|
Post by tonythegator on Nov 15, 2010 15:12:43 GMT -5
How can you say that? Everything he wrote about the situation makes sense. If you have a false premise it does not matter how well you have reasoned out everything that follows. It was still built on a false premise. Kind of like the Gators will be good this year because John Brantley is a "good" quarterback. How did that work out for yall? Violations of 10.1 are enforced as follows:
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.
Auburn's defense to a prospective athlete receiving an improper benefit will be composed of three parts: a. that Cam Newton didn't know his father solicited funds -- the most crucial part b. Newton didn't attend the school his father solicited funds from and c. no funds ever changed hands for Newton to attend school at Auburn.
It's not a bad defense given how woeful Auburn's options are, but it's a desperate one that is doomed to fail. Why? Because if accepted, the defense would open up a hole in the NCAA rulebook that you could drive a Brink's truck full of cash through. If the NCAA accepts this defense to its bylaws, it would mean that any recruit's family was free to shake down the schools that were recruiting him so long as the family claimed the recruit was unaware of it and the player didn't end up attending the school.
Think about how ridiculous this would be.
Grandmother's across the country could call up head coaches, demand hundreds of thousands of dollars from those coaches, and then there would be two options for the coach: a. the money comes, the solicitation works and everyone tries to keep quiet once the player arrives on campus or b. the money doesn't come and the player remains free to play somewhere else. Whereupon the grandmother calls a new school and repeats the solicitation
|
|
|
Post by donaufan on Nov 15, 2010 15:14:17 GMT -5
I think that its becoming more and more obvious that no matter what happens, even if everyone that has been making statements comes out and says they all lied just to try and get Auburn in trouble then most people are just going to think that Auburn paid them to reverse their story.
|
|
|
Post by donaufan on Nov 15, 2010 15:20:15 GMT -5
Cecil Newton is :
A) prospective or enrolled student-athlete B) current or former institutional staff member C) coach D) professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer
or
E) None of the Above
|
|
|
Post by whamil77 on Nov 15, 2010 15:33:54 GMT -5
The poor guy went to a lot of trouble to write a lot of drivel that has nothing to do with the issue. I guess writers can write, but nothing requires them to have any intelligence. How can you say that? Everything he wrote about the situation makes sense. Nothing he wrote makes sense because he's not smart enough to comprehend simple English. 10.1 Unethical Conduct
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid; Read the rule. It only applies to prospective student-athletes, enrolled student-athletes, current institutional staff members, and former institutional staff members. It says absolutely nothing about the fathers of student-athletes or institutional staff personnel. No institutional staff member has been alleged to have offered Cam Newton impermissible benefits. Nobody has alleged that Cam Newton has taken any impermissible benefits. I will concede that the unethical conduct, as defined by the NCAA, is not limited to only those things. But the rule is limited to student-athletes and administrators. Again, it says nothing about fathers of student athletes or administrators. If this thing were stretched beyond the limits of reason, I would concede that Cecil Newton should be declared ineligible to play college football until such time as the NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement restores his eligibility. But, until yet another "unnamed source" comes out of the woodwork and produces a written agreement signed by Cam and his father that authorizes Cecil Newton to negotiate on behalf of his son (NCAA standard for agency), this has nothing whatsoever to do with Cam Newton. The NCAA also forbids verbal agreements, but Cecil Newton has already testified to NCAA investigators that neither Cam nor his mother knew about the solicitation. Another "unnamed source" would be required to bring the lack of a verbal agreement into question. The author starts with "Cam Newton Will Eventually Be Declared Ineligible", then produces the most compelling evidence to date that Cam is free-and-clear with the NCAA. That's how I can say that.
|
|
|
Post by Bradimous1 on Nov 15, 2010 15:35:30 GMT -5
Apparently an ignorant blogger that doesn't realize that he just provided proof of Newton's innocence in his own column entitled, "Cam Newton Will Eventually Be Declared Ineligible." while I understand where you are coming from and don't disagree with you on this one... Clay is typically a very good writer. I have read two of his books and thoroughly enjoyed both of them.
|
|
|
Post by LaylaGator on Nov 15, 2010 15:43:33 GMT -5
Don & Whamil - I don't know where they get it either, but this guy Clay is far from the only one to interpret the rule to govern student-athletes' parents and representatives.
