College Football - Championship Week (Dec. 4th)

[jersey cubs fan]

You don't think it's more likely he went to another school?

 

After soliciting MSU, Cecil may have come to the realization that he may not get a prominent school to pony up cash.....and that his actions were putting a great risk on whether or not his son would be able to prove he is NFL draft worthy.

 

 

oh that's adorable.

 

I'm not an apologist for Cecil Newton's actions. He's a slimeball. He risked his son's career for some quick cash. He sells 'Jesus will save you' while living by a different set of moral values. Each additional school he solicited would have increased exposure, however. He knew that. I'm not saying he didn't solicit AU, but I hope he didn't, and there is no proof, currently, to suggest he did.

 

There is plenty of proof to suggest he did. There's just not enough proof to prove he did.

[Tracer Bullet]

one side can agree without the other side also agreeing; then you don't have a contract, but you do have a violation of this bylaw. So the first 2 sentences of your last paragraph are actually completely wrong.

 

I absolutely understand your stance. Your interpretation of the word 'agree' and Mike Slive's interpretation aren't in accord. He has the power to interpret the SEC bylaws. That has nothing to do with the NCAA's ruling, however, as the NCAA has their own set of bylaws.

 

that's not my interpretation of the word agree, that's what the word means. That's why billions of contracts are written every year that include the phrase "I agree" or something similar. Each side, individually, agrees. It's not difficult.

 

Where there is apparent disagreement is whether asking to receive a benefit is the same as agreeing to receive a benefit. It's just stupid to suggest that they aren't the same thing. If the SEC intended this bylaw to be interpreted this way, then they intended players and players' families to be able to ask for money and other benefits from their schools. That's simply too stupid and greasy, even for the SEC.

[Jon]

Kansas State has accepted an invitation to play in the Pinstripe Bowl against Syracuse.

 

Other accepted invitations:

 

Southern Mississippi in the Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl

Utah in the MAACO Las Vegas Bowl (will likely face either Boise State or Nevada)

San Diego State vs. Navy in Poinsettia Bowl

Hawaii in the Hawaii Bowl

Air Force in the Independence Bowl

East Carolina in Military Bowl

Army in Armed Forces Bowl

Texas A&M in Cotton Bowl

[fiver]

If the SEC intended this bylaw to be interpreted this way, then they intended players and players' families to be able to ask for money and other benefits from their schools. That's simply too stupid and greasy, even for the SEC.

 

The rule was written to prevent a player or his family from receiving benefits. I'm not sure the act of asking for benefit and having that request denied by the school was even contemplated when that SEC bylaw was written. Has any athlete ever been made ineligible because their parents requested a benefit while the university rebuffed the request? I do think you'll see those bylaws made more clear after this incident.

[Tracer Bullet]

If the SEC intended this bylaw to be interpreted this way, then they intended players and players' families to be able to ask for money and other benefits from their schools. That's simply too stupid and greasy, even for the SEC.

 

The rule was written to prevent a player or his family from receiving benefits. I'm not sure the act of asking for benefit and having that request denied by the school was even contemplated when that SEC bylaw was written. Has any athlete ever been made ineligible because their parents requested a benefit while the university rebuffed the request? I do think you'll see those bylaws made more clear after this incident.

 

I have no idea. I would guess that some (most?) schools wouldn't report such a request (or may not "know" of it - if the request is made to an assistant coach or a booster).

 

One intent of the rule is clearly to prevent the receipt of benefits. But it also clearly intends to prohibit something that falls short of the actual exchange of benefits, or the addition language "agree to receive" would not be included. I'd be surprised if that language wasn't targeted at this sort of situation (player's family requests benefits). If not, it's pretty dumb to allow a player or his family to go around asking for benefits without penalty, that is, unless you don't really want to discourage the practice of exchanging improper benefits. AU may have done nothing wrong and may not deserve punishment in the sense of bowl bans or lost scholarships. But that doesn't mean Newton shouldn't be punished as set forth in this bylaw.

 

Step back from your AU fandom and think about this logically. Why would you punish a player for receiving benefits and agreeing to receive benefits, but not for asking to receive benefits. Are the last 2 situations so different that the player deserves punishment in the former but not the latter? If you want to prevent improper benefits to players, it would seem that you'd need to prohibit players from making requests for such benefits.

