Sidney article on Rivals

[DudyDog]

People have complained about the way Sidney's lawyer has handled this so far, but like these guys say, if the NCAA can't prove anything on their own, how do they justify holding him out?

First time I've heard of a 2nd house....I'm guessing there's one in Jackson too. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://mississippistate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=979414">

http://mississippistate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=979414</a>

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I believe they moved to California (1 house), then moved again while in California (2 houses). Interesting how these two writers both put the burden of proof on the NCAA.

 

[RebelBruiser]

One of them mentions things happening during his recruitment. I don't think that's really the concern. I think it's more if his family received benefits at any time related to his athletic ability. If an agent bought his family a house when he was only 14, he'd still be ineligible, at least according to my interpretation. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think this is about improprieties in his recruitment as much as it is about his family receiving benefits for his athletic ability.

That's why I say this is a situation where MSU really can't lose. If he's cleared and you get a good player, but if he isn't, you don't have to worry about the NCAA snooping around your door, because they aren't looking for benefits he received from schools looking to sign him.

 

[RebelBruiser]

I believe they moved to California (1 house), then moved again while in California (2 houses). Interesting how these two writers both put the burden of proof on the NCAA.

That's the other thing that I'm not sure about. Is the burden of prood really on the NCAA, or is it on the Sidneys? I would think at this point it's on the Sidneys to prove that nothing was out of the ordinary. If the NCAA asks for information, and sufficient information isn't provided, I'm pretty sure they don't have to allow him to play.

The NCAA doesn't work like the court system. I'm pretty sure they can operate under guilty until proven innocent, and that's typically what they do. It's the athlete's job as a prospective athlete to prove to the NCAA that he passed his classes and tests before they declare you "innocent" and let you play. If you don't send in your information, you won't be cleared. I would guess this whole amateurism issue works in the same manner.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I believe they moved to California (1 house), then moved again while in California (2 houses). Interesting how these two writers both put the burden of proof on the NCAA.

That's the other thing that I'm not sure about. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Is the burden of prood really on the NCAA, or is it on the Sidneys? I would think at this point it's on the Sidneys to prove that nothing was out of the ordinary. If the NCAA asks for information, and sufficient information isn't provided, I'm pretty sure they don't have to allow him to play.</span> <br style="font-weight: bold;"> <br style="font-weight: bold;"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">The NCAA doesn't work like the court system. I'm pretty sure they can operate under guilty until proven innocent, and that's typically what they do. It's the athlete's job as a prospective athlete to prove to the NCAA that he passed his classes and tests before they declare you "innocent" and let you play. If you don't send in your information, you won't be cleared. I would guess this whole amateurism issue works in the same manner.</span>

That's precisely what I was implying. In one sentence.

 

[rebelrouseri]

see how the notion of burden of proof is relevant unless that is in fact in their rules. Burden of proof is a notion from our legal system, and if this case were to move into that posture, would allow for subpoena power, which would not be good for the Sidneys I'm guessing.

 

[maroonmania]

In the academic arena EVERYONE has to show the same thing. That being that they've met the GPA, ACT and core class requirements mandated by the NCAA. No questions asked, everyone has to provide that or they don't get cleared.

The amateur thing is totally subjective apparently. The NCAA, as interpreted by their position with the Sidneys, can ask for any extremely private financials they want from whatever time frame want and from whomever they want (even grandparents in the Sidney case). Its just that in 99.9% of the cases they don't ask for anything. That will be their problem in the court system if it goes there. You can't say that you have the right to ask for ANYTHING when 99.9% of prospective athletes don't have to provide anything. Its rare, selective enforcement and apparently in this case was brought on due to media scrutiny of the Sidneys.

 

[captaindawg]

playing pickup games at the Sanderson Center? I'm curious to how he adjusting?

 

[RebelBruiser]

In the academic arena EVERYONE has to show the same thing. That being that they've met the GPA, ACT and core class requirements mandated by the NCAA. No questions asked, everyone has to provide that or they don't get cleared.

The amateur thing is totally subjective apparently. The NCAA, as interpreted by their position with the Sidneys, can ask for any extremely private financials they want from whatever time frame want and from whomever they want (even grandparents in the Sidney case). Its just that in 99.9% of the cases they don't ask for anything. That will be their problem in the court system if it goes there. You can't say that you have the right to ask for ANYTHING when 99.9% of prospective athletes don't have to provide anything. Its rare, selective enforcement and apparently in this case was brought on due to media scrutiny of the Sidneys.

Exactly. And the same thing happened with Powe. They gave his case intensified scrutiny because of the media around the issue. And I don't think there is anything the Sidneys can do about it. Even in the courts, the NCAA would likely only have to show that they had reason to believe his amateur status should be in question. Whether that reason is an LA Times article or something else really doesn't matter. They don't explore other cases unless something is brought to their attention. They've been operating that way for years without fear of a lawsuit catching up with them, and I really doubt a lawsuit would do any different in this case. It's part of their whole guilty until proven innocent way of operating.

