I think it's BS, too.<div>
</div><div>But it brings up the scenario that I've been thinking of due to this latest loophole ruling by the NCAA, or whatever you want to call it.</div><div>
</div><div>Everybody's been saying that the ruling allows parents or other middlemen to solicit as long as the child-athlete doesn't know...yada, yada.</div><div>
</div><div>The wrinkle that it may actually allow, given the facts we know so far in this case, is for parents to solicit from schools/boosters at institutions that the athlete doesn't actually attend as long as the athlete is unaware, and the athlete can attend and be eligible at a school that the parent/middleman didn't allegedly solicit or take extra benefits from.</div><div>
</div><div>But further, does this mean that the parent/middleman can actually receive benefit from the schools/boosters that the athlete didn't choose to attend, and regardless of the parent or middleman receiving said benefit and given the athlete still is without knowledge, the athlete can still remain eligible at the school that he chose to attend that the parent didn't solicit?</div><div>
</div><div>Applied to this case, hypothetically if the MSU or Tennessee boosters agreed to and actually paid Cecil Newton upon his solicitation without Cam Newton's knowledge, and if Auburn and/or Auburn boosters were never solicited by Cecil Newton, then is there a violation that effects eligibility at Auburn based on the seeming standard that the athlete's knowledge of the solicitation is paramount?</div><div>
</div><div>If there is no violation, then there has been created a license to steal... and then go play without penalty at another school.</div>
