SEC say Conference bylaw was not violated in Newton case

[MISSSTATE34]

<h1 style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 4.2pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15.05pt"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: blue"></span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">SEC: Conference bylaw was not violated in Newton case</span>

</p></h1><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8.35pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15.05pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">STARKVILLE</span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">— The NCAA revaled today that<span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">Cam Newton</span>‘s father did shop his son to Mississippi State, but the Auburn quarterback was ruled eligible to play this weekend in the Southeastern Conference Championship.</span></p>

</p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8.35pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15.05pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">With the official revelation by the NCAA that<span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">Cecil Newton</span>did solicit money in exchange for his son’s commitment to enroll at MSU, another question pops up: Does that mean Newton should therefore be ruled ineligible according to SEC bylaws?</span></p>

</p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8.35pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15.05pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">Well, no, says the SEC. For background, here’s the SEC bylaw raised into question:</span></p>

</p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8.35pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15.05pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">“If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.”</span></p>

</p><p style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8.35pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15.05pt"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">“SEC Bylaw 14.01.3.2 does not apply in this situation,” SEC spokesman<span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">Charles Bloom</span></span><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'"> </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #333333; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">said in an e-mail to<span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'">The Clarion-Ledger</span>. “It only applies when there is an actual payment of an improper benefit, or an agreement (such as a handshake agreement) to pay and receive an improper benefit. The facts in this case, as we understand them, are that the
student-athlete’s father, without the knowledge of the student-athlete, solicited improper payments (which were rejected) from an institution the young man did not attend, and that the institution where the young man is enrolled was not involved.”

</span></p>

</p><h1 style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 4.2pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 15.05pt"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: blue">Bloom’s response is weak.I believe Jackie Chileswould argue the “</span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: blue">or agrees to receive</span><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: blue">” language in the bylaw and would easily defeat this crap position. Because, if you were to adopt the position put forward by Bloom then you would effectively open the door to allowing parents an “open-season” on shopping their kids to schools for cash and avoid all potential liability so long as no money is ever actually exchanged.Outrageous,salaciousargument by Bloom…so say Jackie!</span></h1>

 

[tcb.sixpack]

what a bunch of horse skat... wow.

 

[lawdawg02]

Absolutely incredible...

 

[ALdawg.sixpack]

cam would be ineligible to play in the SEC and they would have to forfeit their games and he would not win the heisman

(and of course we would get put on probation)

so i'm expecting a little more respect from you auburn fans out there--we hold your future in our hands

 

[shaschboy]

That's some dang good lawyer talkin by Jackie! Put him in on the next infraction committee.

 

[thatsbaseball]

You know damn well we aren`t the only school pissed about this ********.

 

[CoastRat.sixpack]

Not exactly. He will just be ineligible for the remainder of his college career according the the SEC bylaw. It says nothing about retroactive ineligibility. So he would be ineligible for the SEC championship game only, assuming he goes pro.

 

[Shmuley]

nm

 

[HighLifeRebel]

An agreement requires two people. Cecil made an offer. I thought this had been covered here?<div>
</div><div>Also, that is an excellent sig pic.</div>

 

[Eureka Dog]

Soooooo, ifa family member only ASKs to be paid, it's okie-dokie ?!?

Soooooo, ifa family membernever actually says "I agree", it's okie-dokie ?!?

Soooooo, ifa family memberjust ASKs, and the money is handed over to a non-family friend (to hold until after the player leaves school), it's okie-dokie ?!?

Soooooo, as long as the money isn't paid untilafter the player leaves school, it's okie-dokie with the SEC ?!?

I'm also curious to know if any players' kinfolk have played the slots (and hit the jackpot) at McGregor's.

If Slive isn't booted, the SEC may not exist by the end of this decade.

 

[MISSSTATE34]

Is my point and to adopt any other position would open pandora's box on paying for recruits.

And, thanks.