There are SHIT-TON of articles out there stating that it is a no-brainer that a student-athlete's eligibility is compromised by his parent's actions. Perhaps because the parent is deemed an "agent" of the student... not "agent" as in "sports agent," but "agent" as in "personal representative."
I'm not arguing with y'all on this. I'm just saying it's a widely accepted concept.
|
|
|
Post by RHVGator on Nov 15, 2010 15:47:38 GMT -5
How can you say that? Everything he wrote about the situation makes sense. Nothing he wrote makes sense because he's not smart enough to comprehend simple English. 10.1 Unethical Conduct
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid; Read the rule. It only applies to prospective student-athletes, enrolled student-athletes, current institutional staff members, and former institutional staff members. It says absolutely nothing about the fathers of student-athletes or institutional staff personnel. No institutional staff member has been alleged to have offered Cam Newton impermissible benefits. Nobody has alleged that Cam Newton has taken any impermissible benefits. I will concede that the unethical conduct, as defined by the NCAA, is not limited to only those things. But the rule is limited to student-athletes and administrators. Again, it says nothing about fathers of student athletes or administrators. If this thing were stretched beyond the limits of reason, I would concede that Cecil Newton should be declared ineligible to play college football until such time as the NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement restores his eligibility. But, until yet another "unnamed source" comes out of the woodwork and produces a written agreement signed by Cam and his father that authorizes Cecil Newton to negotiate on behalf of his son (NCAA standard for agency), this has nothing whatsoever to do with Cam Newton. The NCAA also forbids verbal agreements, but Cecil Newton has already testified to NCAA investigators that neither Cam nor his mother knew about the solicitation. Another "unnamed source" would be required to bring the lack of a verbal agreement into question. The author starts with "Cam Newton Will Eventually Be Declared Ineligible", then produces the most compelling evidence to date that Cam is free-and-clear with the NCAA. That's how I can say that. Wham, You may be correct. But I think what the Clay guy was trying to say then, if you are correct in how the rule is to be interpretted, then there is a huge loop hole for people that are not a prospective or enrolled student-athlete, current or former institutional staff member, coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, or student trainer to request money from an institution / booster without the prospective or enrolled student-athlete "knowing" about it.
|
|
|
Post by RHVGator on Nov 15, 2010 15:48:32 GMT -5
or better yet, what Layla said.
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Nov 15, 2010 15:48:40 GMT -5
Whamil, I would think that, somewhere, in the rulebook, there might be a page of "definitions" that define a "prospective student athlete", and that definition would probably include anyone representing him, such as a parent, counselor, etc. Even if that is not the case, the NCAA will interpret these rules, not Cecil Newton, and they will not allow this to happen, for the very reasons that Clay laid out in his piece.
|
|
|
Post by whamil77 on Nov 15, 2010 15:50:40 GMT -5
If you have a false premise it does not matter how well you have reasoned out everything that follows. It was still built on a false premise. Kind of like the Gators will be good this year because John Brantley is a "good" quarterback. How did that work out for yall? Violations of 10.1 are enforced as follows:
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.
Auburn's defense to a prospective athlete receiving an improper benefit will be composed of three parts: a. that Cam Newton didn't know his father solicited funds -- the most crucial part b. Newton didn't attend the school his father solicited funds from and c. no funds ever changed hands for Newton to attend school at Auburn.
It's not a bad defense given how woeful Auburn's options are, but it's a desperate one that is doomed to fail. Why? Because if accepted, the defense would open up a hole in the NCAA rulebook that you could drive a Brink's truck full of cash through. If the NCAA accepts this defense to its bylaws, it would mean that any recruit's family was free to shake down the schools that were recruiting him so long as the family claimed the recruit was unaware of it and the player didn't end up attending the school.
Think about how ridiculous this would be.
