Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:40 pm to BamaNixon
This didn't go as you had planned, did it. 
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:40 pm to APIEE
if AU knew then he is ineligible, and AU knew in January. sorry chief
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:40 pm to APIEE
quote:
that Cecil's solicitation doesn't automatically make Cam ineligible at AU right? He is ineligible at MSU due to it, and would be at AU if he knew about the solicitation or if he, his family/friends etc. received benefits from AU. But Cecil's solicitation from MSU alone doesn't do anything to his eligibility at AU.
I could be wrong but I think that would mean a loss of his amateur status and therefore ineligible.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:40 pm to Warfarer
quote:
frick you dude! All of us Auburn fans are denying the rumors and lies and we will all go down in flames with the program. Hell, they might just let the rest of the SEC bring in dozers and level the whole campus and use it as parking for their stadiums that will be brimming over with new fans and then they will just run a shuttle service.
The SEC doesn't have a demolition arm, either.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:40 pm to cps36
quote:
You need to read the SEC bylaws.
I've read them, and the NCAA bylaws...and I've heard 2 attorneys that are not involved in either side of this case that deal with NCAA issues for a living say that the OP is correct. That's ignored by those that want Auburn and Cam to go down. It's usually followed by a very loud and disbelieving: "So you mean they can just ask for money and get away with it?" Yeah...until the money changes hands, or at least there's an overt act to secure the money...pretty much.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:40 pm to Warfarer
quote:
Hell, they might just let the rest of the SEC bring in dozers and level the whole campus
It should be next years SEC fan day. Id go
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:42 pm to Hullabaloo
Can ANYONE post for me any NCAA rule under which he would be mad ineligible. PLEASE. Enlighten me.
The unethical conduct rule (10.1) requires "knowing involvement" for a player to be ineligible. If Cam didn't know - no problem. Now if he did that's another story.
Recruiting violations affect the player's eligibility at THAT school (13.01.1), not others.
The unethical conduct rule (10.1) requires "knowing involvement" for a player to be ineligible. If Cam didn't know - no problem. Now if he did that's another story.
Recruiting violations affect the player's eligibility at THAT school (13.01.1), not others.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:42 pm to HottyToddy7
quote:
I could be wrong but I think that would mean a loss of his amateur status and therefore ineligible.
Answer me this? Money actually changed hands in the Albert Means case, no? Yet, he played college football, did he not?
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:43 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
Answer me this? Money actually changed hands in the Albert Means case, no? Yet, he played college football, did he not?
I have no idea.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:43 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
I've read them, and the NCAA bylaws...and I've heard 2 attorneys that are not involved in either side of this case that deal with NCAA issues for a living say that the OP is correct. That's ignored by those that want Auburn and Cam to go down. It's usually followed by a very loud and disbelieving: "So you mean they can just ask for money and get away with it?" Yeah...until the money changes hands, or at least there's an overt act to secure the money...pretty much.
Your lawyer friends have no fricking clue what they're talking about
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:44 pm to Warfarer
Actually, we will just disinfect the whole place, run your Mafia bothers out and rename it Mississippi State University at Auburn!
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:46 pm to APIEE
quote:
You do realize...
that Cecil's solicitation doesn't automatically make Cam ineligible at AU right? He is ineligible at MSU due to it,
Wrong: If ruled ineligible, he would be ineligible from playing at any school. LINK
===============================================
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.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:47 pm to Ala Tide
quote:
Your lawyer friends have no fricking clue what they're talking about
I don't know them to call them friends...simply heard them give an opinion on it. But you can simply post moronic drivel if it makes you feel better.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:49 pm to APIEE
NCAA Spokeswoman Stacy Osburn:
solicitation is the key word here. no mention of money changing hands
quote:
“The solicitation of cash or benefits by a prospective student-athlete, the student athlete's family, or anyone acting on the student's behalf is not allowed under NCAA rules."
solicitation is the key word here. no mention of money changing hands
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:50 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
But you can simply post moronic drivel if it makes you feel better.
Watch out. Somebody's been using their thesaurus.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:51 pm to APIEE
Auburn fans have been in complete denial. Maybe they'll be right and nothing will happen, but at the rate this is going, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being Waco Part 2.
This post was edited on 11/17/10 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:51 pm to Buck Sweep
quote:
I don't know them to call them friends...simply heard them give an opinion on it. But you can simply post moronic drivel if it makes you feel better.
So, you read two posts on ITAT from Barn sociology majors who claim to be lawyers that work with the NCAA.
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:52 pm to davesdawgs
quote:
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.
You can't be that dumb. He would have to be in violation of the provisions OF THAT REGULATION. That regulation specifies he must have "KNOWING INVOLVEMENT". If he didn't know he hasn't violated that rule. Check it (10.1.c)
Posted on 11/17/10 at 10:52 pm to APIEE
I'm hearing that tomorrow or so phone conversations between Cecil and Rogers/Bond might surface. NCAA has already heard the conversations, and Cecil has met with the NCAA and discussed those conversations already.
Should have some huge fallout on this board though. I'm particularly interested in the conversations so we finally have something to work with other than statements following "allegedly".
Should have some huge fallout on this board though. I'm particularly interested in the conversations so we finally have something to work with other than statements following "allegedly".
Page 2 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News