• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Cam Newton (QB New England Patriots)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Gatorubet;1825840; said:
The thing hinges on a simple concept: there is - currently - no evidence that Cecil received money from Auburn, or that an agreement was reached between Auburn and Cecil or Cam to come to Auburn.
Click to expand...

Reasonable analysis. Thanks.

Cam has been effectively distanced from his father in this case; however, I read the following yesterday:

The sports governing body concluded Monday that a violation had been committed by Cecil Newton and Rogers. A day later?following NCAA bylaws? Auburn declared Newton ineligible and then requested his eligibility be reinstated.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-t25-auburn-newton

Do you know what kind of rules required AU to declare Cam ineligible, only to request reinstatement?
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1825856; said:
They you need to borrow this:

waybackmachine2.jpg


and go back in time and write the NCAA rules in a manner that says that. Unfortunately, in the here and now, we are left to deal with the rules as written. As written, simply asking for money from a school you did not go to does not make the son ineligible.
Click to expand...
I'll go one step further ... simply asking for money from a school you did go to does not make you ineligible, as in such a case there would be no improper benefit actually provided and no agreement to provide an improper benefit. A violation only occurs if the offeree school actually provides a benefit or agrees to do so at some future time. If a student-athlete solicits an improper benefit from a school, and that school rejects that student-athlete's solicitation, and that student-athlete still signs with that school, there would be no violation. Now, the fact of solicitation by the student-athlete combined with the fact of his signing with the school solicited might create a strong inference that an improper benefit was actually provided or that there was an agreement to provide an improper benefit ... but under the current rule that inference would still need to be supported by some evidence of benefits provided or agreed to be provided (bank records and the like).

The rule should be re-written to state that solicitation of an improper benefit or solicitation of an agreement to provide an improper benefit would also make the student-athlete ineligible. Such a provision would add more "common sense" the the rule ... so when you know that a kid is "shopping around", you don't need to prove that he actually "sold himself" to render him ineligible. Such a provision would go a long way to eliminating "pay for play" schemes, because "clean" schools would be able to bust "dirty" student-athletes with merely evidence of solicitation (which is relatively easy to obtain - taped phone calls to agents of that school, like in the Cam Newton case) rather than evidence of actual or agreed improper benefits.
 
Upvote 0
why does the NCAA have the burden of proof in a case like this anyways? they don't have subpoena power, so it's not like they're acting as part of the US Government. if they wanted to (hahahahahaha), they should be able to say "no we can't prove anything 100%, but Stevie Wonder can see you took money, so you're done."
 
Upvote 0
CalvinistBuck;1825885; said:
Reasonable analysis. Thanks.

Cam has been effectively distanced from his father in this case; however, I read the following yesterday:

The sports governing body concluded Monday that a violation had been committed by Cecil Newton and Rogers. A day later?following NCAA bylaws? Auburn declared Newton ineligible and then requested his eligibility be reinstated.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-t25-auburn-newton

Do you know what kind of rules required AU to declare Cam ineligible, only to request reinstatement?
Click to expand...


Exactly.

This isn't a case of saying "well no money actually changed hands so it wasn't an improper benefit." They declared him ineligible then had him reinstated. If, as we are supposed to believe now, asking for but not receiving money is ok, then why was he declared ineligible?

My issue is still based on this:
Sec bylaw 14.0.13.2

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."
Click to expand...

By this rule if Cam asked for the money, Cam is ineligible to play for any team in the SEC. In my simple non lawyer mind asking for money is the same as agreeing to receive.

The sickening part is this last minute bullshit all of a sudden separating Cam and Cams dad when the rule clearly considered them one prior to this fiasco.
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye;1814477; said:
There's no way that the NCAA lets Cam and Cecil get away with this. If they do, it just opens the floodgates for any parent to go out and solicit payment for their kids services (and not just from schools but from agents, car dealers, boosters etc.) with no threat of sanctions against the kid so long as kid and pop stick to their story.
Click to expand...

WRONG!:biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
In my simple non lawyer mind asking for money is the same as agreeing to receive.
Click to expand...
Hence, the lawyers call it a loophole.

The sticking point is right here:

a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive
Click to expand...

You must receive or agree to receive something.

Suspecting Cam and/or Cecil got something, such as building repairs for an old church, is different from proving it. Right now, all anybody can prove is that Cecil asked for money, and was told 'no.'
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1825916; said:
The rule should be re-written to state that solicitation of an improper benefit or solicitation of an agreement to provide an improper benefit would also make the student-athlete ineligible. Such a provision would add more "common sense" the the rule ... so when you know that a kid is "shopping around", you don't need to prove that he actually "sold himself" to render him ineligible. Such a provision would go a long way to eliminating "pay for play" schemes, because "clean" schools would be able to bust "dirty" student-athletes with merely evidence of solicitation (which is relatively easy to obtain - taped phone calls to agents of that school, like in the Cam Newton case) rather than evidence of actual or agreed improper benefits.
Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree Jeff. If that were the case, the sudden appearance of a long lost father of a raised-by-his-single-mother 5 star athlete could ruin the athlete's career just by the father trying to cash in influence by soliciting money - even for a kid with no knowledge of the dad's scam.

If the kid decides to go to a school that his parent does not want him to go, a vindictive parent could end the entire career by asking for money from that or any other school. And what is the limit of the contacts? The penumbra of the entire extended family? Their minister? Teacher? Cousins? What if they were raised by non-family - could the non-family care-giver ask for money and be OK because of a lack of familial connection? If the Blind Side family raising the kid does nothing wrong, but the natural parent show up and ask for money to influence the choice, does that end a career?

It is really a complicated issue. The unfairness that would result from an automatic NCAA athletic career death penalty rule should give us pause to push for something as broad as that.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top