Auburn/Cam Newton situation (merged)

#1,901
#1,901
bamawriter said:
Point taken. But let me ask this:

Memphis petitioned for reinstatement before Means ever played a down at that school.

AU knew about the Newton issue in July. What they have admitted as fact they knew about 2 months before the season started. They didn't petition for reinstatement until after 12 games had been played. Doesn't that make a totaly mockery of the NCAA process, even if he was, ultimately, in the clear?
Click to expand...

reinstatement for what? I didn't think he was declared ineligible until this week? thye then asked for reinstatment..

I admit, I've not tried to stay up to date with this on a daily basis but I don't think there was anything Auburn could request until yesterday..
 
#1,902
#1,902
volinbham said:
I agree with this except for the highlighted part. We don't know if Auburn cheated yet.
Click to expand...

Winning out with a player I'm almost certain will be found ineligible at some point in the future is cheating.

If what Reggie Bush's stepdad did was considered USC cheating, then what Auburn is doing is cheating, based on how I see this playing out.

All the NCAA employees responsible for the oversight of this situation should fall on their swords if Newton is never found retroactively ineligible.
 
#1,903
#1,903
milohimself said:
Winning out with a player I'm almost certain will be found ineligible at some point in the future is cheating.

If what Reggie Bush's stepdad did was considered USC cheating, then what Auburn is doing is cheating, based on how I see this playing out.All the NCAA employees responsible for the oversight of this situation should fall on their swords if Newton is never found retroactively ineligible.
Click to expand...

are you a fortune teller? :)
 
#1,905
#1,905
milohimself said:
Winning out with a player I'm almost certain will be found ineligible at some point in the future is cheating.

If what Reggie Bush's stepdad did was considered USC cheating, then what Auburn is doing is cheating, based on how I see this playing out.

All the NCAA employees responsible for the oversight of this situation should fall on their swords if Newton is never found retroactively ineligible.
Click to expand...

Currently, the NCAA is telling Auburn it's okay to play him based on what they know.

The Bush case is different because both solicitation and receiving of benefits occurred at the school Bush played for.

I can't believe I'm defending the NCAA here but I think the current temporary ruling and future ruling are discrete events that are only mildly related. If he is later ruled ineligible because they find solicitation to Auburn or payment from Auburn I think they have no reason to fall on swords.

The only beef I have is the ruling on the solicitation rule and that is on the NCAA not on Auburn IMHO.
 
#1,906
#1,906
milohimself said:
I'm a cynic.

Cecil hits up MSU for $180k, they say no, then Cam signs with Auburn clean and clear with zero knowledge of what happened?

Yeah, okay.
Click to expand...

NCAA won't rule on what they might believe until they have iron clad proof. they might find something in the future but as of right now they have nothing to take action with.

NCAA may be as cynical as you but they have to have more...
 
#1,907
#1,907
I think that another interesting question raised by the application of the rules in this case is whether there would've been a violation if Cam went ahead and signed with MSU but bobody could prove that money changed hands and Cam/Dad/agent all stuck to the story that Cam did not know about the solicitation?
 
#1,908
#1,908
One major difference in solicitation and receiving is that in solicitation the recruit/representatives have wrong doing. In receiving, the school has wrong doing as well. Most of the rules and rules responsibility are focused on the schools.

Comparing cases where improper benefits were received to cases where they were simply asked for is comparing apples and oranges.

That said, I think the NCAA's view of improper benefits is re-dunk-u-lous.
 
#1,909
#1,909
VolunteerHillbilly said:
I think that another interesting question raised by the application of the rules in this case is whether there would've been a violation if Cam went ahead and signed with MSU but bobody could prove that money changed hands and Cam/Dad/agent all stuck to the story that Cam did not know about the solicitation?
Click to expand...

I agree. Presumably the target of the solicitation being the choice for the recruit adds a bit to it but this is where the NCAA opened the proverbial Pandora's can o' worms.
 
#1,910
#1,910
LWSVOL said:
NCAA won't rule on what they might believe until they have iron clad proof. they might find something in the future but as of right now they have nothing to take action with.

NCAA may be as cynical as you but they have to have more...
Click to expand...
They have the MSU assistant coach who says that Cam told him over the phone that he wanted to go to MSU but the money was too much. The NCAA and Slive are chosing to take the word of Cam over the MSU coach.
 
#1,911
#1,911
VolunteerHillbilly said:
They have the MSU assistant coach who says that Cam told him over the phone that he wanted to go to MSU but the money was too much. The NCAA and Slive are chosing to take the word of Cam over the MSU coach.
Click to expand...

the NCAA has admitting having that or someone has speculated the NCAA has that?
 
#1,912
#1,912
volinbham said:
Currently, the NCAA is telling Auburn it's okay to play him based on what they know.

