CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Sins of the father

by jvquarterback · 1/14/2011

Advertisement
J
jvquarterback
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6019791" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



According to the president of the NCAA "it's wrong for parents to sell the athletic services of their student athletes to a university, and we need to make sure that we have rules to stop that problem."



Of course it is just fine for the colleges to sell the services of their student athletes to anyone with a dollar in their pocket. Soon they will have given themselves the "rights" to sell the likenesses of their student athletes.



Maybe they can make the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of anyone who solicits money from the great, benevolent universities ineligible to play. I mean, you know, because the sins of the fathers should be held over the heads unto three or four generations, right?
S
SpiffCoug
Don't they already have such rules. I mean, the SEC bylaws certainly make it clear that parents can't actually or agree to sell their kids. Auburn even ruled Newton ineligible by those rules, but then the NCAA stepped in and basically said an SEC school doesn't need to adhere to SEC bylaws. So the NCAA is talking out of both sides of their mouth on this.



Which is pretty much what everyone expected them to do - not punish Auburn or Cam Newton until after his career was done.
J
jvquarterback
You miss the point as usual. If A gives B money because of something C and D do, you do not punish C and D who cannot control anything A or B do.



An example would be the rumor that Shaq's father was offered money to get Shaq to play at other colleges than LSU even though Shaq had only spoken to him once since he was a boy. Suppose Shaq had gone to one of those schools and his father was paid by a booster. Shaq couldn't do anything about it, the other school couldn't do anything about some booster. But I'm sure if the NCAA found out about money changing hands they would have suspended both the school and the player even if neither had ever spoken to the other parties.
S
SpiffCoug
jvquarterback wrote:
You miss the point as usual. If A gives B money because of something C and D do, you do not punish C and D who cannot control anything A or B do.



An example would be the rumor that Shaq's father was offered money to get Shaq to play at other colleges than LSU even though Shaq had only spoken to him once since he was a boy. Suppose Shaq had gone to one of those schools and his father was paid by a booster. Shaq couldn't do anything about it, the other school couldn't do anything about some booster. But I'm sure if the NCAA found out about money changing hands they would have suspended both the school and the player even if neither had ever spoken to the other parties.

Analogy fail.



1) Shaq didn't go another school where his estranged father was trying to sell him.

2) Cam Newton was not estranged from his father who was trying to peddle him.

3) Universities most definitely can control what boosters can do. Being a booster is about donations to gain access. If the school to which you donate finds out about your actions (like trying to buy a player) they can cut off your access.

4) If you are C or D and find out that A is giving B money because of what you can do and then B is trying to influence you to make the decision B wants that will make B the most money, then you stand up for yourself and deny B access.

5) If you think Cam didn't know what his Dad was trying to do, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.



Here's where we agree, the NCAA is corrupt and inconsistent. They don't care about how people make them money as long as they make them money. Once they realize those people can no longer make them money, that's when they come down on them. It won't surprise me to see Auburn be punished now that Cam is going pro, which is some regards sad, because those who committing the offenses won't be around to feel the punishment.



On a side and somewhat unrelated note, I am opposed to the idea of vacating wins and titles.



I don't think the NCAA should have teams vacate wins and in essence sweep those infractions under the rug as if they never happened. What they should do is use an asterisk or something. Let those infractions stand as a reminder and teaching point.



For instance, Michigan doesn't have any of their Final Four banners up from the early 90s. Why not have an asterisk on those banners and make them a different color. That way when dad takes junior to a game and junior asks why that banner is a different color and has a star on it, dad can tell him, oh that's when we cheated. We don't do that now.
L
Lawboy
If you cheat to get it, you do not deserve to have it. I have no problem stripping wins and banners. It shames you, and everyone knows it is missing.



I only hope that the NCAA comes down hard on Auburn if it is proven Newton knew and took $$. The reasons is because the $$$ will have come from those who support the university and they will suffer. The Auburn family suffers for cheating, and they deserve it if they did it. It also shames the Newton's for many years.
Advertisement
C
Cougs_Rule
A person can buy many things in this grand old world of ours with money--including shame and regret. But who is taking away Bush's money now? Who will take away Cam's money in the future? Sick world of college sports (ncaa) and the media who control it. And look who just dipped their independent finger into the evil plumb pie!

Oh well, its exposure right? BYU spends a million bucks a day to run the univeristy. 3 more mil next year isnt going to make or break it.
J
jvquarterback
kitic77 wrote:
You miss the point as usual. If A gives B money because of something C and D do, you do not punish C and D who cannot control anything A or B do.