Grandmother's across the country could call up head coaches, demand hundreds of thousands of dollars from those coaches, and then there would be two options for the coach: a. the money comes, the solicitation works and everyone tries to keep quiet once the player arrives on campus or b. the money doesn't come and the player remains free to play somewhere else. Whereupon the grandmother calls a new school and repeats the solicitationThe more I read this, the more I am convinced that this thing is OVER. Even if Cam knew his father did this, unless there was a written or verbal agreement authorizing his father to do so, it has nothing to do with Cam by NCAA rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2010 15:51:41 GMT -5
Whether there is a rule stating so or not, the NCAA set a precedent long ago regarding family of prospective or current student-athletes regarding eligibility issues. So I can see where Travis is coming from here.
|
|
|
Post by donaufan on Nov 15, 2010 15:57:17 GMT -5
Don & Whamil - I don't know where they get it either, but this guy Clay is far from the only one to interpret the rule to govern student-athletes' parents and representatives. There are SHIT-TON of articles out there stating that it is a no-brainer that a student-athlete's eligibility is compromised by his parent's actions. Perhaps because the parent is deemed an "agent" of the student... not "agent" as in "sports agent," but "agent" as in "personal representative." I'm not arguing with y'all on this. I'm just saying it's a widely accepted concept. I understand what your saying, and what RHV is saying, and I believe its all in the interpretation of it. Maybe this is a loophole in the rule and the NCAA is going to interpret it the way they want and Auburn will be burned to the ground by the end of next year, or just be forced to give up all wins from this season. Who knows what they may decide on, but as long as people keep putting out these things and members here keep posting them, I will keep trying to find the good in it for Auburn, at least until the NCAA rules on it.
|
|
|
Post by donaufan on Nov 15, 2010 15:58:54 GMT -5
Whether there is a rule stating so or not, the NCAA set a precedent long ago regarding family of prospective or current student-athletes regarding eligibility issues. So I can see where Travis is coming from here. So, in other words, the NCAA dont have to follow the rules, just everyone else. You may be right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2010 16:01:14 GMT -5
Whether there is a rule stating so or not, the NCAA set a precedent long ago regarding family of prospective or current student-athletes regarding eligibility issues. So I can see where Travis is coming from here. So, in other words, the NCAA dont have to follow the rules, just everyone else. You may be right. This is the way it's gone in many of the decisions it makes. In the end, the NCAA will do whatever it wants...
|
|
|
Post by whamil77 on Nov 15, 2010 16:04:45 GMT -5
Whamil, I would think that, somewhere, in the rulebook, there might be a page of "definitions" that define a "prospective student athlete", and that definition would probably include anyone representing him, such as a parent, counselor, etc. Even if that is not the case, the NCAA will interpret these rules, not Cecil Newton, and they will not allow this to happen, for the very reasons that Clay laid out in his piece. I posted a link to the Division I Manual in another thread with a request that anyone who has time to try to find a rule that Cam Newton, or his father for that matter, broke. The NCAA can't "pull something out of its ass" on this thing. The NCAA can't "not allow this to happen" unless a current rule, reasonably interpreted, has been broken. It can only enforce the rules that have been approved by the member institutions. Cecil Newton doesn't meet the NCAA standards for being an agent. Cam Newton did not accept impermissible benefits. Game over. Will the NCAA propose some new rules? Probably. But, they must be careful. What if there WAS a rule that a father's solicitation rendered the son ineligible? There are a bunch of shitty fathers out there. It reminds me of the end of "Happy Gilmore" when his father showed up wanting a piece of the action. Would it be fair to remove the eligiblilty of a football player because, unbeknownst to him, his father tried to shake-down a school?
|
|
|
Post by Bradimous1 on Nov 15, 2010 16:05:16 GMT -5
how old was Cam when this happened? I am sure it is in here somewhere, but didn't see it.
|
|
|
Post by whamil77 on Nov 15, 2010 16:09:27 GMT -5
Don & Whamil - I don't know where they get it either, but this guy Clay is far from the only one to interpret the rule to govern student-athletes' parents and representatives. There are SHIT-TON of articles out there stating that it is a no-brainer that a student-athlete's eligibility is compromised by his parent's actions. Perhaps because the parent is deemed an "agent" of the student... not "agent" as in "sports agent," but "agent" as in "personal representative." I'm not arguing with y'all on this. I'm just saying it's a widely accepted concept. It is widely accepted because of one statement issued by a "spokeswoman" at the NCAA. In an e-mail to ESPN.com, an NCAA spokeswoman said: "The solicitation of cash or benefits by a prospective student-athlete or another individual on his or her behalf is not allowed under NCAA rules." Two problems here. 1. Nobody can find the rule. 2. The NCAA standard for "on his or her behalf" is a written or verbal agreement and doesn't specify that a parent is automatically an agent.
