Big10 commissioner - Guilty until proven innocent

Read the end of the story here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5899725" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



But here is the gist.

NCAA president says reinstatement of a player's eligibility is based upon the principle that if there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt, the player will remain eligible. Jim Delany, Big10 commissioner and former NCAA investigator, says lets change the rules so the athlete and institution must prove innocence.



I know many of you don't agree with my argument that the NCAA and member colleges are an illicit cartel and players are not morally bound to any promises made to the NCAA or college, but at least you still believe in refraining from punishing until guilt is proven, right? I mean no one with any morals or belief in the rule of law can really side with the Big10 commissioner on this one can they?

That rule change will not be implemented. It is a bad idea. Just as bad as the idea for the Newton's to do pay for play in an amateur sport.

Cam Newton's father admitted to agreeing to accept cash. A player is ineligible by SEC bylaws if the player or family members accepts or agrees to accept money. Newton was guilty by the bylaws of the SEC and was correctly deemed ineligbile by the school and SEC.



But since it's a bad rule it doesn't need to be followed. Since I feel I'm above the rules, I don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else.

kitic77 wrote:

But since it's a bad rule it doesn't need to be followed. Since I feel I'm above the rules, I don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else.

The wicked rules of wicked men need never be followed. It matters not whether those rules were made by King George, Adolf Hitler or an SEC commissioner.

Lawboy wrote:
That rule change will not be implemented. It is a bad idea.

I think it will be implemented. Just as there is a poor rule holding the son accountable for the sins of his father.

A one note symphony may sound like music to your ears, but to everyone else it's annoying. I suggest you move past sharing your extremism on every post if you want to stick around.

jvquarterback wrote:

I think it will be implemented. Just as there is a poor rule holding the son accountable for the sins of his father.

Okay think about it. In a recruiting situation lets say the father receives a payment from School A in order to persuade his child to attend that school. Do you really think that the father is just going to take the money and never mention a thing to the son? What if the son starts leaning towards School B? Is the father just going to sit there and never say a word?



Even if the son doesn't receive the money directly he can see the effect it is having on his family with their new cars, houses, clothes, etc and that in and of itself is enough to persuade the son in a certain direction.



The rule makes sense to me.



P.S. Do you ever post on any other subject? Do you even care about the actual game of football or BYU sports in general?

hawkwing wrote:
A one note symphony may sound like music to your ears, but to everyone else it's annoying. I suggest you move past sharing your extremism on every post if you want to stick around.

Hear hear.



Why wait?

jvquarterback wrote:

But since it's a bad rule it doesn't need to be followed. Since I feel I'm above the rules, I don't need to follow the same rules as everyone else.

The wicked rules of wicked men need never be followed. It matters not whether those rules were made by King George, Adolf Hitler or a SEC commissioner.

It is almost laughable at how misguided you are. There is no spiritual or moral leg for you to stand on with this comment.



Any agreement that you freely join you are morally and spiritually obligated to abide by those rules. If you feel those rules are unfair then you must work to change those rules from within the confines set forth according to your joining. If you cannot make the changes you feel are fair your only recourse is to leave the organization. Anything else is hypocrisy of the highest order and a damnable sin.



Any excuses that the NCAA is too big are simply weak justifications. If you're going to make a moral stand on a matter than you need to do it morally.

CannonCougar85 wrote:

I think it will be implemented. Just as there is a poor rule holding the son accountable for the sins of his father.

Okay think about it. In a recruiting situation lets say the father receives a payment from School A in order to persuade his child to attend that school. Do you really think that the father is just going to take the money and never mention a thing to the son? What if the son starts leaning towards School B? Is the father just going to sit there and never say a word?



Even if the son doesn't receive the money directly he can see the effect it is having on his family with their new cars, houses, clothes, etc and that in and of itself is enough to persuade the son in a certain direction.



The rule makes sense to me.



P.S. Do you ever post on any other subject? Do you even care about the actual game of football or BYU sports in general?

