Started By
Message
"...a giant loophole in the recruiting process has been exposed."
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:37 pm
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:37 pm
7
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:39 pm to militarycut
How could it possibly be sleazier?
Players are already shopped and paid, like Cam Newton for instance.
The sleaze is the NCAA not doing anything about it.
Players are already shopped and paid, like Cam Newton for instance.
The sleaze is the NCAA not doing anything about it.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:39 pm to militarycut
Based on the NCAA ruling, what if a booster of a school is secretly a fan of another program and pays the parents for the athlete to attend another school, would this be legal?
Posted on 12/2/10 at 9:39 pm to Captain Aubrey
As said many times; the national media isn't going to let this just drop.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:00 pm to FTBLFN
There is no loophole and there is no "Pandora's Box". You can't give a player money then, you can't now, and you won't be able to in the future. Who gives a rat's dick if you have a conversation about money that can't change hands?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 1:50 am to AUTigLN11
quote:
Who gives a rat's dick if you have a conversation about money that can't change hands?
You Auburn fans amaze me. You cling to this notion like an infant to a blanket, but it's STILL AGAINST NCAA REGULATIONS TO SOLICIT.
If Cam Newton tried to murder somebody and they lived, ya'll would be all over the board saying "Who cares if it's ATTEMPTED murder. If nobody dies, what does it really matter?"
Posted on 12/3/10 at 2:47 am to militarycut
Dammit.. and I respect the Wall Street Journal too. Why the hell can't the media consult an actual specialist in academic or athletic administration?
If they would take a few minutes to read the NCAA reinstatement website, they might be surprised to discover that the reinstatement committee has very limited power, acts on very specialized issues, their information completely comes from the school in question (Auburn, in this case), this definitely isn't a precedent, and that the investigation is going to continue.
The infractions committee has the real power.
If they would take a few minutes to read the NCAA reinstatement website, they might be surprised to discover that the reinstatement committee has very limited power, acts on very specialized issues, their information completely comes from the school in question (Auburn, in this case), this definitely isn't a precedent, and that the investigation is going to continue.
The infractions committee has the real power.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 2:53 am to BRTiger2005
quote:
If Cam Newton tried to murder somebody and they lived, ya'll would be all over the board saying "Who cares if it's ATTEMPTED murder. If nobody dies, what does it really matter?"
Because THAT'S a logical leap to make for an Auburn fan right? I know this is the rant, but seriously...
Everyone around here wants to cling to the notion that Cam is ineligible and Auburn is a terrible institution. Show me proof and I'll believe it.
If it comes out that Cam got benefits? frick him. frick him, his father, his kisses to the fans. frick it all.
But you know what, that isn't the case right now. There is no proof Auburn paid him anything. There's no proof State paid him anything. His father did something disgustingly sleazy and who knows if Cam had knowledge of it or not. But it can't be proven right now if he did. It can't be proven that he received any benefits. That's the difference no one seems to be able to grasp.
Solicitation happens all the damn time. Everyone loves to quote the SEC bylaw about agreeing to receive benefits and solicitation. Well the agreement has to be on both sides. If it wasn't, then no serious violation.
The NCAA found there was a violation in Newton's recruitment, Auburn ruled him ineligible, and asked for reinstatement. My thought, along with some others, is that when everyone saw Auburn playing Cam against Georgia as "thumbing their noses at the NCAA," I think they agreed with the NCAA to enact this plan. I feel like this has been in the works for a couple of weeks, in order to try and clear some of the air. But people want to hold on to the idea that Cam is the devil and he shouldn't be playing.
If he shouldn't be playing, he wouldn't. Simple.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:06 am to AnakinTWH
quote:
The NCAA found there was a violation in Newton's recruitment, Auburn ruled him ineligible, and asked for reinstatement. My thought, along with some others, is that when everyone saw Auburn playing Cam against Georgia as "thumbing their noses at the NCAA," I think they agreed with the NCAA to enact this plan. I feel like this has been in the works for a couple of weeks, in order to try and clear some of the air.
If this happened, do you think it's appropriate behavior for the NCAA? This question is not meant to be a flame or criticism in any way, because I also believe that Cam should still be eligible, unless the infractions committee ultimately finds something several months down the road.
But I do question the fact that other schools have had to suspend their athletes for important games, sometimes even when the athlete is completely innocent. The high profile nature of this case makes it exceptional, but the NCAA hasn't offered this kind of special treatment before... at least to my knowledge.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:10 am to AnakinTWH
quote:
Show me proof and I'll believe it.
Cam was arrested for stealing a laptop...which he threw out a window when police arrived. He was convicted and had it removed from his record after doing community service as a first time offender. Both he and his dad, denied any contact with Rogers until voicemails were provided to the NCAA with Cecil's voice. THEN Cecil admitted guilt. And you suggest I simply take their word for it? Not exactly credible.
quote:
That's the difference no one seems to be able to grasp.
