Question: Are schools fed up with NCAA in relation to Camgate
- Thread starter BamaFlum
- Start date
I'm with ya bro. I'm waiting for Allburn Arbituary in the Opelika papers any day now. Could the word you're looking for be "arbitrary"?
Alright then, back to reading the obituaries....
They brought in a bunch of extra investigators from North Carolina. Priceless!
Somewhere in scripture there is a verse about physicans of no value. How about investigators of no value.
Somewhere in scripture there is a verse about physicans of no value. How about investigators of no value.
This from a So Cal board. It appears the NCAA has a well deserved image problem at the moment.
The NCAA has gone from the ridiculous to the farcical. They ruled him ineligible and then immediately reinstated him. You can drive a truck through that created loophole. If athletes are smart, they'll hire an attorney and have the attorney solicit money for em. The attorney can claim attorney client protections against testifying and the athlete can plead ignorance. And even if they get caught, they'll be suspended for one day (zero games.)
What a bunch of B.S. They create a ton of loopholes to get USC, then create a ton to let Auburn off the hook.
It is very normal for a player to let his father make the decision of where he was going to school and to be supposedly have said to an MSU recruiter that he wanted to go to MSU, but it was "Too much money".
That evidence is as strong as the evidence the had against USC.
The NCAA is a joke. They just allowed every AAU coach to market a player for cash. They just allowed every parent to market their son for cash.
Sign me up to donate to the new USC fund to sign talented high-school free agents to play football! As long as we pay the money to his parents, cousins, best friends, preachers, etc and he doesn't know about it then everything is legal.
The NCAA has gone from the ridiculous to the farcical. They ruled him ineligible and then immediately reinstated him. You can drive a truck through that created loophole. If athletes are smart, they'll hire an attorney and have the attorney solicit money for em. The attorney can claim attorney client protections against testifying and the athlete can plead ignorance. And even if they get caught, they'll be suspended for one day (zero games.)
What a bunch of B.S. They create a ton of loopholes to get USC, then create a ton to let Auburn off the hook.
It is very normal for a player to let his father make the decision of where he was going to school and to be supposedly have said to an MSU recruiter that he wanted to go to MSU, but it was "Too much money".
That evidence is as strong as the evidence the had against USC.
The NCAA is a joke. They just allowed every AAU coach to market a player for cash. They just allowed every parent to market their son for cash.
Sign me up to donate to the new USC fund to sign talented high-school free agents to play football! As long as we pay the money to his parents, cousins, best friends, preachers, etc and he doesn't know about it then everything is legal.
Exactly!
“In the Reggie Bush case, when the parent [did] something inappropriate the kid and the school suffered,” Haden said.
Haden, who succeeded Mike Garrett in August, said the Newton ruling is at odds with how USC is attempting to educate athletes and their parents regarding NCAA rules.
“I was always told the parent is the child,” Haden said. “That’s what we’ve been telling our kids. If the parent does something inappropriate the child suffers the consequences.”
USC is scheduled to appear before the NCAA’s Infractions Appeals Committee next month. Haden said school attorneys would probably review the Newton case.
“Intuitively, it seems appropriate that we would discuss it,” he said.
USC football: Pat Haden surprised by NCAA decision regarding Cam Newton | The Fabulous Forum | Los Angeles Times
A BIG GIGANTIC CAN OF WORMS!
Can't necessarily argue with your point if he Cam truly didn't know. However, anyone that thinks he didn't is terribly naive or stupid. Not to mention the report that came out(Schaad maybe??) where the MSU recruiters indicated that Cam called and said the money was too good. What happened to that piece of evidence? If secret witnesses(your buddy fat Phil) can be used to nail Bama to the wall, why has this info been totally disregarded?
I think the USC scenario though somewhat different bears one key similarity that is confusing to me. The NCAA consistently preached that "the parent is the same as the child" in the Bush case. Now there is a difference? Additionally reading the verbiage regarding the power granted to the SEC commissioner, there is clear wording about not only violating the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well. That "spirit of the law" wording is there to cover the - any specific situations that we (SEC) just haven't thought of yet, but knowing some clever person will think of to get around a rule - so, though some exact rule may/may not have been broken, the spirit of a rule was pretty much drop kicked into pieces. This tells me the Commish is "all in" as well. In a pessimistic manner though, If more is brought to light and he's shown the door, I'm sure there will be some compensation package to ease his tears.