1. If the father is smart than yes I think he would keep the relevant details from his child.

2. Fathers have ways of pressuring their sons about matters of finance without mentioning finances. Have you never been a father (or a son)?

3. How (and why) would you distinguish between increased trucking business as a result of new contacts made during the recruiting process and direct payment for services? The NCAA cannot prove a thing here. What Jim Delaney wants to do is absurd, but then the NCAA is absurd so I predict another lame illegitimate rule that everyone will be up in arms over.



4. Yes I post on other subjects. The reason there seem to be so many threads started by myself regarding this subject is that any time I defend Cameron Newton against the slander of others, the mods peel it off as a thread I started, which I think is pretty lame as it takes my posts out of context. This is in fact, the only thread I have really started on a related subject. I've posted on the Pac12 signing with the NM bowl and speculated as to scheduling in the future, and I very much enjoy reading about new recruits, though I don't have a lot to contribute there. I will, however, continue to defend Cameron Newton from anyone who thinks what he is accused of doing was wrong, and definitely from folks like Jim Delaney who want turn justice even more on its head than they already have.

hawkwing wrote:
Any agreement that you freely join you are morally and spiritually obligated to abide by those rules. If you feel those rules are unfair then you must work to change those rules from within the confines set forth according to your joining. If you cannot make the changes you feel are fair your only recourse is to leave the organization. Anything else is hypocrisy of the highest order and a damnable sin.



Any excuses that the NCAA is too big are simply weak justifications. If you're going to make a moral stand on a matter than you need to do it morally.

Probably shouldn't have taken the bait from kitic as it wasn't relevant to this thread but here is my response which has nothing to do with the size of the NCAA and everything to do with the NCAA's Illegitimate use of force:



The NCAA and the universities that participate are a cartel in which the government has a 86% ownership share (only 17 of 119 teams/universities are privately owned). Those colleges pay no taxes on gate receipts or donations, putting potential private competitors at a significant disadvantage (in fact private competitors would actually be funding their government competitors with any taxes that they pay). These advantages are obtained through force.



The proper and just reaction to the use of force on the part of the NCAA and the universities is a comparable use of force against them. In the case of Cameron Newton (or any other college athlete) that includes breaking a contract not to receive any compensation for the services rendered. Thus Cameron Newton would be justified in receiving compensation even though he allegedly signed some contract stating that he would not.



This scenario should be viewed in the same light as though one retailer burned down the offices of a competitor and then signed contracts with the employees of the competitor at lower than previous market wages. The employees are justified in breaking the contracts they signed against the retailer that destroyed the previous employer. They are also justified in using force to destroy their current employer.

It is not slander when it is the truth. Can't slander a guy who said "the money was just too great" claiming he knew his dad was working a pay off. Try again. Spin it how you like, but when the FBI investigation comes out in full--after the trial of the dirty members of the Auburn family(Board of Trustees), you will be nowhere to be found. Newton will lose what he earned on the field with his great play because of his dirtiness off of it. Beleive it or not, some people actually beleive in fairness, equality and integrity.



This cartel argument is smokescreen and well. This is plain and simply about amateurism and nothing else. You want to play as an amateur, you abide by the INTERNATIONAL rules of amateurism. Taking payment for sevices deems you a professional rendering you inelligible to compete at the amateur level. The rest is smokescreen and a failed attempt by you to justify and muddy the waters.

I'm not one to normally say stuff like this, but your post is an EPIC FAIL.



It fails on almost every possible level. Lets examine.



EPIC FAIL

jvquarterback wrote:
The NCAA and the universities that participate are a cartel in which the government has a 86% ownership share (only 17 of 119 teams/universities are privately owned). Those colleges pay no taxes on gate receipts or donations, putting potential private competitors at a significant disadvantage (in fact private competitors would actually be funding their government competitors with any taxes that they pay). These advantages are obtained through force.

