Sports by Brooks latest tweet
- Thread starter jb1020
- Start date
Well it sounds like it has went from "Cam was in the room" to "I think we can prove he was in the room".
however, I would like to repeat a question I asked before...<div>
</div><div>If Cecil shopped Cam (and he has admitted as much) is Cam not immediately ineligible to play [anywhere]?</div>
</div><div>If Cecil shopped Cam (and he has admitted as much) is Cam not immediately ineligible to play [anywhere]?</div>
that seems to be what everyone that reads the NCAA rules understands them to say....that is, everyone but the enforcement staff at the NCAA.
Seems that all of a sudden it doesn't matter what payment is asked for, as long as the player is "unaware".
Seems that all of a sudden it doesn't matter what payment is asked for, as long as the player is "unaware".
Remember - they said it was a "loophole" that needed closing but the premise of their message was that as long as Cam didn't know and benefits were never received, Cam is in the clear. I'm curious if they will ever close the "loophole" because I'm very anxious to see what and how they will edit the framework because you have to read it pretty liberally to interpret there being a loophole that can be taken advantage of in the first place.
The NCAA said that Rogers and Cecil violated the agency rules (chapter 12) by seeking benefits in exchange for sending Cam to play at MSU. However,you cannot be someone's agent if they have not authorized you to act on their behalf. If Cam didn't know what Cecil was up to, then he could not have authorized it.
I thought the NCAA rules on unethical conduct were broad enough to cover asking for money, but the NCAA did not address that. The SEC unethical conduct rule is more explicit, and says you are ineligible if a family member asks for extra benefits, but Slive decided that rule was not meant to cover situations like this. (No, I don't know what that means either).
I thought the NCAA rules on unethical conduct were broad enough to cover asking for money, but the NCAA did not address that. The SEC unethical conduct rule is more explicit, and says you are ineligible if a family member asks for extra benefits, but Slive decided that rule was not meant to cover situations like this. (No, I don't know what that means either).
Was very specific. I'm paraphrasing here, but said something to the effect that once any agent, parent, family member, or anyone purporting to represent the athlete, directly asks for improper benefits, the athlete is immediately deemed ineligible.
You can get into a lot of arguments with the language, of course. But by choosing to interpret the rules the way they did, I think they unintentionally opened themselves up to look more ridiculous than they already do.
If you are more familiar with the subject matter, I'll cede to you, but their decision caused many more problems than it solved. But they got their Heisman Trophy ratings, and SEC Championship Game ratings, and of course the NC. They did, however, leave themselves an out. By saying if it is found that he did know, they can look like the purveyors of justice by stripping AU of all their trophies and still keep all the money they made..
You can get into a lot of arguments with the language, of course. But by choosing to interpret the rules the way they did, I think they unintentionally opened themselves up to look more ridiculous than they already do.
If you are more familiar with the subject matter, I'll cede to you, but their decision caused many more problems than it solved. But they got their Heisman Trophy ratings, and SEC Championship Game ratings, and of course the NC. They did, however, leave themselves an out. By saying if it is found that he did know, they can look like the purveyors of justice by stripping AU of all their trophies and still keep all the money they made..
The SEC unethical conduct rule expressly says that any athlete, family member, agent, etc. who seeks an extra benefit renders the athlete ineligible to play at anySEC school. Slive simply said that rule had never been enforced, and he did not believe it was intended to cover situations like Cam.</p>
The NCAA unethical conduct rule does not even expressly mention asking for benefits. It says its unethical to offer benefits, or receive benefits, but doesn't say anything about asking for benefits. However, the rule is not an exclusive list; it says that unethical conduct "includes but is not limited to" the following activities:.....</p>
The NCAA unethical conduct rule does not even expressly mention asking for benefits. It says its unethical to offer benefits, or receive benefits, but doesn't say anything about asking for benefits. However, the rule is not an exclusive list; it says that unethical conduct "includes but is not limited to" the following activities:.....</p>
an agent. An agent may also have "apparent" authority, which is created when the principal (Newton) acted in such a way to lead a reasonable person to believe that the agent (Cecil) was acting on behalf of his son. Not sure the NCAA is going to rely on established agency law though since they seem to have abandoned common sense.