But you realize what Cecil did was an NCAA violation right? You grasp that, right? It's not a subjective thing. I worked in collegiate athletics for a long time and sat through more compliance meetings than I care to remember. You DO realize Cecil violated regulations....right?
quote:
The NCAA found there was a violation in Newton's recruitment, Auburn ruled him ineligible, and asked for reinstatement.
He was ruled ineligible for less than 24 hours. What new evidence did AU receive that they didn't have prior to the UGA game? Or 4 days earlier before the Bama game? You're telling me they didn't have any reason to believe violations were committed prior to those games?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 4:42 am to MikeyFL
quote:
If this happened, do you think it's appropriate behavior for the NCAA? This question is not meant to be a flame or criticism in any way, because I also believe that Cam should still be eligible, unless the infractions committee ultimately finds something several months down the road.
Mikey, I agree. I think he should be eligible, and I wonder if the behavior is appropriate. I think him being the star player on a potential national championship team definitely has a part to play in it, but at the same time, shouldn't it?
With as many questions and rumors swirling around about this, everyone kept saying the NCAA needed to say/do something about this. The NCAA did it, and it's not what a lot of people expected/wanted.
The NCAA pointed out in the release from Emmert that in those other cases, there was proof that in some way the student/relative actually received the improper benefit. The solicitation violation was why he was sat, and then reinstated when they decided by their own rules that the circumstances lead them to believe Cam had no part of it and didn't receive anything. That's my best guess as to why they did it like they did.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 4:53 am to BRTiger2005
quote:
Cam was arrested for stealing a laptop...which he threw out a window when police arrived. He was convicted and had it removed from his record after doing community service as a first time offender. Both he and his dad, denied any contact with Rogers until voicemails were provided to the NCAA with Cecil's voice. THEN Cecil admitted guilt. And you suggest I simply take their word for it? Not exactly credible.
You know for a fact that the NCAA has voicemails with Cecil's voice on them? My gut is that Cecil came forward and admitted this or let Auburn know what happened, and that's why things are coming out the way they are now.
And I should take some random person on the internet's word over what Auburn and the NCAA so far have revealed? Not exactly credible.
quote:
But you realize what Cecil did was an NCAA violation right? You grasp that, right? It's not a subjective thing. I worked in collegiate athletics for a long time and sat through more compliance meetings than I care to remember. You DO realize Cecil violated regulations....right?
Yes I realize that. I didn't say Cam shouldn't have ever been ruled ineligible, even for a day. i acknowledge, accept, and agree with what the NCAA has released so far about the violations. I'm not saying Cecil Newton is a saint and that none of this is warranted. All I said was prove to me the Newtons took money before you go deciding that Auburn forfeits everything and Cam is a cheater.
You don't think there should be a difference in punishment for solicitation without the athlete knowing about it and actually receiving benefits? I do.
quote:
He was ruled ineligible for less than 24 hours. What new evidence did AU receive that they didn't have prior to the UGA game? Or 4 days earlier before the Bama game? You're telling me they didn't have any reason to believe violations were committed prior to those games?
No, I don't think any new evidence was presented. I feel like the NCAA and Auburn chose this time as the best to do it. I think Auburn knew this was going to happen, right down to knowing that the NCAA Eligibility Committee wasn't going to rule that Cam was retroactively ineligible. In the initial press release it's right there. "From a student-athlete reinstatement perspective, Auburn University met its obligation under NCAA bylaw 14.11.1. Under this threshold, the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible." I feel that Auburn knew this would be the case, so they played him until either they felt it necessary to try and do something to clear the air, or they agreed with the NCAA that this would be how they did it.
Again, I don't know everything going on here. You claim to have worked in collegiate athletics for a long time. I'll take you at your word. But something is going on here beyond Auburn being pushed by the NCAA to win a BCS title. I feel like the timing of this was planned and agreed upon. It's all too convenient to just be out of the blue.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 4:54 am to AnakinTWH
Quote:
_________________________________________________
The infractions committee has the real power.
_________________________________________________
And they should have worked right along side with the reinstatement committee and issued some sort of penalty. Okay, we understand a rule was violated, we see Auburn understood and declared cam ineligible and we can recommend reinstatement but we will impose a half game suspension. I say he sits the first half of the SEC title game.
_________________________________________________
The infractions committee has the real power.
_________________________________________________
And they should have worked right along side with the reinstatement committee and issued some sort of penalty. Okay, we understand a rule was violated, we see Auburn understood and declared cam ineligible and we can recommend reinstatement but we will impose a half game suspension. I say he sits the first half of the SEC title game.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:01 am to BRTiger2005
quote:
You Auburn fans amaze me. You cling to this notion like an infant to a blanket, but it's STILL AGAINST NCAA REGULATIONS TO SOLICIT.
on his behalf.
quote:
If Cam Newton tried to murder somebody and they lived, ya'll would be all over the board saying "Who cares if it's ATTEMPTED murder. If nobody dies, what does it really matter?"