|
|
|
Post by RHVGator on Nov 15, 2010 16:10:57 GMT -5
Don & Whamil - I don't know where they get it either, but this guy Clay is far from the only one to interpret the rule to govern student-athletes' parents and representatives. There are SHIT-TON of articles out there stating that it is a no-brainer that a student-athlete's eligibility is compromised by his parent's actions. Perhaps because the parent is deemed an "agent" of the student... not "agent" as in "sports agent," but "agent" as in "personal representative." I'm not arguing with y'all on this. I'm just saying it's a widely accepted concept. I understand what your saying, and what RHV is saying, and I believe its all in the interpretation of it. Maybe this is a loophole in the rule and the NCAA is going to interpret it the way they want and Auburn will be burned to the ground by the end of next year, or just be forced to give up all wins from this season. Who knows what they may decide on, but as long as people keep putting out these things and members here keep posting them, I will keep trying to find the good in it for Auburn, at least until the NCAA rules on it. I'm still hoping that Auburn knows something that we do not know (for now that is my hope at least. If Auburn knows something that will eventually screw the Gators, then effe 'em). I just can't think that their plan, at this point, is to cross their fingers and hope that they can get out of this in the clear on a technicality.
|
|
|
Post by whamil77 on Nov 15, 2010 16:15:37 GMT -5
I understand what your saying, and what RHV is saying, and I believe its all in the interpretation of it. Maybe this is a loophole in the rule and the NCAA is going to interpret it the way they want and Auburn will be burned to the ground by the end of next year, or just be forced to give up all wins from this season. Who knows what they may decide on, but as long as people keep putting out these things and members here keep posting them, I will keep trying to find the good in it for Auburn, at least until the NCAA rules on it. I'm still hoping that Auburn knows something that we do not know (for now that is my hope at least. If Auburn knows something that will eventually screw the Gators, then effe 'em). I just can't think that their plan, at this point, is to cross their fingers and hope that they can get out of this in the clear on a technicality. I don't think that's it at all. I think Auburn, and the NCAA, understands that there is no violation. Cecil Newton admitted to the NCAA that he solicited money from reps of MSU. Two days later, Cam Newton played against UGA. If the NCAA even remotely thought Cecil Newton's actions compromised Cam's eligibility, they would have recommended that he sit-out and Auburn would have benched him immediately.
|
|
|
Post by donaufan on Nov 15, 2010 16:17:40 GMT -5
I understand what your saying, and what RHV is saying, and I believe its all in the interpretation of it. Maybe this is a loophole in the rule and the NCAA is going to interpret it the way they want and Auburn will be burned to the ground by the end of next year, or just be forced to give up all wins from this season. Who knows what they may decide on, but as long as people keep putting out these things and members here keep posting them, I will keep trying to find the good in it for Auburn, at least until the NCAA rules on it. I'm still hoping that Auburn knows something that we do not know (for now that is my hope at least. If Auburn knows something that will eventually screw the Gators, then effe 'em). I just can't think that their plan, at this point, is to cross their fingers and hope that they can get out of this in the clear on a technicality. Exactly what I have been saying all along. Auburn has to know something and they are just better at keeping it from the press than MSU was. Thats what I am hoping anyway.
|
|
|
Post by RHVGator on Nov 15, 2010 16:23:18 GMT -5
I'm still hoping that Auburn knows something that we do not know (for now that is my hope at least. If Auburn knows something that will eventually screw the Gators, then effe 'em). I just can't think that their plan, at this point, is to cross their fingers and hope that they can get out of this in the clear on a technicality. I don't think that's it at all. I think Auburn, and the NCAA, understands that there is no violation. Cecil Newton admitted to the NCAA that he solicited money from reps of MSU. Two days later, Cam Newton played against UGA. If the NCAA even remotely thought Cecil Newton's actions compromised Cam's eligibility, they would have recommended that he sit-out and Auburn would have benched him immediately. I thought that the NCAA can't request that a player be benched. I thought that an institution, if they felt that a rule might have been violated, can bench a player, then immediately ask the NCAA for reinstatement. At least that is what I think that I am being led to believe by all these threads.
|
|
|
Post by LaylaGator on Nov 15, 2010 16:24:06 GMT -5
Just a thought... maybe all these sportswriters are just citing the wrong NCAA rule. It's Article 13 (I think) that covers recruiting, and that set of rules is riddled with the words "student-athlete or parent." I started trying to decipher the rules, but it's 4:22 p.m., and I'm not working that hard late Monday afternoon.
