NEW NCAA President talks about the Cam Newton Case

[Townhallsavoy]

Thats not a loophole though...the moment someone says yes...it is a violation and player is done.  Again I ask the question, what would be the benefit to do this?

It's not necessarily a loophole I guess.  But if they left the rules the way they are, there's nothing stopping parents from initiating the conversation, which could lead to rogue boosters and/or corrupt coaches following through with the money requests. 

If the rule clearly states that simply asking for money - the recruit knowing about it or not - is a violation, then parents will hesitate to even initiate the conversation making it less likely they will become acquainted with someone willing to pay. 

[Godfather]

It's not necessarily a loophole I guess.  But if they left the rules the way they are, there's nothing stopping parents from initiating the conversation, which could lead to rogue boosters and/or corrupt coaches following through with the money requests. 

If the rule clearly states that simply asking for money - the recruit knowing about it or not - is a violation, then parents will hesitate to even initiate the conversation making it less likely they will become acquainted with someone willing to pay.

Yes but again, If they ask and are denied but still send the player to the school they originally asked, it is my understanding that you would be ineligible.  Cam was not because he went to Auburn and not MSU.  The specifics of this one particular case are so specific, I don't know how it can be a loophole.

[RWS]

But do we have no worries about our wins prior to Auburn declaring Cam ineligible (for a day) being vacated?

Something of note here: in Textbookgate at UA, we all thought everything was done and over with when the players were re-instated by the NCAA towards the end of the 2007 season. Some AU fans kept saying it wasn't over, there was more to come, etc. 2008 came and went, and nothing happened. All of the AU fans were idiots and delusional for keeping up this farce that the NCAA was going to do something to UA a year after these guys were re-instated. 2009 began and this was something that wasn't even an issue anymore; it was long gone. Then June 2009 came along and the NCAA announced sanctions. As the NCAA stated in the first release on Cam, re-instatement is totally separate from enforcement.

The only thing that sticks out to me in that first statement made by the NCAA on Dec 1st is this: "The NCAA concluded on Monday that a violation of amateurism rules occurred". Ok. So, a violation occurred. What does that mean, though? He didn't sign with MSU. I thought it wasn't technically a violation if he didn't sign with MSU? If it is something that is a violation, certainly they have a scope of punishment for that particular violation, right? The NCAA said there was a violation, so what are they wanting to change? Or are they saying that they didn't create a punishment for a certain violation? They simply said "Don't do that, but we don't know what we will do if you do that."? I think that muddles things a bit. The NCAA said there was a violation. This violation caused AU to declare Cam ineligible. The NCAA re-instated him. And now they're needing to have an emergency session to fix a rule. But they said a rule was violated. How does that make sense?

You say a rule was violated, but you're going to fix that rule where in the future if it happens again, it will be a violation. Like Token said, it's double talk, and makes no sense. If it is perfectly OK for Cecil to shop Cam to MSU, as long as Cam doesn't ultimately sign with MSU, then why did the NCAA say "that a violation of amateurism rules occurred"?

[boartitz]

So. Cam ain't coming back. What he got by with this year will be an infraction next year? WTF?
Either it is or it ain't.
Or yall pioneered this loophole for a helluva one year gain.

[djsimp]

So. Cam ain't coming back. What he got by with this year will be an infraction next year? WTF?
Either it is or it ain't.
Or yall pioneered this loophole for a helluva one year gain.

My take is that the NCAA sees an issue that they couldn't govern on their own current bylaws. They do see a need for an update similar as to Amendments to our Federal and State laws each and every year. With that said, an individual can not be prosecuted by a law that does not specifically pertain to a given situation. SO, the NCAA sees a need to tighten a specific bylaw. As anyone noticed before now that the NCAA does this on a yearly basis, the same as our own Federal and State governments?

[The Prowler]

Bottomline is...if you ain't doin' everything you can to find and utilize the loopholes...well then, son, you just ain't tryin'. 

[Saniflush]

Sometimes no means yes.

[Jumbo]

Sometimes no means yes.

That what she screamed.....I mean..

[RWS]

My take is that the NCAA sees an issue that they couldn't govern on their own current bylaws. They do see a need for an update similar as to Amendments to our Federal and State laws each and every year. With that said, an individual can not be prosecuted by a law that does not specifically pertain to a given situation. SO, the NCAA sees a need to tighten a specific bylaw. As anyone noticed before now that the NCAA does this on a yearly basis, the same as our own Federal and State governments?

But, they said "a violation of amateurism rules occurred". Their wording, not mine. So, if a violation occurred that caused him to be declared ineligible and have to go through the re-instatement process, what rule are they having to fix? They already said it was a violation. For that matter, everybody involved in Textbookgate was declared ineligible by UA and were all re-instated, but we still had to vacate wins up until they went through the re-instatement process. The NCAA seems to be talking out of both corners of it's mouth here. It was a violation. But it wasn't a violation, and we're going to have to fix the rule. Makes no sense. 

[Snaggletiger]

A violation of the rules existed because daddy and Rogers tried to score mo money on their own.  The NCAA felt it best to not hold a player accountable who was not involved and had no knowledge.  How is this so hard to comprehend?

[RWS]

A violation of the rules existed because daddy and Rogers tried to score mo money on their own.  The NCAA felt it best to not hold a player accountable who was not involved and had no knowledge.  How is this so hard to comprehend?