No, but if Cecil tried to murder somebody, ya'll would want want Cam incarcerated even though he wasn't involved.
As for solicitation and amateurism in general. Picture a baseball player drafted by lets say the dodgers and deciding to attend an SEC school. Let's say that player says it will take 5 million for my son to play pro ball for you. They say no we can only pay you 3 million. He say no I would rather remain an amateur and pitch in the SEC.
Now I think it's terrible that Cecil solicited money (from a school) but please understand why Cam should still be an amateur and not ineligible. Especially, if he did not know what was going on.
Above is the difference between soliciting and agreeing to receive (SEC RULE).. I understand NCAA rule solicit on behalf too.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:08 am to BRTiger2005
quote:
Cam was arrested for stealing a laptop...which he threw out a window when police arrived. He was convicted and had it removed from his record after doing community service as a first time offender. Both he and his dad, denied any contact with Rogers until voicemails were provided to the NCAA with Cecil's voice. THEN Cecil admitted guilt. And you suggest I simply take their word for it? Not exactly credible.
You know for a fact that the NCAA has voicemails with Cecil's voice on them? My gut is that Cecil came forward and admitted this or let Auburn know what happened, and that's why things are coming out the way they are now.
And I should take some random person on the internet's word over what Auburn and the NCAA so far have revealed? Not exactly credible.
quote:
But you realize what Cecil did was an NCAA violation right? You grasp that, right? It's not a subjective thing. I worked in collegiate athletics for a long time and sat through more compliance meetings than I care to remember. You DO realize Cecil violated regulations....right?
Yes I realize that. I didn't say Cam shouldn't have ever been ruled ineligible, even for a day. i acknowledge, accept, and agree with what the NCAA has released so far about the violations. I'm not saying Cecil Newton is a saint and that none of this is warranted. All I said was prove to me the Newtons took money before you go deciding that Auburn forfeits everything and Cam is a cheater.
You don't think there should be a difference in punishment for solicitation without the athlete knowing about it and actually receiving benefits? I do.
quote:
He was ruled ineligible for less than 24 hours. What new evidence did AU receive that they didn't have prior to the UGA game? Or 4 days earlier before the Bama game? You're telling me they didn't have any reason to believe violations were committed prior to those games?
No, I don't think any new evidence was presented. I feel like the NCAA and Auburn chose this time as the best to do it. I think Auburn knew this was going to happen, right down to knowing that the NCAA Eligibility Committee wasn't going to rule that Cam was retroactively ineligible. In the initial press release it's right there. "From a student-athlete reinstatement perspective, Auburn University met its obligation under NCAA bylaw 14.11.1. Under this threshold, the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible." I feel that Auburn knew this would be the case, so they played him until either they felt it necessary to try and do something to clear the air, or they agreed with the NCAA that this would be how they did it.
Again, I don't know everything going on here. You claim to have worked in collegiate athletics for a long time. I'll take you at your word. But something is going on here beyond Auburn being pushed by the NCAA to win a BCS title. I feel like the timing of this was planned and agreed upon. It's all too convenient to just be out of the blue.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:56 am to militarycut
It's like people have no clue how the NCAA operates... loophole?... this isn' a court of law. The NCAA rules on a case-by-case basis.... how is that so hard to understand?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:59 am to militarycut
I think you misunderstand this, they will rule again when the entire case has been investigated, right now there isn't enough evidence and anyone who thought they would have a full case by this season was delusional.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 7:08 am to BRTiger2005
quote:
You Auburn fans amaze me. You cling to this notion like an infant to a blanket, but it's STILL AGAINST NCAA REGULATIONS TO SOLICIT.
I never said it wasn't, I said no loophole has been exposed, nobody stands to benefit from this.
quote:
If Cam Newton tried to murder somebody and they lived, ya'll would be all over the board saying "Who cares if it's ATTEMPTED murder. If nobody dies, what does it really matter?"
If Cam's dad tried to kill someone and failed it wouldn't/shouldn't have any effect on Cam's standing.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 9:22 am to Tigerlaw28
quote:
As for solicitation and amateurism in general. Picture a baseball player drafted by lets say the dodgers and deciding to attend an SEC school. Let's say that player says it will take 5 million for my son to play pro ball for you. They say no we can only pay you 3 million. He say no I would rather remain an amateur and pitch in the SEC.
Is this legal/allowable per SEC & NCAA rules?
Posted on 12/3/10 at 9:25 am to AUTigLN11
quote:
You Auburn fans amaze me. You cling to this notion like an infant to a blanket, but it's STILL AGAINST NCAA REGULATIONS TO SOLICIT.
I never said it wasn't, I said no loophole has been exposed, nobody stands to benefit from this.
I disagree - someone benefits, they always do. It may not be the athlete - hell, it may not be the relative of the athlete - but I doubt the "middle man" - the agent that was used to facilitate the solicitation does all this footwork for free. I would think folks like Kenny Rogers are watering at the mouth about this decision.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News