 

[fishwater99]

Photoshop?

 

[maroonmania]

"intensified scrutiny" in the case of Powe, its still true that EVERYONE has to show that their academic standing qualifies them for eligibility. And based on the lateness of several getting cleared, scrutiny on the academic side is not that unusual. On the amateurism side, its extremely unusual that there is any scrutiny at all, much less intense scrutiny.

 

[RebelBruiser]

"intensified scrutiny" in the case of Powe, its still true that EVERYONE has to show that their academic standing qualifies them for eligibility. And based on the lateness of several getting cleared, scrutiny on the academic side is not that unusual. On the amateurism side, its extremely unusual that there is any scrutiny at all, much less intense scrutiny.

That's true, and you're right that it probably wouldn't be happening without the LA Times article, but it is public now, which is why the NCAA is responding.

I think of the NCAA a lot like I think of Mike Slive. Both are mostly concerned about public perception. It's not a problem until it becomes public knowledge and receives public scrutiny. Sidney is far from the first player to essentially have agents in high school, and he'll be far from the last, but he's getting treated differently because the case became so public.

 

[jackobee]

I'm wondering if NCAA is developing a new layer of scrutiny for all athletes -- one that determines that the parents weren't overpaid for the jobs they had while the athlete was in high school. It seems that the NCAA is beginning to dabble in areas where they have no constitutional authority to investigate. Taken to the furthest extreme, would this mean that parents of prospective athletes have to consider every job offer and every compensation package in light of what the NCAA will think of them when their son is recruited by colleges?

 

[RebelBruiser]

I'm wondering if NCAA is developing a new layer of scrutiny for all athletes -- one that determines that the parents weren't overpaid for the jobs they had while the athlete was in high school. It seems that the NCAA is beginning to dabble in areas where they have no constitutional authority to investigate. Taken to the furthest extreme, would this mean that parents of prospective athletes have to consider every job offer and every compensation package in light of what the NCAA will think of them when their son is recruited by colleges?

If the LA Times comes out and writes an article about your parents' living situation being above its means, then yea the NCAA will probably do the same for other athletes. That won't happen that often though.

And if you hypothetically did take a job that increased your pay significantly enough to raise the eyebrows of the NCAA, you could probably produce the documentation to support the source of that income and how it came about pretty easily, and it would be rubber-stamped by the NCAA. As of now, the Sidneys still haven't produced enough to satisfy the NCAA, and that's the big problem. The NCAA isn't going to back down until they get that proof, and the Sidneys are struggling in producing it, most likely because they accepted money from a source that they don't want to reveal.

 

[jackobee]

So then parents just have to worry about someone giving them a really good deal on a house and/or overpaying them for their job and whether or not their students' talents warrant scrutiny of a major metropolitan newpaper? Does anyone know is there some sort of objective criteria the NCAA could use to determine what is too much compensation and what is too little rent?

 

[RebelBruiser]

So then parents just have to worry about someone giving them a really good deal on a house and/or overpaying them for their job and whether or not their students' talents warrant scrutiny of a major metropolitan newpaper? Does anyone know is there some sort of objective criteria the NCAA could use to determine what is too much compensation and what is too little rent?

Again, the NCAA, like I said, is reactionary. They are digging hard on Sidney because his case and circumstances were made public by the LA Times. Without that article and its scrutiny and without both USC and UCLA backing away, you wouldn't be seeing the NCAA scrutiny.

It is what it is because the situation doesn't smell right and it's been made public just how bad it smells. Whether it's fair or not, the Sidneys are going to have to prove themselves innocent at this point. I think that if they were innocent, the documentation would've come out by now, and it would be over and done. Fact is, they most likely took money they shouldn't have, and now they are going to have to find a way to cover it up. Personally I think the NCAA will eventually cave and let him play, but it won't be until mid-season. That's just my opinion.

 

[jackobee]

And it's my opinion that eventually the NCAA will be successfully sued for using subjective measures to deny student athletes the ability to play major sports and, therefore, keeping them from being able to pursue a career in pro sports. Academic eligibility has firm, objective criteria. A ruling against the NCAA could set a precedent that could really hamper it in the future.

The Sidneys could very well have accepted questionable benefits from individuals interested in their son's future. He could very well be declared ineligible and because he has the option to play overseas until the NBA can draft him, he and his family may never try to take it further. But I think NCAA is probably considering all the ramifications of any rulings like this and whether it will ever be called in the future to answer for its decisions. And whether it will have the backup for the decision that would stand up before a judge that may be more symathetic to the athlete than the NCAA.