• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Cam Newton (QB New England Patriots)

Gatorubet;1825941; said:
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.
The exact same argument could be made for actual benefits or agreements to receive benefits. If a vindictive parent, step-parent, sibling, coach, hanger-on, etc. wants to screw a kid, all he/she has to do is accept a team cap or something, and the kid is done at that school.

I suppose you could use the solicitation to create a presumption of receipt of/agreement to receive a benefit, and then shift the burden to the kid to prove that he didn't know about/approve of the solicitation.
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck;1825946; said:
The exact same argument could be made for actual benefits or agreements to receive benefits. If a vindictive parent, step-parent, sibling, coach, hanger-on, etc. wants to screw a kid, all he/she has to do is accept a team cap or something, and the kid is done at that school.

Actually, it's likely none of us have an issue with "actual benefits", in that the 100K to a parent should make you gone under any scenario. The team cap thing is different than cash, or a car, or a job, and it would be relatively easy to make a tier of violations that were increasing. A cap should not make you gone if you have to pay for it and get a few game's suspension. Hell, Troy's $500 dollars from a booster did not make him gone for good (or the "Good to be Chris Rainey" cash of unknown amount either, to be sure) and it would be a shame if $500 kept him from a career as a Buckeye, let alone banned from an NCAA career at every school.

LordJeffBuck;1825946; said:
I suppose you could use the solicitation to create a presumption of receipt of/agreement to receive a benefit, and then shift the burden to the kid to prove that he didn't know about/approve of the solicitation.

I have no problem with solicitation banning a student from that particular school, but I have a problem with it acting to destroy eligibility at other schools once the kid gets banned from his choice by an ass-clown parent like Cecil. I know, yeah, I know I'm am arguing Jax's argument in your response :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1825941; said:
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? .

Only a lawyer would use the word penumbra. I think the whole thing is a penumbra of confusion and we have only the lawyers to blame! :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
CalvinistBuck;1826043; said:
Only a lawyer would use the word penumbra.


fullastarz.jpg


Astronomer cat disagrees.
 
Upvote 0
CalvinistBuck;1826043; said:
Only a lawyer would use the word penumbra. I think the whole thing is a penumbra of confusion and we have only the lawyers to blame! :biggrin:

Definition of PENUMBRA

1
a : a space of partial illumination (as in an eclipse) between the perfect shadow on all sides and the full light
b : a shaded region surrounding the dark central portion of a sunspot
2
: a surrounding or adjoining region in which something exists in a lesser degree : fringe
3
: a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution
4
: something that covers, surrounds, or obscures : shroud <a penumbra of secrecy> <a penumbra of somber dignity has descended over his reputation ? James Atlas>

The history of the legal use of the penumbra metaphor can be traced to a federal decision written by Justice stephen j. field in the 1871 decision of Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.). (At the time, Field was performing circuit duty while a member of the Supreme Court.) Since the Montgomery decision, the penumbra metaphor has not been used often. In fact, more than half of its original uses can be attributed to just four judges: oliver wendell holmes, jr., learned hand, benjamin n. cardozo, and William O. Douglas.

In an 1873 article on the theory of torts, Justice Holmes used the term penumbra to describe the "gray area where logic and principle falter." In later decisions, Justice Holmes developed the penumbra doctrine as representing the "outer bounds of authority emanating from a law." Justice Holmes usually used the word in an attempt to describe the need to draw Arbitrary lines when forming legislation. For instance, in the decision of Danforth v. Groton Water Co., Holmes referred to constitutional rules as lacking mathematical exactness, stating that they, "[l]ike those of the Common Law, end in a penumbra where the Legislature has a certain freedom in fixing the line, as has been recognized with regard to the police power" (178 Mass. 472, 476?77, 59 N.E. 1033, 1034 [1901]).

Judge Hand expanded the meaning of the word in opinions written between 1915 and 1950 by using it to indicate the vague borders of words or concepts. He used it to emphasize the difficulty in defining and interpreting statutes, contracts, Trademarks, or ideas.

Justice Cardozo's use of the penumbra metaphor in opinions written between 1934 and 1941 was similar to Holmes's application, but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific.

Douglas's most famous use of penumbra is in the Griswold decision. In the Griswold case, appellants Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School and director of the league's office in New Haven, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which made it unlawful to use any drug or medicinal article for the purpose of preventing conception, on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional
because it was a violation of a person's right to privacy. In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.

Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/penumbra


Having this in mind, I'm not sure what the penumbra of the family means.
 
Upvote 0
buckford;1826092; said:
Having this in mind, I'm not sure what the penumbra of the family means.

Definition of PENUMBRA

1
a : a space of partial illumination (as in an eclipse) between the perfect shadow on all sides and the full light b : a shaded region surrounding the dark central portion of a sunspot

2
: a surrounding or adjoining region in which something exists in a lesser degree :

3
: a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution


I was trying to convey the uncertainty of what "family" is, and used it to imply that the term family could encompass any definition - from nuclear to extended family - and possbily include both biological, non-care givers to non-biological care givers as well (my "Blind Side" reference).
 
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.

To add to what Gator was saying, I think this kind of rule could also provide for some frustrating over-inforcement when the NCAA feels like it needs to flex it's muscle. Imagine for instance, at a school like, I don't know, Colorado or Oklahoma State, where a recruits parents are accompanying him on a recruiting trip and they screw up by asking for a ride back to the airport or something lame like that. Boom, the NCAA comes in with the banhammer to show that no one is going to get one over on them. You know it will happen too.
 
Upvote 0
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/12/02/1367413/ncaas-cam-newton-decision-baffles.html

"In the Reggie Bush case, when the parent (did) something inappropriate the kid and the school suffered," Pat Haden said.
Haden, who succeeded Mike Garrett in August, said the Newton ruling is at odds with how USC is attempting to educate athletes and their parents regarding NCAA rules.
"I was always told the parent is the child," Haden said. "That's what we've been telling our kids. If the parent does something inappropriate the child suffers the consequences."
USC is scheduled to appear before the NCAA's Infractions Appeals Committee next month. Haden said school attorneys would probably review the Newton case.
"Intuitively, it seems appropriate that we would discuss it," he said.

I'm baffled too Pat. Sometimes I wonder if the BCS conferences splitting from the NCAA wouldn't be so bad.
 
Upvote 0
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwtX-4fXOyk&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwtX-4fXOyk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


ESPN's 30 for 30 has excellent timing. Stay tuned after Cam wins the Heisman for "Pony Excess" - a documentary on the SMU teams and the Death Penalty that followed.

Sneak peek at what's to come for Auburn
 
Upvote 0
TJnTN;1826164; said:
I've seen people on here mention things about the uncle, the father's church, etc......I don't hear any of this mentioned in the media. What gives?

The father's church has been mentioned in the media.

What's curiously NOT being mentioned in the traditional media outlets is the problems that a couple of guys on Auburn's Board of Trustees are having - Boby Lowder having his bank seized by the feds, and Milton McGregor (a casino owner), being indicted for trying to buy political influence in Alabama.

If the FBI (as rumored) has evidence that the bank and casino have been used to funnel money to Auburn players (via ATM cards and gambling payouts), which the FBI then allows the NCAA access to after they no longer need them for their federal cases, then Auburn can be in deep trouble.
 
Upvote 0
surprisingly haven't heard many pro-Auburn or pro-Newton callers on local talk radio here in Knoxville....in fact it's been just the opposite. I'm sure if Auburn's in the NCG the "S.E.C" chants will rain out through the entire south though.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top