[Jon]

Some other bowl stuff. According to the Boston Globe, if UConn wins the Big East, the Champs Sports Bowl may take West Virginia instead of Notre Dame, which would probably create a Notre Dame vs. Miami matchup in the Sun Bowl.

[fiver]

If the SEC intended this bylaw to be interpreted this way, then they intended players and players' families to be able to ask for money and other benefits from their schools. That's simply too stupid and greasy, even for the SEC.

 

The rule was written to prevent a player or his family from receiving benefits. I'm not sure the act of asking for benefit and having that request denied by the school was even contemplated when that SEC bylaw was written. Has any athlete ever been made ineligible because their parents requested a benefit while the university rebuffed the request? I do think you'll see those bylaws made more clear after this incident.

 

I have no idea. I would guess that some (most?) schools wouldn't report such a request (or may not "know" of it - if the request is made to an assistant coach or a booster).

 

One intent of the rule is clearly to prevent the receipt of benefits. But it also clearly intends to prohibit something that falls short of the actual exchange of benefits, or the addition language "agree to receive" would not be included. I'd be surprised if that language wasn't targeted at this sort of situation (player's family requests benefits). If not, it's pretty dumb to allow a player or his family to go around asking for benefits without penalty, that is, unless you don't really want to discourage the practice of exchanging improper benefits. AU may have done nothing wrong and may not deserve punishment in the sense of bowl bans or lost scholarships. But that doesn't mean Newton shouldn't be punished as set forth in this bylaw.

 

Step back from your AU fandom and think about this logically. Why would you punish a player for receiving benefits and agreeing to receive benefits, but not for asking to receive benefits. Are the last 2 situations so different that the player deserves punishment in the former but not the latter? If you want to prevent improper benefits to players, it would seem that you'd need to prohibit players from making requests for such benefits.

 

'agrees to receive' could be interpreted to mean that an agreement between two entities is reached for benefits to be provided at some point in the future. Allow me to say that I could definitely be led down the path you are taking if that's the side I needed to argue. Bottom line, Slive exercised his power to interpret an SEC bylaw that was written in a fashion that requires interpretation as it relates to solicitation. Obviously, it was in his best interest, the SEC's best interest for him to not rule Cam ineligible based upon SEC bylaw 14.01.3.2. He had wiggle room, he used it. It helps that there is evidently no precedent for using this bylaw to rule an athlete ineligible in a case in which the athlete's family solicated a benefit and the university denied the request. This has to happen at least occassionally, and you are probably right when you mention that most universities likely don't self report this.

[Jon]

There's a report saying that innovative Oklahoma OC Kevin Wilson is expected to become Indiana's new coach.

[Guest]

fiver, just go ahead and say it, you're an Auburn fan who's going to jump through idealogical hoops in order to cling to the premise that Auburn isn't in the wrong. It's okay, many of us would do the same thing.

[Andy]

Some other bowl stuff. According to the Boston Globe, if UConn wins the Big East, the Champs Sports Bowl may take West Virginia instead of Notre Dame, which would probably create a Notre Dame vs. Miami matchup in the Sun Bowl.

Yeah, I have been hearing this too. WVU will probably be selected if they are 9-3 and not the Big East champ. The Champs can only pick ND once between 2010 and 2013 and would probably like to pick an 8 or 9-win ND in that time frame rather than take a 7-5 ND with a very good alternative available to them.

 

It's possible ND could jump to the Holiday Bowl to replace an empty Pac-10 slot but that would require Washington State beating Washington as well as Oregon beating Oregon State as well as ASU's bowl waiver being denied. Miami in the Sun appears the most likely matchup.

[fiver]

fiver, just go ahead and say it, you're an Auburn fan who's going to jump through idealogical hoops in order to cling to the premise that Auburn isn't in the wrong. It's okay, many of us would do the same thing.

 

I'm definitely willing to admit there is some hoop-jumping regarding Cam's eligibility.

 

Do I need to jump through hoops to cling to the assertion that Auburn isn't in the wrong based upon what we know as facts today? Auburn University met their obligations. The NCAA provided Auburn a notice on Monday of this week that there was an amateurism violation. On Tuesday, Auburn acted accordingly and ruled Cam ineligible.