An example would be the rumor that Shaq's father was offered money to get Shaq to play at other colleges than LSU even though Shaq had only spoken to him once since he was a boy. Suppose Shaq had gone to one of those schools and his father was paid by a booster. Shaq couldn't do anything about it, the other school couldn't do anything about some booster. But I'm sure if the NCAA found out about money changing hands they would have suspended both the school and the player even if neither had ever spoken to the other parties.

Analogy fail.



1) Shaq didn't go another school where his estranged father was trying to sell him.

2) Cam Newton was not estranged from his father who was trying to peddle him.

3) Universities most definitely can control what boosters can do. Being a booster is about donations to gain access. If the school to which you donate finds out about your actions (like trying to buy a player) they can cut off your access.

4) If you are C or D and find out that A is giving B money because of what you can do and then B is trying to influence you to make the decision B wants that will make B the most money, then you stand up for yourself and deny B access.

5) If you think Cam didn't know what his Dad was trying to do, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.




1) It wasn't an analogy, it was a hypothetical. Maybe lawboy can help you out with that.

2/3) Regardless of estrangement Cam Newton cannot forcibly prevent his father from receiving money anymore than Auburn can forcibly prevent a booster from giving money.

4) Suppose Cam or Shaq makes a decision without regard to what their fathers wanted and their fathers still got paid. You don't punish the children for the sins of their fathers. Which is the point of the post.

5) Beside the lack of proof, it doesn't matter if he knew. What matters for your precious amateurism is whether the player receives any gain, not whether others, including their parents or university receive gain.
B
Brayden Green
so when he told Mississppi's coach, "sorry I wanted to come there, but my dad said the money is too much..." about his commitment to Auburn, he didn't know?



No wonder everytime I see that you have made a post I cringe? Are you even a BYU fan? Or do you just get on here to argue your stupid politics. You know, the one where communism = socialism = neo-nazism = liberalism = whatever other cliche word you learned from Glenn Beck that day -- Disclaimer: I like Glenn Beck --



I mean, c'mon.

#2, yeah he can. He can grow some balls and tell his father, it's my life and my choice, and I'll go - or not go - where I want. And where I will not go, is anywhere I hear they are giving you money illicitly (which, for an "honest to God" preacher as a father, shouldn't be a hard conversation to have)

#4 You absolutely punish the children for the sins of the fathers if they are minors, and living under the jurisdiction of their parents. You fail to understand the paperwork that college athletes have to fill out about receiving gifts etc.



It asks multiple questions about everything, but has a special section about whether the parents have ever inquired about, or received improper gifts. He answered no. Did the newly renovated chapel (his families' income) and the $50,000 truck his father had come out of the sky? What a miracle. He is a liar as much as his father is.



You have hitched yourself to the wrong boat, it is going down and so are you.
J
jvquarterback
BlueIsBetter wrote:
so when he told Mississppi's coach, "sorry I wanted to come there, but my dad said the money is too much..." about his commitment to Auburn, he didn't know?



No wonder everytime I see that you have made a post I cringe? Are you even a BYU fan? Or do you just get on here to argue your stupid politics. You know, the one where communism = socialism = neo-nazism = liberalism = whatever other cliche word you learned from Glenn Beck that day -- Disclaimer: I like Glenn Beck --



I mean, c'mon.

#2, yeah he can. He can grow some balls and tell his father, it's my life and my choice, and I'll go - or not go - where I want. And where I will not go, is anywhere I hear they are giving you money illicitly (which, for an "honest to God" preacher as a father, shouldn't be a hard conversation to have)

#4 You absolutely punish the children for the sins of the fathers if they are minors, and living under the jurisdiction of their parents. You fail to understand the paperwork that college athletes have to fill out about receiving gifts etc.



It asks multiple questions about everything, but has a special section about whether the parents have ever inquired about, or received improper gifts. He answered no. Did the newly renovated chapel (his families' income) and the $50,000 truck his father had come out of the sky? What a miracle. He is a liar as much as his father is.



You have hitched yourself to the wrong boat, it is going down and so are you.


#2 So what if Cam tells his father not to take the money. He cannot compel him from taking it.

#4 You are so wrong. If you want to punish parents for their children fine, but punishing children for the sins of their fathers is pretty high on the list of bad things to do.



BTW haven't you stated in the past that you are an objectivist? I believe this post disproves that assertion. But you just keep your cart (partially?) hitched to Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden and we'll see who gets further.
B
Brayden Green
#2 - But he also doesn't need to be the beneficiary of it, which he was. Which makes him illegal to play in the NCAA. That is, after all what we are/should be discussing. Not the ethics of the NCAA, but the way things actually are. (How's that for Objectivism... by the way, Nathaniel Branden was disavowed from Objectivism, or didn't the wikipedia link tell you that? I never said that I was perfect, I said that I'm practicing, and how am I exactly practicing against it. Cam Newton signed a contract with knowledge that he was already in vioation of it. Objectivism - and anything else moral in this world - tells you to not sign that contract. Where am I not showing that?)