Maybe the contact between Cecil and the MSU booster was an illegal recruiting contact, thus deeming Cam ineligible. And once you're ineligible, you remain so until reinstated by the NCAA.
Just another theory...
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Nov 15, 2010 16:24:26 GMT -5
Well, all I can say is that when he gets declared ineligible I will try to refrain from saying, "I told you so."
|
|
|
Post by 96Ag on Nov 15, 2010 16:41:52 GMT -5
All I can say is....Auburn fans have to be nervous about this whole deal...even if the wholeheartedly believe that Cam will remain eligible, they have to be nervous as hell.
I also think he played because the NCAA couldn't tell Auburn that he would definitely be ineligible, so they might as well play him....it was more of decision based having no clue what the outcome would be rather than based on the belief that he would be eligible.
|
|
|
Post by Bradimous1 on Nov 15, 2010 16:51:11 GMT -5
I really think that Auburn would have benched Cam, if they were going to have something come down on them
|
|
|
Post by whamil77 on Nov 15, 2010 16:51:38 GMT -5
I don't think that's it at all. I think Auburn, and the NCAA, understands that there is no violation. Cecil Newton admitted to the NCAA that he solicited money from reps of MSU. Two days later, Cam Newton played against UGA. If the NCAA even remotely thought Cecil Newton's actions compromised Cam's eligibility, they would have recommended that he sit-out and Auburn would have benched him immediately. I thought that the NCAA can't request that a player be benched. I thought that an institution, if they felt that a rule might have been violated, can bench a player, then immediately ask the NCAA for reinstatement. At least that is what I think that I am being led to believe by all these threads. The NCAA can't bench a player. It will, however, make its feelings very clear to the institution in question and without fail, that institution will do what the NCAA wants.
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Nov 15, 2010 17:04:27 GMT -5
So, basically, what we have here is a family of liars, cheaters, and thieves, of which one is a great CFB player and has a fanbase that will defend him to the end. There's no way that the NCAA will just let this go on a technicality that Auburn fans are whining about. No effing way.
|
|
|
Post by whamil77 on Nov 15, 2010 17:12:17 GMT -5
So, basically, what we have here is a family of liars, cheaters, and thieves, of which one is a great CFB player and has a fanbase that will defend him to the end. There's no way that the NCAA will just let this go on a technicality that Auburn fans are whining about. No effing way. WOW! With that indictment, I'll just bow out of what, up to now, has been an intelligent conversation. And, yeah, until he breaks some rule or does something to demonstrate that he doesn't deserve our support, we will defend him to the end. Why wouldn't you do the same? WAR EAGLE!!
|
|
|
Post by BTB07 on Nov 15, 2010 17:17:16 GMT -5
So, basically, what we have here is a family of liars, cheaters, and thieves, of which one is a great CFB player and has a fanbase that will defend him to the end. There's no way that the NCAA will just let this go on a technicality that Auburn fans are whining about. No effing way. WOW! With that indictment, I'll just bow out of what, up to now, has been an intelligent conversation. And, yeah, until he breaks some rule or does something to demonstrate that he doesn't deserve our support, we will defend him to the end. Why wouldn't you do the same?WAR EAGLE!! Of course he wouldn't. I think there seems to be a lot of smoke around this, but I will be interested to see what of this information is true and how the NCAA decides to rule on it.
|
|
|
Post by donaufan on Nov 15, 2010 17:17:50 GMT -5
So, basically, what we have here is a family of liars, cheaters, and thieves, of which one is a great CFB player and has a fanbase that will defend him to the end. There's no way that the NCAA will just let this go on a technicality that Auburn fans are whining about. No effing way. WOW! With that indictment, I'll just bow out of what, up to now, has been an intelligent conversation. And, yeah, until he breaks some rule or does something to demonstrate that he doesn't deserve our support, we will defend him to the end. Why wouldn't you do the same? WAR EAGLE!! He does it all the time, UF is full of liars, thugs, and cheats. Sorry, to all the good UF fans on here.
|
|