FAIL. Universities paying or not paying taxes has no bearing on this discussion. Also, that they are dangerous or use force against private universities is also Fail. Several private universities unaffiliated with the NCAA do extremely well. Government sponsored institutions of learning are a gospel principle, as Joseph Smith taught.

jvquarterback wrote:
The proper and just reaction to the use of force on the part of the NCAA and the universities is a comparable use of force against them. In the case of Cameron Newton (or any other college athlete) that includes breaking a contract not to receive any compensation for the services rendered. Thus Cameron Newton would be justified in receiving compensation even though he allegedly signed some contract stating that he would not.

FAIL. The proper reaction is not to use force. Each institution knew the rules when they joined and have been part of the ongoing discussion since then. If rules are enacted that they cannot abide with and cannot get others to agree with them to change the only proper and just reaction is to leave the voluntary organization with which they have affiliated themselves with. There is absolutely zero support by any legitimate moral authority that breaking voluntary agreed to rules is a proper or just thing. If they were to leave the NCAA and the SEC and then pay Cam Newton, I would have no problem with that.

jvquarterback wrote:
This scenario should be viewed in the same light as though one retailer burned down the offices of a competitor and then signed contracts with the employees of the competitor at lower than previous market wages. The employees are justified in breaking the contracts they signed against the retailer that destroyed the previous employer. They are also justified in using force to destroy their current employer.

FAIL. This paragraph makes little to no sense, but I will try to address your rantings anyway. If a company burns down the building of a competitor the company should be brought to trial, convicted and punished by the laws and rules that they agreed to when they formed the company (assuming they are a US company, that would be US laws -- if they felt they couldn't abide by US laws they should form their company in a country they can follow the laws in). If they "got away with it" they have every right to try to hire the now out of work employees. If those employees then come to discover evidence that their new employer was behind the arson then they are morally obligated to turn that information over to the authorities. If they in turn burn down their new employers offices, they are criminals, no better than their employers.

Perhaps ignoring jvqb was a mistake?...

Lawboy wrote:
It is not slander when it is the truth. Can't slander a guy who said "the money was just too great" claiming he knew his dad was working a pay off. Try again. Spin it how you like, but when the FBI investigation comes out in full--after the trial of the dirty members of the Auburn family(Board of Trustees), you will be nowhere to be found. Newton will lose what he earned on the field with his great play because of his dirtiness off of it. Beleive it or not, some people actually beleive in fairness, equality and integrity.

Well at least you say we should wait for the end of the investigation, which I think will end up proving nothing. That's more than can be said of Jim Delaney and the majority of posters here. Cam's quote may very well be taken out of context, as I'm sure you are aware. In the end someone may try some lame conspiracy charge, but it won't stick unless they get a jury composed entirely of University of Alabama alumni. How's that for equality before the law.

hawkwing wrote:

The NCAA and the universities that participate are a cartel in which the government has a 86% ownership share (only 17 of 119 teams/universities are privately owned). Those colleges pay no taxes on gate receipts or donations, putting potential private competitors at a significant disadvantage (in fact private competitors would actually be funding their government competitors with any taxes that they pay). These advantages are obtained through force.

Universities paying or not paying taxes has no bearing on this discussion. Also, that they are dangerous or use force against private universities is also Fail. Several private universities unaffiliated with the NCAA do extremely well. Government sponsored institutions of learning are a gospel principle, as Joseph Smith taught.

You misunderstand my argument. I do not distinguish between public and private universities, but for profit employers such as arena league. Any for profit opportunity Cameron Newton may have had would be at a disadvantage to the government sponsored activities of the univerisities.

hawkwing wrote:

The proper and just reaction to the use of force on the part of the NCAA and the universities is a comparable use of force against them. In the case of Cameron Newton (or any other college athlete) that includes breaking a contract not to receive any compensation for the services rendered. Thus Cameron Newton would be justified in receiving compensation even though he allegedly signed some contract stating that he would not.

