fiver

I like this move. I think he has a decent chance of putting up a 360+obp, 800+ops type line.

If new evidence were to surface in the Newton scandal causing AU to receive any type of sanctions, I imagine Gus would definitely jump ship. Even if new evidence doesn't surface, Gus could potentially still make the jump to Texas...Chizik and Muschamp certainly did. I think he'll probably accept a head coaching job this offseason though...would Miami make him an offer maybe..? I don't think he'd accept the Vanderbilt job.

At first I found it annoying, but then decided it's nice to have the option of watching a game just about every night for nearly a month. I'm still stuck in the belief that New Year's Day and after bowl games should be something special. The GoDaddy.com Bowl with Miami (OH) vs Middle Tennessee should be played on Dec 15th instead of January 6th. yeah, i wish all of the lesser bowls were played in mid December as well...it feels weird to watch these kind of bowl games after some of the major ones have been played. ...also, I'm ashamed of the city in which i live for allowing the bowl to be called the 'godaddy.com bowl' this year...

the Sagarin predictor (best single predictor for future games per Sags) has AU at #7 and Oregon at #2 (behind Stanford)....but vegas has AU as a 3 point favorite over Oregon currently.

wow, sounds like the red sox are very close to completing this deal.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

First, you are referring to an SEC bylaw, not an NCAA bylaw. I'm pretty sure the NCAA made this ruling, not the SEC. Getting that important fact out of the way, here is what SEC bylaw 14.01.3.2 says: 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. The definition of 'agree' is 'to be in accord'. To be in 'accord', two parties must be in harmony about something, right? This wasn't the scenario in the Cam Newton case. I'm not naive enough to think the money involved with Auburn participating in a BCS bowl didn't enter the SEC commissioner's mind when he chose not to act upon this bylaw. However, he does have a leg on which to stand.

Explain how the NCAA would rule Newton ineligible without breaking a precedent they set with the Albert Means case. The tinfoil hat looks good on you though. this is not the Means case, no matter how many times you bring it up. Please elaborate upon why you disagree. I'm not saying the cases are identical. However, did the NCAA rule that Means would be eligible to play for a team not proven to be involved in the Means money discussions? They did as he was eligible to transfer to Memphis and play there. 1) There is no evidence that anyone associated with Auburn University participated in a pay for play scheme. 2) There is no evidence that Cecil solicited Auburn for money. 3) My understanding is that Cam Newton would not be eligible to play for Mississippi State if he had chosen to attend that school as his father solicited that school for cash. 4) Cam Newton is eligible to play for Auburn University, partly because of items 1 and 2 above. If you disagree with me, please provide an explanation instead of just indicating you disagree. I'm certainly open to hearing other people's interprations of this. You've indicated you disagree twice now, but I haven't yet heard why you think the Means case isn't applicable.

he will be missed by many.

Explain how the NCAA would rule Newton ineligible without breaking a precedent they set with the Albert Means case. The tinfoil hat looks good on you though.

I don't know what happened, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution to condemn AU to hell. You would think that with the NCAA, FBI, every journalist, every message board poster, and Jesus Christ himself on the investigation that they would find something with which to hammer AU if there was something to be found.

The problem is if the family member accepts the benefits, they're (I think?) still eligible. Of course the NCAA has to find out about it while the kid is still in school for it to matter to them. nope...if the benefit exchanges hands, a transaction occurs, the player is ineligible even if he knew nothing about it per my understanding.

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. If he believed that his son was as good as we know he is today, then would he risk further exposure by shopping Cam to every team that was recruiting him after he had already been turned down by one team? Did Cecil also try to shakedown Oklahoma? OU says no.

If Cecil was turned down by MSU, then I think it's definitely possible he terminated this endeavor altogether.

Many people who get paid to write articles are misidentifying what happened. Many are saying this opens a loophole so that any recruit's family can solicit cash if the the player doesn't know anything about it. The player wouldn't be able to play for team that was solicated per my understanding, and if cash actually exchanges hands, then that would also make the player ineligible.

I don't understand how that could be considered an apples to apples comparison based upon the current facts of the Newon case. Reggie did receive benefits while playing for USC, right? I assume that Cam wouldn't currently be eligible if there were evidence that Newton knew of his father's actions, or that the family had actually received an improper benefit, or that the father's solicitation had targeted Auburn. But do you really think he didn't know? if I had to guess, I'd say he probably knew...although I'm not sure if even that would have made Cam inelgible. Did Albert Means know about the solicitations of many universities for his services? The NCAA ruled he was able to play for another team not involved in the 'money talks'. People are incorrectly calling this the 'Cam Newton loophole'. It's the 'Albert Means loophole'.

they would have needed to break a precedent set in the Means case to rule Cam ineligible.....but yeah, I've heard many people state this.

I don't understand how that could be considered an apples to apples comparison based upon the current facts of the Newon case. Reggie did receive benefits while playing for USC, right? I assume that Cam wouldn't currently be eligible if there were evidence that Newton knew of his father's actions, or that the family had actually received an improper benefit, or that the father's solicitation had targeted Auburn.

You must be using Scout. Rivals had Dyer at #11, Coleman at #22 (#3 OL and a 5-star), Corey Lemonier at #35, Reed at #46, Whitaker at #56, and throw in the top JUCO player and that seems elite to me. AU recruits top 25 classes pretty much every year...jumping into the latter part of the top 10 isn't abnormal for them. Recruiting a top 3 class is abnormal, but what they really ended up doing was signing a ton of 4 star recruits. You have the NCAA and FBI reviewing this to see if your opinion is correct though, so we'll see. I thought all of this may be true when I heard Milton McGregor's name mentioned. However, it's looking more and more like he may not be a player in this.

That ruling is such a joke. Many of you are going to believe I'm biased, because I'm an AU fan, and I probably am to some degree. However, this ruling didn't set any precendents despite what all of these intelligent reporters write in their articles. Please review the Albert Means case a while back. His family solicited cash from quite a few different schools, and the NCAA ruled that he was eligible to play for a school to whom his family did not solicit compensation, Memphis. Per my undestanding, there was already a precedent in place that was followed. Am I wrong?