But, I thought there was no agreement? I thought it wasn't against the rules to solicit the money as long as the student-athlete isn't aware, no money changes hands, and no "agreement" is made? If there was no agreement, there was no violation. If there was only solicitation, there was no violation, right? Isn't that what you guys have been screaming the past month? But the NCAA says a rule was violated. What gives?

FWIW, the NCAA holds a student-athlete accountable for alot of things a parent might do. Such as talk to an NFL agent about a deal, etc. Even if the student has no idea. If we played Andre Smith in the '08 SECCG after his uncle talked to an agent, had we won, we would lose that victory somewhere down the road. Had Cecil actually been paid the money and Cam "knew nothing about it", game over. It's not like the NCAA never holds a student accountable for a parent's actions. In most cases, they consider the parent an extension of the student athlete; especially dealing with agents, etc. And that's whether the player knows about it or not.

AU didn't declare Cam ineligible and go through the re-instatement just for fun. There was a reason for that. The re-instatement clears you for the future. It doesn't automatically forgive the past. UA found this out the hard way with Textbookgate. Will we see something of this a year or two from now? Who knows. I'm not so sure we will. But I can't figure out why they would make him be re-instated if there was absolutely no wrong done. If a rule was violated, as the NCAA says, why isn't there a punishment? UA coaches and officials were unaware of the players doing the textbook scam. So, why did the school have to suffer? Other schools have been punished for things a player, or player's family has done. Sometimes when the player didn't know. Why did those institutions have to be punished? I think that's alot of where the outcry amongst the schools comes from.

Are you saying that a violation occured that there should be a punishment for, but the NCAA decided to ignore the guidelines and not punish anybody? And you can't figure out why other schools are pissed about it?

[War Eagle!!!]

A violation of the rules existed because daddy and Rogers tried to score mo money on their own.  The NCAA felt it best to not hold a player accountable who was not involved and had no knowledge.  How is this so hard to comprehend?

Dude...really? You realize who you are trying to rationalize with...right?

[Snaggletiger]

Dude...really? You realize who you are trying to rationalize with...right?

I know that now.  I hadn't realized that all of us were "Screaming there was no agreement the last month" until it was pointed out.  My attempt at logic and reason is full of holes and I failed miserably.  I was wrong and offer my sincere apologies to those who wasted precious time trying to make sense of my worthless drivel.

[RWS]

I know that now.  I hadn't realized that all of us were "Screaming there was no agreement the last month" until it was pointed out.  My attempt at logic and reason is full of holes and I failed miserably.  I was wrong and offer my sincere apologies to those who wasted precious time trying to make sense of my worthless drivel.

Either:

A) There was an agreement for money to be exchanged. The NCAA bylaws clearly spells out what should happen if this takes place, even if the student-athlete didn't know about the agreement. The NCAA has decided to ignore the penalty for this taking place, out of the goodness of their hearts.

B) No agreement was reached, therefore, there was no violation. Solicitation in itself is not a violation as long as an agreement isn't reached, and no money exchanged hands.

But, the NCAA said there was a violation. Violation of what? You can't have it both ways, and you can't violate a rule that does not exist. It's a very clear, reasonable argument. I think that's why alot of member institutions are bitching about it. Some of them even have former NCAA investigators as ADs, and this has them scratching their heads.

[Snaggletiger]

I haven't gone back and re-read the rule again but I recall it reading specifically that solicitation is a penalty.  It's inferred that there doesn't have to be a transaction, just the solicitation.  It goes on to say "On behalf of the student athlete".  It looks like ultimately, the NCAA is saying yes, a violation occurred (Solicitation by dad and Rogers) and technically, the student athlete should be suspended, (He was) but the wording of the entire rule concerning agents and on behalf of are too ambiguous to hold the student athlete accountable.  They upheld the appeal by Auburn and will now go back and amend the wording.

[RWS]

I haven't gone back and re-read the rule again but I recall it reading specifically that solicitation is a penalty.  It's inferred that there doesn't have to be a transaction, just the solicitation.  It goes on to say "On behalf of the student athlete".  It looks like ultimately, the NCAA is saying yes, a violation occurred (Solicitation by dad and Rogers) and technically, the student athlete should be suspended, (He was) but the wording of the entire rule concerning agents and on behalf of are too ambiguous to hold the student athlete accountable.  They upheld the appeal by Auburn and will now go back and amend the wording.

Given your explanation, I don't understand why you would think other institutions are just being "crybabies". Marcel Dareus was invited to a party by a friend, and didn't know the party was being put on by an agent. According to the NCAA statement itself, Dareus was "one of the most honest student-athletes we have interviewed", and still had to sit out a game. Cam Newton's dad solicits money from a school for his son's LOI, and that's no harm, no foul? Things like that are why other schools are pissed.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

Given your explanation, I don't understand why you would think other institutions are just being "crybabies". Marcel Dareus was invited to a party by a friend, and didn't know the party was being put on by an agent. According to the NCAA statement itself, Dareus was "one of the most honest student-athletes we have interviewed", and still had to sit out a game. Cam Newton's dad solicits money from a school for his son's LOI, and that's no harm, no foul? Things like that are why other schools are pissed.

Yes, against San Jose St.  Thank goodness the turds managed without him against the mighty San Jose St. Whatevers.

[djsimp]

You guys should be locked in here until you even out your differences.

[The Prowler]

Yes, against San Jose St.  Thank goodness the turds managed without him against the mighty San Jose St. Whatevers.

Spartans.  And yes...they are a great football team.  SPuat was lucky to get outta there with a win.

[RWS]

You guys should be locked in here until you even out your differences.

I heard he has a purty mouth.....