It's really hard to take the word of a guy who admits up front that this is the first time he has ever opened up the NCAA Div. 1 manual. A few points.
1. The NCAA does not just have rules, they also have rules interpretations. You have to consider those in any analysis.
2. He says that since he can't find a rule relating to solicitation, then solicitation of benefits cannot be a violation.If you had asked me 2 weeks ago, I would have agreed with him. But now we have this quote from the NCAA spokesman, written in an email, saying that solicitation is a violation. I wish we had the whole quote, and the question she was responding to, but obviously there is some question on this. Those rule interpretations would be helpful here.
3. Without quoting any rules, he states that one cannot be considered an agent unless they are acting on the direct authority of the student-ahtlete. He totally rejects the concept that Cecil could be the agent, and Cecil used Rogers as his agent. Just won't accept it.
4. He says if there was a violation at State, then Cam would only be ineligible at State. He is wrong. Cam would be ineligible, but he could petition for reinstatement.
Finally, he claims MSU is the school in trouble. I do think MSU has an issue if Bell communicated with Cecil, and there's a possible issue with Rogers being in the middle of all this. But -- assuming MSU never actually offered any cash -- those will be fairly minor violations.