The Bush case is different because both solicitation and receiving of benefits occurred at the school Bush played for.

I can't believe I'm defending the NCAA here but I think the current temporary ruling and future ruling are discrete events that are only mildly related. If he is later ruled ineligible because they find solicitation to Auburn or payment from Auburn I think they have no reason to fall on swords.

The only beef I have is the ruling on the solicitation rule and that is on the NCAA not on Auburn IMHO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's also where I have beef with the NCAA. A family member even hitting up a school for money in that way should then and there make that player ineligible. That's the way we all thought the rules were, then the 'AA and the SEC went ahead and bent them. The SBB article saying that if this case were being evaluated by the letter of the law, then Newton would be out is a good one. But, as you said, the 'AA gets to operate by their own rules, and cut Auburn a big break for now.
 
#1,913
#1,913
The thing is that with the SEC rule at least there does not have to be an exchange of money only an agreement to accept money. Slive has now ruled that when you ask for money in exchange for something you have not actually agreed to accept the money. I know that Slive was a judge and I'm sure that he is good at making nuanced distinctions but when I took Contracts in law school I seem to recall that if someone accepts your offer, a deal exisits.
 
#1,914
#1,914
But legal precedents apparently do not apply here, and the NCAA and SEC can interpret their own rules as they see fit on a case by case basis.
 
#1,915
#1,915
LWSVOL said:
the NCAA has admitting having that or someone has speculated the NCAA has that?
Click to expand...

Sources: Cam and Cecil Newton talked of pay-to-play plan with recruiters - ESPN

I assume that the SEC game everything that they have to the NCAA.


Two sources who recruit for Mississippi State said that Cecil Newton and his son, quarterback Cam Newton, said in separate phone conversations that his college choice would be part of a pay-for-play plan while Newton was being recruited late last year.
Mississippi State compliance officials relayed the alleged conversations to Southeastern Conference compliance officials in January, according to two other sources close to the football program.
Click to expand...
 
#1,916
#1,916
I think the best way to put it how this situation irks me most is that high-level college football seems to be governed and administered more like a country club than a proper governing body.
 
#1,918
#1,918
VolunteerHillbilly said:
The thing is that with the SEC rule at least there does not have to be an exchange of money only an agreement to accept money. Slive has now ruled that when you ask for money in exchange for something you have not actually agreed to accept the money. I know that Slive was a judge and I'm sure that he is good at making nuanced distinctions but when I took Contracts in law school I seem to recall that if someone accepts your offer, a deal exisits.
Click to expand...

My entire gripe with this is Slive and the AA seem to be changing the rules to what suits them the best in this situation. Based on every precedent in this situation, Newton is ineligible.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how you can look at a player and his father that was very invovled with his recruitment process, say the father broke the rules, and no one suffers any consequences.
 
#1,919
#1,919
milohimself said:
But legal precedents apparently do not apply here, and the NCAA and SEC can interpret their own rules as they see fit on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...

I totally agree this is how things are done. not I saying I agree with this process but I do believe they can two exact same incidents and rule differently.
 
#1,921
#1,921
LWSVOL said:
sorry, I'm very skeptical of "sources" and what they say to media on any subject. long way from being an indicment IMO.
Click to expand...

IIRC (and sorting through fact vs hearsay) at least one of these two have been interviewed. Now, I have no idea what they said, but I do believe some type of interview has taken place.
 
#1,922
#1,922
tigervol9802 said:
IIRC (and sorting through fact vs hearsay) at least one of these two have been interviewed. Now, I have no idea what they said, but I do believe some type of interview has taken place.
Click to expand...

I'm sure many interviews have occurred but the NCAA doesn't release what they find until they issue a letter of findings or some such thing. I've not seen or heard of any NCAA documentation on their findings being released.

sounds like with the announcement yesterday, they are saying we don't have anything to convict on.. unfortunately, appears no one outside the NCAA knows what the NCAA knows or believes to be true at this point. I guess they believe its true that Newton is eligible since that is only ruling I've heard that they made.
 
#1,924
#1,924
NickZ4UT said:
Do you really need me to bring you the NCAA rule book and SEC by-laws to illustrate that that concept is completely illegal or are you just high?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming by "illegal" you just mean against the rules, because the act we're discussing is not criminally illegal.

But, yes, I'd like you to find the clear cut SEC by-law that has been broken. I've read the by-laws and there is nothing that clearly prohibits a family member from soliciting money for the athlete's services.

The whole "agree to receive" vs "solicit" distinction has been discussed. You and I may not like the outcome, but I was simply responding to your assertion that a clear cut SEC by-law has been broken.
 
#1,925
#1,925
A solicitation is an offer and an offer is absolutely an agreement to recieve whatever you're asking for in exchange for whatever you're offering. Bottom line is that if the national championship game an Heisman were not hanging in the balance, this decision would not have been issued.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top