This finding of an agency in December 2004 is important because it enables the NCAA to declare Reggie Bush inelgible for the BCS championship game in January 2005, so that USC can be stripped of the championship. However, under the “Cam Newton Doctrine” we’ve just learned of, there’s no agency until an actual express agreement is in place (see your narrow interpretation of the Bylaws discussed above). But even more, since the NCAA failed to prove Reggie’s knowledge of any “agency relationship” until well after the conclusion of the 2004 season, then, John, how does this ruling square with the Cam Newton ruling?

Let me be clear. Your antics from another post of struggling with the concept of consistency…”moral consistency,” “fact differences,” “consistency in rules,” etc., etc. is just that. Antics. Believe me. Courts are able to wrestle – with seemingly little difficulty – with this concept of consistency that seems to have you flummoxed. And you can try and cast some smoke and mirrors, but I can assure you that there are many people, more influential than you and with a better pedigree (no sub top 25 law school, if you know what I mean ), that are more than capable of wrestling with these inconsistent rulings. You, see, there are some making the argument that the NCAA is being used in an anticompetitve manner as an artifice to tilt the game in favor of select schools – namely, the SEC and your darling Big 10.

So, while you post dribblings on how hard it is to define “consistency” with less intellectual vigor than a first year law school class, there are real minds, looking to take down the NCAA. And when called to answer, delving into some tirade about what is the meaning of consistency just ain’t going to cut it.

I haven’t even approached the issue of due process, which I think most are aware of a pretty solid case of it being denied in the USC situation, and is an even easier target for a court to rule on. But I’ll tell you what, I’m betting that others – even in the NCAA – will be able to rise above struggling with the “what is consistent” issue that has you all in knots. I’m willing to wager that Todd McNair takes home millions from the NCAA either by virtue of a court ruling or an “undisclosed stettlement.” I’m guessing the latter, which is why I said people within the NCAA will be able to see the light of their inconsistent application of rulings (not to mention, severity of penalties).

So, you care to take the bet, big John?

John acts as though the current bylaw was too narrow in that it did not have the proper language to cover the Cam Newton situation because it was missing, at a minimum, the phrase “or his or her parent(s), guardian(s), or immediate family.”

So, John, let’s get this straight, what you’re saying is that the current bylaw construct was too narrow to pickup Cam’s parents, correct? The current bylaw, which prohibits “any INDIVIDUAL,” I suppose doesn’t count because there’s no legal “agency” relationship between Cam and his dad? Is this really your position? This narrow application of the finding of an agency relationship, where a parent is found to be soliciting cash on behalf of his son, is wholly inconsistent with the USC and Reggie Bush findings. Please reconcile.

It only revealed that Cecil Newton made the offer to Mississippi State, but nothing is proven that Auburn was involved at all.

I think you are jumping to some conclusions that have not been proved nor have any accusations been thrown against Auburn.

If you want to form your own opinion about this thing without any proof then that is certainly your right, but it still doesn’t make it right.

I have my own suspects like everyone else, but if Cam Newton is not guilty then I think we will all have done a great injustice to Cam Newton and Auburn. Time will tell of his guilt or innocence, but it is not up to us to make that determination until such time as we know the full truth.

Most of the Ant-SEC or Anti Auburn fans are coming against Newton wanting him to fail and most are all but ready to sentence him.

Many of this Anti Cam Newton talk is motivated by their hate or jealousy of the SEC and they hope the SEC will fall. But, I hope you are not one of those guys.

However, the NCAA said in its press release that 12.3.3, and presumably 12.3.1 was violated. After reading the original press release, I assumed that the NCAA must be interpreting the word “student athlete” to include Dad, or must be interpreting the term “individual” to include Dad (such that Dad was an agent along with Rogers). Absent one of those 2 interpretations, I don’t see how Newton violated anything in the first place. In other words, I can’t see how C Newton had an agent (and thus violated the rule) unless Dad was the agent or unless Dad’s agent is attributed to C Newton under an expansive reading of “student athlete.”

On a side note, and absent an agent’s involvement, I don’t see anything that prevents “attempts” to be compensated. 12.1 and 12.3 all prevent the receipt of compensation, but nothing seems to prevent asking for compensation. What am I missing here, and what rule did C Newton violate to be declared ineligible in the first place?