Cam Newton (QB New England Patriots)

[Nutriaitch]

You forget the little issue that AJ was found to have sold his jersey. As in - he DID sell his jersey. As in he DID receive extra benefits. Green is not a case where we are discussing "agreements" to benefit or Green's dad maybe getting some money for his Church in a very questionable.

not talking about their guilt or innocence, or the severity of what they did or didn't do.



BEFORE it was determined if AJ was guilty, or the UNC kids, or that D-lineman at Bama, or Dillon Baxter, etc. etc. etc. they had to sit.

They didn't get to play while waiting to see if they were guilty or not.

None of them got the due process that Cam got. NOT ONE.

They all had to sit until the NCAA ruled.
Cam got to keep right on playing.

 

[Gatorubet]

I posted this on November 18th, and my opinion hasn't changed.

He has the power to declare an athlete ineligible based on the "spirit, as well as the letter, of the Conference rules and regulations".

So he could have done so, he just chose not to. Sorry, no Latin from me.

This.thread.Post

I interpret that section that an "agreement" has to be made as an essential predicate before it becomes a violation where the dad's conduct inures to the student athlete's detriment (suspension). I do not read that as being violated by an "offer" to an institution when we have no proof that the offer was "agreed to" or consummated by actual receipt.

See why the FBI evidence will be key if/when it is released....in the future. :p

Just found this:
LINK

Well Bill, I know that, but I've already posted twice why I think that your view of 14.01.3.2 may be incorrect due to the meaning of "agreement". And I may be wrong, but this is not just parsing words for the Hell of it. "Agreement" means two parties agree. Auburn and Cecil (or Cam). Without it I think you have solicitation....an offer....but that an offer is not enough to invoke the 14.01.3.2 Bylaw unless you have proof that Cecil or Cam had an actual deal with Auburn.

Not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but that is how my lawyer brain reads it. But unlike many folks here, you explain the basis of why you think the NCAA or Slive is allowed to act, and for that I thank you. And I would love to be directed to any rule that would be supportive of anyone's position. Because my "Agenda" is what I actually think is going on regarding the rules. I am not a Cam supporter. I was hoping Spurrier would win and save us the future humiliation of a tainted championship.

Finally, let me add that we are both interpreting less than a perfectly drafted bylaw, and this is not one of the 100% versus 0% opinion things. Reasonable minds can disagree. So I can live with the fact that you think that the language prohibiting "a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance" applies here given what we know now. I simply disagree......all the while thinking Cam and Auburn are gonna fry.

 

[Gatorubet]

not talking about their guilt or innocence, or the severity of what they did or didn't do.



BEFORE it was determined if AJ was guilty, or the UNC kids, or that D-lineman at Bama, or Dillon Baxter, etc. etc. etc. they had to sit.

They didn't get to play while waiting to see if they were guilty or not.

None of them got the due process that Cam got. NOT ONE.

Dunno. Gonna have to look them up. Wiki says this about Green: "Green was suspended for the first 4 games of the 2010 regular season after he admitted to selling his 2009 Independence Bowl Jersey to a former North Carolina defensive back Chris Hawkins, who the NCAA described as an agent or someone who markets amateur athletes. "

Woof can tell us if that is accurate. If it is, he was suspended because he admitted it and they waited for the NCAA to tell him how many games he had to sit, as if Richt guessed wrong they could be in deep [censored].

Being suspended because you admitted a violation is not the same as "They didn't get to play while waiting to see if they were guilty or not".

Not the same as the Cam case....unless you can show me that Cam admitted violations to the SEC or the NCAA.

 

[OSU_D/]

You could not be more wrong. The overwhelming majority of UGA fans are openly pulling for Spurrier (sacriledge) than having a tainted SEC BCS title.

I want Auburn to crash and burn - even if it means TCU in BCS final.

I'm calling B to the M'F S on this!!!!

I have been surrounded by Gator fans since Thursday night. To a person they want Auburn to win for the SEC.

The ability of the fans in your conference to stand behind cheating and oversigning is ridiculous.

 

[BigWoof31]

Dunno. Gonna have to look them up. Wiki says this about Green: "Green was suspended for the first 4 games of the 2010 regular season after he admitted to selling his 2009 Independence Bowl Jersey to a former North Carolina defensive back Chris Hawkins, who the NCAA described as an agent or someone who markets amateur athletes. "

Woof can tell us if that is accurate. If it is, he was suspended because he admitted it and they waited for the NCAA to tell him how many games he had to sit, as if Richt guessed wrong they could be in deep [censored].

Being suspended because you admitted a violation is not the same as "They didn't get to play while waiting to see if they were guilty or not".

Not the same as the Cam case....unless you can show me that Cam admitted violations to the SEC or the NCAA.

It's 90% correct. The coaching staff got wind that it happened, they asked AJ and he came clean. Richt held him out of the opener while they turned him in to the NCAA and waited for punishment (so they wouldn't have to take the win away from us).

The NCAA said it was worth 4 games and counted the game they sat him as "time already served."

