Auburn/Cam Newton situation (merged)

#1,801
#1,801
pantone151 said:
I'm sure this has been posted, and discussed, in other threads, but I find it interesting that this doesn't seem to matter in this case.

SEC bylaw 14.01.3.2

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.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

See the "Slive is about to show his bias" thread for explanation as to why the SEC can claim this doesn't apply here.

It's all about the fact that it says "agrees to receive" and not "solicits."
 
#1,802
#1,802
vols-1 said:
But if you suspend Cam because he didn't know this agent(Bill Bell) was asking for money then you open pandora's box. The next thing you know a Bama booster sends someone up to TN and ask for money on Brays behalf. Under that rule Bray gets suspened because someone ask for money for him even though he did not know about it. How much sense does it make to suspend a player because a third party ask for money on their behalf if you can't prove the player knew anything about it?
Click to expand...

The agent was Kenny Rogers. Bill Bell is a former MSU player and current booster. HOWEVER, Rogers evidently thought that Bell might be willing and able to find the cash, otherwise he wouldn't have approached him. THAT tells me that STATE is paying players to some degree.

Finebaum said yesterday that there was a great job of Lawyering involved in the decision. The key point was the burden of proof that Cam knew anything.

My opinion is this ENDS RIGHT HERE. The NCAA does not want to look like the Keystone Cops; clearing someone, then coming back with other charges. They will fix the loophole that the Attorneys took advantage of.
 
#1,807
#1,807
JohnWardForever said:
The agent was Kenny Rogers. Bill Bell is a former MSU player and current booster. HOWEVER, Rogers evidently thought that Bell might be willing and able to find the cash, otherwise he wouldn't have approached him. THAT tells me that STATE is paying players to some degree.

Finebaum said yesterday that there was a great job of Lawyering involved in the decision. The key point was the burden of proof that Cam knew anything.

My opinion is this ENDS RIGHT HERE. The NCAA does not want to look like the Keystone Cops; clearing someone, then coming back with other charges. They will fix the loophole that the Attorneys took advantage of.
Click to expand...

SEC bylaw 14.01.3.2

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.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

To me this is the sticky part.
Is the wording phrased so that the institution has to initiate the offer for this to apply? If so, basically you can shop the kid as long the school is not the one that initiated it.
 
#1,808
#1,808
bamawriter said:
Andre Smith sat out the '09 Sugar Bowl because a family member had contact with an agent without Smith's knowledge.

Can some tell me the difference between that situation and the one the NCAA just admitted re: Cam Newton?
Click to expand...

Bama suspended Smith, not the 2A. Bama was, at the time walking a tight rope with the ncaa, and still on probation. Additionally, they thought they would be fine vs UTAH without Smith. WRONG.

Big difference here, for those that comprehend.
 
#1,809
#1,809
BeecherVol said:
SEC bylaw 14.01.3.2

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.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

To me this is the sticky part.
Is the wording phrased so that the institution has to initiate the offer for this to apply? If so, basically you can shop the kid as long the school is not the one that initiated it.
Click to expand...

The sticky part is that no agreement was made. Cecil solicited, MSU declined. That and the fact that Cam denied any knowledge. Dead in the water at that point.
 
#1,813
#1,813
JohnWardForever said:
The agent was Kenny Rogers. Bill Bell is a former MSU player and current booster. HOWEVER, Rogers evidently thought that Bell might be willing and able to find the cash, otherwise he wouldn't have approached him. THAT tells me that STATE is paying players to some degree.

Finebaum said yesterday that there was a great job of Lawyering involved in the decision. The key point was the burden of proof that Cam knew anything.

My opinion is this ENDS RIGHT HERE. The NCAA does not want to look like the Keystone Cops; clearing someone, then coming back with other charges. They will fix the loophole that the Attorneys took advantage of.
Click to expand...

Agree with some of this but not the last part. The NCAA has to finish the investigation if for nothing else to put the rumors to bed.

From what I gather, this was simply a process piece (procedural if you will) in the bigger picture.
 
#1,815
#1,815
MrBamSeydu said:
The SEC rules Cam Newton eligible because he and Auburn knew nothing about the dealings between his parents and the middle man.

Soooo, basically what you're telling future recruits is that if you want to get paid just have your parents get the money and say that you and the school had no knowledge of it??? Really??? :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

No. Not sure why people keep jumping to this conclusion.