[treebird]

fiver, just go ahead and say it, you're an Auburn fan who's going to jump through idealogical hoops in order to cling to the premise that Auburn isn't in the wrong. It's okay, many of us would do the same thing.

 

I'm definitely willing to admit there is some hoop-jumping regarding Cam's eligibility.

 

Do I need to jump through hoops to cling to the assertion that Auburn isn't in the wrong based upon what we know as facts today? Auburn University met their obligations. The NCAA provided Auburn a notice on Monday of this week that there was an amateurism violation. On Tuesday, Auburn acted accordingly and ruled Cam ineligible.

 

come on, you know this is pathetic.

[fiver]

fiver, just go ahead and say it, you're an Auburn fan who's going to jump through idealogical hoops in order to cling to the premise that Auburn isn't in the wrong. It's okay, many of us would do the same thing.

 

I'm definitely willing to admit there is some hoop-jumping regarding Cam's eligibility.

 

Do I need to jump through hoops to cling to the assertion that Auburn isn't in the wrong based upon what we know as facts today? Auburn University met their obligations. The NCAA provided Auburn a notice on Monday of this week that there was an amateurism violation. On Tuesday, Auburn acted accordingly and ruled Cam ineligible.

 

come on, you know this is pathetic.

 

The point I'm hoping to convey in my response to TT is that the current evidence of the case doesn't lead us to 'Auburn being in the wrong.' do you know Auburn is 'in the wrong'..? Someone associated with AU definitely payed Cam Newton for his LOI? You know without a doubt that Cecil Newton didn't give a damn about increasing exposure with each additional school he solicited. He definitely didn't stop with Mississippi State, and he definitely asked AU for cash, right?

Edited December 3, 2010 by fiver

[Derwood]

Just got an email from my travel agent saying Penn State is going to the Outback Bowl

[Guest]

fiver, just go ahead and say it, you're an Auburn fan who's going to jump through idealogical hoops in order to cling to the premise that Auburn isn't in the wrong. It's okay, many of us would do the same thing.

 

I'm definitely willing to admit there is some hoop-jumping regarding Cam's eligibility.

 

Do I need to jump through hoops to cling to the assertion that Auburn isn't in the wrong based upon what we know as facts today? Auburn University met their obligations. The NCAA provided Auburn a notice on Monday of this week that there was an amateurism violation. On Tuesday, Auburn acted accordingly and ruled Cam ineligible.

 

come on, you know this is pathetic.

 

The point I'm hoping to convey in my response to TT is that the current evidence of the case doesn't lead us to 'Auburn being in the wrong.' do you know Auburn is 'in the wrong'..? Someone associated with AU definitely payed Cam Newton for his LOI? You know without a doubt that Cecil Newton didn't give a damn about increasing exposure with each additional school he solicited. He definitely didn't stop with Mississippi State, and he definitely asked AU for cash, right?

 

I think it takes an extraordinary amount of faith to believe that the Newtons asked Cam's old OC for hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend there and then there was no impropriety with him ultimately committing to Auburn. You're well within your means to claim "there's no facts!" or whatever, but you probably don't need to pop up at every mention of Newton's name to speak it, since you're not going to change anyone's mind, and rightfully so.

[Magnetic Curses]

saw this on the illini scout board. lol.

 

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs493.ash2/76679_576130933399_156805148_32551944_521567_n.jpg

[bleedingblue]

Rumors of Iowa playing Missouri in the Insight Bowl.

 

I guess that would assume that Michigan is playing Florida in the Outback. Or will it be Illinois?

[E.J.]

Rumors of Iowa playing Missouri in the Insight Bowl.

 

I guess that would assume that Michigan is playing Florida in the Outback. Or will it be Illinois?

 

Michigan's Rivals board is reporting Michigan will play Tennessee in the Gator Bowl.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Iowa-Mizzou should be fun. Looking forward to it assuming the rumor comes true.

[Flames24Rulz]

If NIU doesn't win this game, they'll never win the MAC.

[Magnetic Curses]

nice strike there

[Magnetic Curses]

i hate that fat kid's emo haircut in the att commercial.

[Andy]

What a brutal loss for NIU. Damn.

[E.J.]

Why the hell is Illinois playing at 9pm on a Friday night in December? Doesn't look like they've shown up for this game.

[Magnetic Curses]

that fresno state kicker is bound for the hall of fame. he's never missed a kick in his collegiate career.