#4 let me explain better. He shouldn't be "punished" by anyone in a law enforcement type of way, but he should be banned from the NCAA because he lied about his father ever asking for money for his "services," which is a question specifically asked, in no less than 12 different ways when you play NCAA athletics



I own a countertop company jv, and I will do a $15,000 job for you for only $300 - yes, three hundred dollars - because you seem to be so smart. The only thing I ask for is the money upfront, and that I can treat our contract the same way that Cam Newton treated his contract to play in the NCAA.



What do you say?
Advertisement
C
Cougarbib
BlueIsBetter wrote:
#2 - But he also doesn't need to be the beneficiary of it, which he was. Which makes him illegal to play in the NCAA. That is, after all what we are/should be discussing. Not the ethics of the NCAA, but the way things actually are. (How's that for Objectivism... by the way, Nathaniel Branden was disavowed from Objectivism, or didn't the wikipedia link tell you that? I never said that I was perfect, I said that I'm practicing, and how am I exactly practicing against it. Cam Newton signed a contract with knowledge that he was already in vioation of it. Objectivism - and anything else moral in this world - tells you to not sign that contract. Where am I not showing that?)



#4 let me explain better. He shouldn't be "punished" by anyone in a law enforcement type of way, but he should be banned from the NCAA because he lied about his father ever asking for money for his "services," which is a question specifically asked, in no less than 12 different ways when you play NCAA athletics



I own a countertop company jv, and I will do a $15,000 job for you for only $300 - yes, three hundred dollars - because you seem to be so smart. The only thing I ask for is the money upfront, and that I can treat our contract the same way that Cam Newton treated his contract to play in the NCAA.



What do you say?

Would that be a Granite Countertop?

:)
J
jvquarterback
BlueIsBetter wrote:
#2 - But he also doesn't need to be the beneficiary of it, which he was. Which makes him illegal to play in the NCAA. That is, after all what we are/should be discussing. Not the ethics of the NCAA, but the way things actually are. (How's that for Objectivism... by the way, Nathaniel Branden was disavowed from Objectivism, or didn't the wikipedia link tell you that? I never said that I was perfect, I said that I'm practicing, and how am I exactly practicing against it. Cam Newton signed a contract with knowledge that he was already in vioation of it. Objectivism - and anything else moral in this world - tells you to not sign that contract. Where am I not showing that?)



#4 let me explain better. He shouldn't be "punished" by anyone in a law enforcement type of way, but he should be banned from the NCAA because he lied about his father ever asking for money for his "services," which is a question specifically asked, in no less than 12 different ways when you play NCAA athletics



I own a countertop company jv, and I will do a $15,000 job for you for only $300 - yes, three hundred dollars - because you seem to be so smart. The only thing I ask for is the money upfront, and that I can treat our contract the same way that Cam Newton treated his contract to play in the NCAA.



What do you say?


#2 There is no proof Cameron Newton received any benefit (I would also submit that there is no proof that Cecil Newton received any benefit only innuendo).

#4 Cam may have suspected his father, but to know something is different than to suspect something and you certainly cannot prove that Cam did more than suspect. But the rule also does not address the Shaq argument when his father (may have) solicited money for his son's actions. Suppose Shaq knew about his father but had no relationship with him. Shaq would still have been held accountable and banned from NCAA participation because of the actions of his father.



And to respond to your countertop reference. If I have stolen something from you, by all means you are justified in obtaining your property from me by force. That force would include deceit including taking something from me without my knowledge or telling me you will do something and not following through.



I'm sending a PM to discuss what I feel are objectivist failings.
G
Guest
jvquarterback wrote:
And to respond to your countertop reference. If I have stolen something from you, by all means you are justified in obtaining your property from me by force. That force would include deceit including taking something from me without my knowledge or telling me you will do something and not following through.
B
Brayden Green
jvquarterback wrote:
And to respond to your countertop reference. If I have stolen something from you, by all means you are justified in obtaining your property from me by force. That force would include deceit including taking something from me without my knowledge or telling me you will do something and not following through.


You didn't answer me. Neither of us has taken anything from the other.



I am proposing that you send me $300 in return for a $15,000 granite countertop job. We will both enter into a contract, (as I normally would with anyone). The only stipulations are that I want the money up front, and that I reserve the right to enter into the contract, and behave during the stipulations of the contract as Cam Newton did, by your consent. No one is stealing anything from anyone. We are both agreeing to certain things, in a legally binding contract. The only thing is, I reserve the right to enter into our binding contract with the "liberties" that you are giving Cam Newton and his father.



Will you take me up on my offer? I will give you my paypal number, and draw up the contract. I'm serious. Put your money where your mouth is.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.