The proper reaction is not to use force. Each institution knew the rules when they joined and have been part of the ongoing discussion since then. If rules are enacted that they cannot abide with and cannot get others to agree with them to change the only proper and just reaction is to leave the voluntary organization with which they have affiliated themselves with. There is absolutely zero support by any legitimate moral authority that breaking voluntary agreed to rules is a proper or just thing. If they were to leave the NCAA and the SEC and then pay Cam Newton, I would have no problem with that.

Once again you misinterpret my argument. I am referencing the player (and representative) and some alleged booster, not the university although if a member of a cartel recognizes they and their partners are acting in a suspect manner it is interesting to consider their moral duties. There is no question on the other hand that the player and booster, in their efforts to form another league are at a disadvantage relative the tax-supported institution. The government supports such a travesty of justice and so those at a disadvantage are free to use force to find justice.

hawkwing wrote:

This scenario should be viewed in the same light as though one retailer burned down the offices of a competitor and then signed contracts with the employees of the competitor at lower than previous market wages. The employees are justified in breaking the contracts they signed against the retailer that destroyed the previous employer. They are also justified in using force to destroy their current employer.

If a company burns down the building of a competitor the company should be brought to trial, convicted and punished by the laws and rules that they agreed to when they formed the company (assuming they are a US company, that would be US laws -- if they felt they couldn't abide by US laws they should form their company in a country they can follow the laws in). If they "got away with it" they have every right to try to hire the now out of work employees. If those employees then come to discover evidence that their new employer was behind the arson then they are morally obligated to turn that information over to the authorities. If they in turn burn down their new employers offices, they are criminals, no better than their employers.

You forget that the first company represents the government itself which is the perpetrator of the initial offence. If there is no recourse afforded by the government, I believe Joseph Smith had some things to say about what you are justified in doing in that scenario.

hawkwing wrote:
Government sponsored institutions of learning are a gospel principle, as Joseph Smith taught.

Citation please.

JV - please don't offer to do any recruiting for BYU. I'm sure it would quickly result in trouble. :roll:

IowaCougar wrote:
JV - please don't offer to do any recruiting for BYU. I'm sure it would quickly result in trouble. :roll:

Different motives apply to members of the church. I would never break the rules myself to avoid what others for whatever reason feel is a bad thing. I don't mind having my rights abused if it helps promote a more important goal. That doesn't mean I support abusing the rights of others.



I'll tell you though, when I was living in St Louis a couple years ago I thought I had the next point guard for the Y. Bad friends, bad grades and we lost more important things for him than BYU athletics.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
The proper and just reaction to the use of force on the part of the NCAA and the universities is a comparable use of force against them. In the case of Cameron Newton (or any other college athlete) that includes breaking a contract not to receive any compensation for the services rendered. Thus Cameron Newton would be justified in receiving compensation even though he allegedly signed some contract stating that he would not.

The proper reaction is not to use force. Each institution knew the rules when they joined and have been part of the ongoing discussion since then. If rules are enacted that they cannot abide with and cannot get others to agree with them to change the only proper and just reaction is to leave the voluntary organization with which they have affiliated themselves with. There is absolutely zero support by any legitimate moral authority that breaking voluntary agreed to rules is a proper or just thing. If they were to leave the NCAA and the SEC and then pay Cam Newton, I would have no problem with that.

Once again you misinterpret my argument. I am referencing the player (and representative) and some alleged booster, not the university although if a member of a cartel recognizes they and their partners are acting in a suspect manner it is interesting to consider their moral duties. There is no question on the other hand that the player and booster, in their efforts to form another league are at a disadvantage relative the tax-supported institution. The government supports such a travesty of justice and so those at a disadvantage are free to use force to find justice.

This is where your argument just becomes absurd. You condone a person signing a contract without any intention of actually abiding by that contract? That is, in misrepresenting your intentions to your fellow man, that is, being dishonest in your dealings with your fellow man? Life is rough, the world is unfair, and secret combinations exist. That doesn't justify dishonesty to get a piece of the pie.