:BigA: Cam was directed to Auburn by his dad and he had to have know what his dad was doing without him even having to tell him! I cant believe with his relationship with Mullins that he believed his dad just wanted him at Auburn! If this slides by it will be the best con job ever pulled!
Sorry Mr. T, I know you're well thought of here (even by me), however, this gets my vote for most rediculous post of the day. Why should Cam pay? Because up until today that is the way the rule has been written and interpreted. Whether the kid knows is, has been, and should be, irrelevant. Do you think his dad didn't know that soliciting money was against the rules? It appears to me that his dear old pop didn't give a darn about the rules or about his son for that matter. He KNEW he was risking Cam's eligibility, that is was a blatant violation, but did it anyway.
You can't seriously think the NFL is going agree to punish a kid for something that happened in college, that is inane. The NFL would laugh in your face as they were slamming the door.
In trying to figure out how you could come to such a conclusion, well, I guess there was that exception for Tee Martin and the money he received, so anything could be possible.
So, just to be clear...you are saying that if a kid, any kid, not just Cam, has no knowledge that this stuff is going on AND there is nothing that links his current university to any wrongdoing, then the kid should still have his college career ruined? How in the world is that fair to the kid or the university?
I am not saying that something will not eventually come out that Cam, AU, or both knew something or participated in some way...If that comes out, then AU should be hammered, and like I said, I also want to see the players somehow get hammered too...However, if it doesn't come out, and all that is ever shown is that Cam's dad and MSU were the involved parties, then in no way, shape, form, or fashion do I think that Cam and/or AU should be punished...Maybe we'll disagree there, but I feel very strongly about that
Last edited:
I do think it's ironic, if not comical, that MSU may end up the one in trouble for trying to get AU in trouble bc they were mad they didn't get Cam.
OK. I am fed up with this possible "Cam did not know what daddy was doing crap". IF Cam can call MS and state "I am sorry but the money is too good / not enough, etc", he damn sure knows if anything occurred with the barn and/or any other school in the running for his services........ NO BRAINER, his fake smile tells the story he is a self centered con-artist........ What the crap is the NCAA thinking? Idiots. Maybe new ("rationale") investigators will join their team? Not holding my breath. RTR
Here's what needs to be explained or figured out: how does a player who was all but 100% committed to one school (Miss St.) end up at another school (Auburn) where he'd shown only passing interest?
I'll offer an explanation - Cecil Newton accepted some big moolah to direct his son to Auburn. Period. End of sentence. And for anyone to genuinely believe Cam is so innocent and "knew nothing," then, well, they need their head examined.
We already know $cam is a thief and a cheat. So now we're supposed to believe he's some gullible little boy who's daddy is the bad guy?
Puuuuuleaaaaze!
Even Stevie Wonder can see what's going on.
NCAA: "How did your father, who is unemployed and on food stamps, get the money to buy you this Hummer?"
Student-Athlete: "I don't know. He didn't tell me."
NCAA: "OK. Obviously you didn't know, so we won't hold it against you."
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
My thoughts exactly. Even w/o the Schad (it was him) article saying cam called msu, do we really think he didn't know. That would take naivete to a completely new high.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cam didn't have something to do with his father asking State for money.
The subject line to this topic is very misleading. Is it a question or a statement? It says "question" on the left, but the subject is written like it's a fact.
Because proving an intangible thing as "having knowledge" of something can be dang near impossible to prove. Cam Newton could have known the entire time what his dad was doing but it's not like there is a paper trail of him simply knowing.
Going by your procedure creates an ENORMOUS loophole and opportunity for third parties to shop kids for money and the only thing they have to do to successfully do it is to ensure there is not tangible evidence left behind that the player had knowledge of it. That my friend is WAY, WAY TOO EASY to manipulate.
Going by your procedure creates an ENORMOUS loophole and opportunity for third parties to shop kids for money and the only thing they have to do to successfully do it is to ensure there is not tangible evidence left behind that the player had knowledge of it. That my friend is WAY, WAY TOO EASY to manipulate.
its impossible for msu to get in trouble. when they were told they had to pay to get cam, they said no thanks.
if a prostitute walked up to you on the street and said she'd give you sex but you'd have to pay, are you in trouble if you say "no thanks, because that's against the law?" of course you wouldn't because you resisted the temptation to break the law, like msu also did.
Latest threads
-
-
Alabama Sees Four Names Among 2025 SEC Postseason Awards
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
News Article: Nice feature on Alexis DeBoer (CKDs daughter)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 0
-