 

[Nutriaitch]

Dunno. Gonna have to look them up. Wiki says this about Green: "Green was suspended for the first 4 games of the 2010 regular season after he admitted to selling his 2009 Independence Bowl Jersey to a former North Carolina defensive back Chris Hawkins, who the NCAA described as an agent or someone who markets amateur athletes. "

Woof can tell us if that is accurate. If it is, he was suspended because he admitted it and they waited for the NCAA to tell him how many games he had to sit, as if Richt guessed wrong they could be in deep [censored].

Being suspended because you admitted a violation is not the same as "They didn't get to play while waiting to see if they were guilty or not".

Not the same as the Cam case....unless you can show me that Cam admitted violations to the SEC or the NCAA.

the way it was presented when it went down was that he sold it to a guy "who fit the description" of an agent.

the ncaa said that was a violation.
and it took them over a month to determine it was a violation.
he was unable to play the entire time it took them to decide this.


the ncaa said point blank that cam violated his amateurism.
that was their exact wording.
yet Cam never had to sit.

so regardless off what rules were broken, the ncaa said both violated their amateurism.

one guy had to sit while waiting, the other guy didn't.


Dillon Baxter rode on a golf cart.

Dude is an agent, but also a guy who admittedly gives plenty of other USC students rides on the same golf cart.

"To me, a golf cart ride wasn't an extra benefit, since I give 15-20 rides a day to all my friends to and from class,"

so there was no extra benefit.
Dude had to sit out while waiting for NCAA to rule.

took them 4 days to decide. he missed a game during those 4 days.

face it gator, the NCAA has never ruled this quickly on an eligibility issue.
this is also the 1st time the athlete hasn't had to sit out while waiting.

 

[BigWoof31]

I'm calling B to the M'F S on this!!!!

I have been surrounded by Gator fans since Thursday night. To a person they want Auburn to win for the SEC.

The ability of the fans in your conference to stand behind cheating and oversigning is ridiculous.

Call whatever you like. Are you familiar with the Blog, Every day should be saturday?
It's pretty much ground zero for SEC fandom and the overwhelming collection of contributors and readers were rooting for South Carolina.

If you want to damn the athletic directors and coaches as contributing to a problem, fire away. But the only team standing behind cheating is Auburn. And they'll crash and burn with it when the times comes.

 

[Nutriaitch]

Call whatever you like. Are you familiar with the Blog, Every day should be saturday?
It's pretty much ground zero for SEC fandom and the overwhelming collection of contributors and readers were rooting for South Carolina.

If you want to damn the athletic directors and coaches as contributing to a problem, fire away. But the only team standing behind cheating is Auburn. And they'll crash and burn with it when the times comes.

it's about split from what i'm reading from LSU fans.


some are against AU because of sCam.
and then some are blindly rooting for the SEC to bring "home" another BCS title.


then an elite few share in my superior opinion: never root for a rival. under any circumstances. unless it directly benefits your team.

an AU title is of ZERO benefit to LSU.

so, fuck 'em!
the mere thought of seeing them inbred redneck cheating assholes lifting that trophy makes me sick.

 

[BB73]

Well Bill, I know that, but I've already posted twice why I think that your view of 14.01.3.2 may be incorrect due to the meaning of "agreement". And I may be wrong, but this is not just parsing words for the Hell of it. "Agreement" means two parties agree. Auburn and Cecil (or Cam). Without it I think you have solicitation....an offer....but that an offer is not enough to invoke the 14.01.3.2 Bylaw unless you have proof that Cecil or Cam had an actual deal with Auburn.

Not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but that is how my lawyer brain reads it. But unlike many folks here, you explain the basis of why you think the NCAA or Slive is allowed to act, and for that I thank you. And I would love to be directed to any rule that would be supportive of anyone's position. Because my "Agenda" is what I actually think is going on regarding the rules. I am not a Cam supporter. I was hoping Spurrier would win and save us the future humiliation of a tainted championship.

Finally, let me add that we are both interpreting less than a perfectly drafted bylaw, and this is not one of the 100% versus 0% opinion things. Reasonable minds can disagree. So I can live with the fact that you think that the language prohibiting "a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance" applies here given what we know now. I simply disagree......all the while thinking Cam and Auburn are gonna fry.

It shouldn't be that hard for a 'lawyer brain' to see what I was saying in my previous post. :tongue2:

My position is that Cam Newton's Dad shopping his son (whether or not an 'agreement' was actually reached) violates the 'spirit' of the rules and regulations surrounding extra benefits and eligibility, and that alone gives Slive the ability to suspend Cam, based on the wording in SEC bylaw 4.4.2 which I quoted.

And I suspect, as I also posted about 2 weeks ago. that if Bama had won the Iron Bowl and LSU had won at Arkansas, that Slive may have done just that, in order to get 1-loss LSU into the SEC Title game with a chance to win a National Championship that wouldn't be vacated later. But that's just me being cynical about Slive.

