Tracer Bullet

ouch. that sucks for Temple, but finishing with losses to Ohio and Miami (OH) to go 5-3 in the MAC isn't the way to endear yourself to bowls. And UCONN beat WVU, Pitt, Syracuse and South Florida at the end of the year. Sucks when a team you beat goes to a bowl and you don't, but it seems pretty clear that UCONN had the better season.

As long as the team plane lands in El Paso an hour before game time and takes off 10 minutes after the game ends.

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.

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.

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. sorry, global replace "ncaa" with "sec" in my post and it doesn't change the outcome - newton is ineligible at Auburn. this bylaw addresses payments to players or family (like Newton's dad); it doesn't address a payment to a HS coach (unless the coach is the player or family member). ergo, the Means case doesn't apply. Do you understand that now? You can disagree about whether soliciting money is agreeing to receive a benefit, but it's a terrible reading of the bylaw. agree is a 1-party action, i.e., each side has to agree to do or not do certain things to have a contract (deal, agreement, whatever term you want to use). if both agree, you have a contract. but 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.

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. 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 play for Memphis. 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) 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. I haven't yet heard why you think the Means case isn't applicable. In the Means case, a Bama booster paid Means' coach to steer him to Bama, which is where he ended up. My understanding is that neither Means nor anyone in his family knew of the payments before he ended up at Bama. They certainly didn't get the money and they didn't solicit the money either. By contrast, Newton's father solicited money from at least one school and maybe more. Newton's father agreed to receive money beyond that permitted by the Bylaws of the NCAA. The fact that Miss State didn't agree to pay it should have been immaterial. Thus, Newton is ineligible for competition in any sport within the NCAA, per 14.01.3.2. I'm not saying the NCAA got the Means case correct. There might be a different bylaw that would suggest he should have been ineligible at any school, not just the school that paid the money. But 14.01.3.2 didn't apply to Means. Neither he nor his family received or agreed to receive inappropriate benefits. But 14.01.3.2 applies to Newton. It prohibits benefits received or agreed to be received by either an athlete or his/her family. Since Newton's father agreed to receive improper benefits, Newton should be ineligible at any school.

bladder cancer? holy hell. rip ronnie

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.

add up all the money we waste on [expletive] and $14m for Dunn is a steal.

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'. there was a hell of a lot more going on in the Means thing than simply offering his signature for money.

glad that's wrapped up. no one will ever question or further investigate this one.

you guys should sack up and just say "no thanks"

damnit. he was my son's first ever favorite player. last year, he said the Dodgers would have to be his second favorite team. I think I'm just not going to tell him about the trade.

i completely agree with you. but what does "depending on who you are" mean? fans of the program v. rival fans (or disinterested fans). or did you mean by geography or age? I guess I've never thought of any particular group using any of those terms, though I've heard them regularly.

is it b/c your school sucks so much that you're so offended by the ND no-bowl last year? ND is likely to go to Champs Sports. They aren't locked into any, but that's probably the best offer they'll get and they'll take it.

it's certainly in the discussion. beating a top 15 team, getting the bowl monkey off their backs 2 years ago, beating usc on the road with a freshman qb. sure starting to feel good about the direction of the program.

or he got the D to give up 1 TD (on 4 tries after the freshman QB fumbled the ball on the 2) in the last 41 possessions of its regular season and destroy 4 and 5-star U$C ball carriers time and time again.

did Rees spurn UCLA? What's your beef?

fixed

that you know about or overall?

so i guess Bobby D figured out the option. I hope the ND defense that showed up the last 2 weeks is in LA next weekend.

i'll trade a backup catcher for taking a flyer on Chris Davis.

what school's fan base wants to be portrayed as supporting a reckless bunch of money-grabbing cheaters? i mean other than Southern Cal.

He's not a great manager but VERY few people picked the Reds to win the division, so he deserves it. A manager that does not make the playoffs should never win mgr of the year, IMO. i could have sworn that for the last coupe of seasons, people have been talking about this young Reds team having a breakout year. i'm not sure anyone picked them to win the division this year, but i think the talent has been there. and i fully admit my bias against dusty

They sell ham. Or more specifically, they pack ham before it's sold. what a waste of solid baseball talent