biased. I don't think many people outside Au believe cam/his family didn't request or take money.
this isn't a court of law. A right isn't being taking a way. a rule was broken, you make a decision based on that rule. you don't need a jury or court proceeding to make this decision.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:18 pm to dos crystal
quote:
college football avoids a black eye with a team playing in the n.c. with a player who isn't eligible.
No, they don't. They won the game against a possible 1 loss LSU team that lost with that player.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:19 pm to dos crystal
quote:But LSU fans who are grasping for a way to get back in the NC picture are not. I think the most the NCAA might do in season, is step in and say, based on our investigation, we have enough information to declare Cam ineligible for the remainder of the season. I can almost gaurantee there won't be any vacation of AU wins during the season. This would require a hearing by the committee on infractions, which will not meet before the end of the season.
Au may not see it that way, however, they are biased.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:20 pm to WDE24
quote:
due process
no, it's a ruling based on the information they have currently.
i'm not saying Au should be punished and put on probation. Au may be clear. it's the newton's that have caused this. they should be punished. If punishing them hurts Au for A year, then that is part of hanging with the dog, you get the flea's.
No, it's not about lsu. i don't think lsu beats arkansas. therefore, i don't think it helps them.
it's about college football and the sport i love. i would hate to see this black eye on college football.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:23 pm to WDE24
They need to suspend Cam and if Auburn is found to have done nothing wrong they should allow them to continue to play for the NC as long as they win out. On the other hand if the FBI finds that any Auburn booster paid money to Cams dad the whole program should get put on probation and members of the SEC office who waited to disclose the info should be fired.
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:30 pm to flippin stick
quote:
so if i call the ncaa and say that i talked with a player at any major college and said we talked about money and pay for play deals... they should be ineligable until the investigation is complete....
Are you the shady father of a recruit who was involved with stolen propert, destruction of evidence, cheating multiple times academically, and switching your commitment from a school you wanted to go to, to another school? A school who has a shady booster now under investigation by the FBI?
Cmon, dude. Wake the frick up.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:31 pm to dos crystal
quote:
re: What I believe would be an appropriate ruling on the camgate (Posted on 11/17/10 at 3:08 p.m. to AUTigLN11) quote: Right, end a team's season based on hearsay from rival schools. Either show the proof or gtfo. you're saying cecil didn't admit to requesting money from m.s.u.?
Link?
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News