 

[Gatorubet]

It shouldn't be that hard for a 'lawyer brain' to see what I was saying in my previous post. :tongue2:

Oh I saw what you were saying. Just making my point again about the bylaw you quoted first. And certainly by "lawyer brain" I do not mean to indicate it's more...brainy:tongue2: But you know that...:p I meant that to mean how when I (we) see a reg or statute or code we can't help but start to parse and compare and interpret and poke it around some....rather than take it at face value. Reason 513 to hate us

My position is that Cam Newton's Dad shopping his son (whether or not an 'agreement' was actually reached) violates the 'spirit' of the rules and regulations surrounding extra benefits and eligibility, and that alone gives Slive the ability to suspend Cam, based on the wording in SEC bylaw 4.4.2 which I quoted.

Yeah I got that. Spirit. Spirit. Spirit. Spirit equals bull[censored] when it comes to due process. I mean, I'm taking you to jail because you passed the Breathalyzer but you violated the "Spirit" of DUI. I mean, you can say "I have the power to just make up [censored]", but it is a very, very dangerous
strategy, from a legal standpoint, to ruin Auburn and Cam's shot at the BCS when the actual language of the bylaws specifically addressing the issue is seemingly against a ban unless different facts are proven.

I view that "spirit" language as the functional legal equivalent of the "not responsible for injury" phrase printed on your lift ticket. If your ski lift chair falls off half way up that language will be worth as much to the ski resort as having Cincinnati as a pick in the 2010 BCSCG pool.

And I suspect, as I also posted about 2 weeks ago. that if Bama had won the Iron Bowl and LSU had won at Arkansas, that Slive may have done just that, in order to get 1-loss LSU into the SEC Title game with a chance to win a National Championship that wouldn't be vacated later. But that's just me being cynical about Slive.

As opposed to the Big-10, which would have issued horse hair shirts to the entire conference and voluntarily withdrawn from all BCS games.

 

[Gatorubet]

I'm calling B to the M'F S on this!!!!

I have been surrounded by Gator fans since Thursday night. To a person they want Auburn to win for the SEC.

You're that guy???? Yeah, I got the memo to piss you off too

 

[jimotis4heisman]

Oh I saw what you were saying. Just making my point again about the bylaw you quoted first. And certainly by "lawyer brain" I do not mean to indicate it's more...brainy:tongue2: But you know that...:p I meant that to mean how when I (we) see a reg or statute or code we can't help but start to parse and compare and interpret and poke it around some....rather than take it at face value. Reason 513 to hate us



Yeah I got that. Spirit. Spirit. Spirit. Spirit equals bull[censored] when it comes to due process. I mean, I'm taking you to jail because you passed the Breathalyzer but you violated the "Spirit" of DUI. I mean, you can say "I have the power to just make up [censored]", but it is a very, very dangerous
strategy, from a legal standpoint, to ruin Auburn and Cam's shot at the BCS when the actual language of the bylaws specifically addressing the issue is seemingly against a ban unless different facts are proven.

I view that "spirit" language as the functional legal equivalent of the "not responsible for injury" phrase printed on your lift ticket. If your ski lift chair falls off half way up that language will be worth as much to the ski resort as having Cincinnati as a pick in the 2010 BCSCG pool.



As opposed to the Big-10, which would have issued horse hair shirts to the entire conference and voluntarily withdrawn from all BCS games.

im not really sure the ncaa is bound by "due process" but thats just me...

 

[Gatorubet]

im not really sure the ncaa is bound by "due process" but thats just me...

You bring up a good point. The cop is a state actor, and to that extent substantive and procedural due process is all in that exchange. How the Hell the NCAA and SEC are viewed under the law is not something I've looked up. But you know, whether you are looking at it from the standpoint of the NCAA and the SEC acting in concert with public institutions ( I presume a property interest can arise from an athletes' contract with a public university that trades athletic service for tuition and possibly the right to showcase his talents on the field) or from a garden variety suit for damages due to improper suspension, certainly parties can create rights via contract as substantive as some that arise from the 14th Amendment.

I just think that this is serious enough that Slive did not want to shoot from the hip and get it wrong. I'd hate to be under cross and have to explain the "spirit" reason that someone who did not accept or agree to accept benefits was kicked off the team when a bylaw addressed that specific situation.

 

[Steve19]

I also believe that Mike Slive, as commissioner of the SEC, had the power to declare Cam ineligible based on SEC and NCAA bylaws, but I'm not at all surprised that he didn't do it - he's more interested in the glory of SEC teams winning a championship.

Let's just remember that Mike Slive is an anagram for Mike's Evil.

 

[BuckeyeBill]

I know it's already been discussed, but I can't help but think that the NCAA has bigger fish to fry in this whole mess. Between the rumored FBI / IRS investigations, the tigerdroppings posting, Terry Bowden's previous revelations, etc, I'm wondering if they're viewing the whole Cam Newton thing as a minor distraction at this point. And if such a major case is really being built against Auburn, I'm not sure it's worth revealing their hand. I just have a hard time believing that no action has been taken given what we already know (the Dad's acknowledgment) without there being more to this story. I have to believe something much bigger is afoot.