Requesting benefits and getting benefits are different things. If MSU had paid Newton then the situation would be very different.

It does create the problem though of removing a barrier for parents to ask for benefits.
 
#1,816
#1,816
Lexvol said:
If it is there would they have found it by now? That is the other question.
Click to expand...

I don't know but would say not necessarily.

As has been stated a few times, the reinstatement process is different from the enforcement/investigation process.

My best read on the situation from the experts I listened to was that enough had come out (Cecil's admittance recently) for Auburn to be required to declare him ineligible and seek reinstatement. I'm sure they hammered much of this out with the NCAA before hand. Given the urgency of competition, the NCAA made a quick ruling based on evidence to date. This ruling was simply for reinstatement on this particular move by Auburn to declare ineligible.

If anything, I think this points to an ongoing investigation and based on incomplete fact gathering the NCAA ruled in favor of the athlete temporarily.
 
#1,818
#1,818
volinbham said:
No. Not sure why people keep jumping to this conclusion.

Requesting benefits and getting benefits are different things. If MSU had paid Newton then the situation would be very different.

It does create the problem though of removing a barrier for parents to ask for benefits.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on the money situation - there is a burden of proof that cannot be overlooked. I don't think it is much of a leap once it is determined Cecil improperly asked for money from MSU, and Cam ends up at AU. Especially when MSU seemed to be such a personal favorite to Cam. I would think the AA has proceeded with less in the past.
 
#1,819
#1,819
JohnWardForever said:
The sticky part is that no agreement was made. Cecil solicited, MSU declined. That and the fact that Cam denied any knowledge. Dead in the water at that point.
Click to expand...

Thats my question tho. Does the AA not mind if money was asked for as long as no "agreement" was made?

The wording of the bylaw makes it sound like the school has to offer not the parents/player.
 
#1,820
#1,820
I think that when MSU shot Cecil down, he did not pimp Cam any more, as in AU.
The fact that he DID pimp Cam to MSU, by NCAA rule, Cam should be declared ineligible, EVEN if Cam knew nothing about it.
 
#1,822
#1,822
volinbham said:
No. Not sure why people keep jumping to this conclusion.

Requesting benefits and getting benefits are different things. If MSU had paid Newton then the situation would be very different.

It does create the problem though of removing a barrier for parents to ask for benefits.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but the logic seems flawed to me. In essence, one party's actions to solicit, relative to innocence or guilt, are being determined by the other party's actions to accept or not. So the first party is innocent because of the action (or lack thereof) of the second party... even though the first party's actions are the same in either scenario.

I guess it would be okay to solicit sex from undercover officers then... since requesting "benefits" and getting "benefits" are two different things.
 
#1,823
#1,823
Lexvol said:
I'm with you on the money situation - there is a burden of proof that cannot be overlooked. I don't think it is much of a leap once it is determined Cecil improperly asked for money from MSU, and Cam ends up at AU. Especially when MSU seemed to be such a personal favorite to Cam. I would think the AA has proceeded with less in the past.
Click to expand...

Above all, this is another example of the NCAA doing whatever they like. The rules are just vague enough to allow them wide latitude in how they handle things. Sucks.

Stoops has said there is zero indication that Cecil solicited $ from Oklahoma. One line of thought is that Cecil felt Auburn and OK were worthy of Cam while MSU was not and thus only sought money there. Another is that since it looked like a done deal with MSU, Cecil thought he might skim some cash off the deal. When rebuffed he retaliated by choosing Auburn.

Who knows at this point but I understand why people think Auburn paid. Those people may be 100% correct.
 
#1,825
#1,825
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I understand what you're saying, but the logic seems flawed to me. In essence, one party's actions to solicit, relative to innocence or guilt, are being determined by the other party's actions to accept or not. So the first party is innocent because of the action (or lack thereof) of the second party... even though the first party's actions are the same in either scenario.

I guess it would be okay to solicit sex from undercover officers then... since requesting "benefits" and getting "benefits" are two different things.
Click to expand...

Solicitation is explicitly illegal in your example which in some ways proves my point. The law says you can't solicit prostitution. If solicitation wasn't illegal any hack lawyer could get the charges dropped if no payment/sex occurred.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top