re: You do realize...

Expect the response, "but the article you linked says only that he admitted having conversations about cash being paid, but not that Cecil "solicited" payment," leaving room for Cecil to say he didn't ask for money, but had discussions about money for play.

I guess that's like Cecil saying "Boy it sure would be nice if someone paid my boy to play ball." When he is really saying "ya'll need to come up with 200k if you want Cam at qb".

Wasting. Your. Time.

At this point we may have "swearing match" between Rogers and Cecil Newton. How much weight will be given to Cecil's denial that he asked v. Roger's assertion that Cecil did ask? It is clear that the "discussions" would have been improper to entertain, beyond an immediate response that "we aren't interested" and hanging up the phone. So once Cecil admits that the discussions took place and Rogers says they took place, who has credibility as to who asked whom for money, or who suggested an amount, etc.? One can "solicit" without directly asking. It might be a matter of semantics and inferences. From Rogers statements, Cecil was doing more than just listening.

Cecil is on thin ice here, trying to maintain that he discussed money for his son's playing, but that he didn't ask for money. There is the smell test that doesn't work in his favor in trying to maintain the distinction between "soliciting" and merely "discussing."

My fricking brain. I was speaking hypothetically.

quote:

---

I understand what you are saying but I don't know if the incentive is there like you think it is. What incentive is there to make solicitations if by doing so the player becomes ineligible to play for whomever the solicitation was made to? If the school gets caught paying a kid hammer them. The NCAA doesn't want to open the can of worms that is punishing them for stuff they don't even know about or for recruiting violations at other schools.

---

disagree

the can of worms the NCAA does not (or at least should not) want to open would be allowing kids to be shopped without harsh consequences

If Cam was indeed being offered for the right price there should be no way the NCAA lets this slide under any circumstances... they have an available rule to prevent it and will use it IMO (provided there is adequate proof his father and/or he were part of the shopping or even were "just" using KR as an agent)

"This shall include the ability to render prospective student-athletes or current student-athletes ineligible for competition due to their involvement in a violation of NCAA or SEC rules that occurs during the individual's recruitment."

This is the part I'm not fully understanding. If the SEC and NCAA met with Auburn last Thursday why did they come away from that meeting leaving Cam eligible?

quote:

---

they don't typically rule players ineligible while an investigation is ongoing - they usually tell the school to use their best judgment - although they may judge the school for their judgment after the fact

---

Correct. Also, the NCAA has the power (and has done it before) to rule aa player ineligible at any point in time. Also, the NCAA can and has suggested a school sit a player they believe will be ineligible based on an ongoing investigation.

Fact is the NCAA has not ruled Cam ineligible (though they can at any time) and they have not recommended AU sit him because they expect he will become ineligible. And AU has been in constant contact with the NCAA.

Also, as mentioned, a former NCAA compliance officer and current professor went on the record on ESPN yesterday saying AU should NOT sit Cam as he is 100% eligible based on the current information. In addition, his response was immediately preceded by the question of if Cecil solicited money from MSU, is Cam currently ineligible. He said no.

I really do not get the absolute stupidity of this board when people say AU is playing an ineligible player. Facts are as follows:

1. Cam is NOT ineligible under ANY current NCAA or SEC rule / bylaw. This even assumes Cecil solicited money from MSU without Cam's knowledge.

2. Making an assumption that the NCAA will modify their own rules based on this situation alone is one thing, though it may not even be more likely than not. But, to make that assumption AND conclude that Cam will be ruled ineligible under a rule that has never even existed is a massive leap and it seems some people here not only make that leap (which requires a leap of a presupposed rule change beforehand) but state it as FACT also.

So, I assume you have listened to these tapes and know what is on them, correct?

Or are you just a nobody talking out of your arse about something you are 100% clueless about.

Let me know.

TIA.