At the end of this article, there is a very interesting statement made by the NCAA when talking about Newton.

 

"Put simply, had Cam Newton's father or a third party actually received money or benefits for his recruitment, Cam Newton would have been declared ineligible regardless of his lack of knowledge," the NCAA said.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5966515

I know it is a little bit of a different situation since it has to deal with getting paid while recruited. However the part of them saying it wouldn't have mattered if Newton knew, if they had received money makes me not as hopeful on their ruling on Kanter. Since they all agreed that he did get paid 30 thousand while playing, the whole new argument of Kanter not knowing this probably won't work. I think this could be a hint in the way they will decide. Hopefully I am wrong, but I didn't like hearing that statement from them.

But don't the ACTUAL rules state there is no difference? So this is just a case of the NCAA making up rules as they go?

But don't the ACTUAL rules state there is no difference? So this is just a case of the NCAA making up rules as they go?

 

I agree, however I think that statement shows what they will say when they rule on Kanters case. That would be their excuse for how they ruled Newton eligible and not Kanter. So it probably will come down to the Appeals process again IMO.

I agree, however I think that statement shows what they will say when they rule on Kanters case. That would be their excuse for how they ruled Newton eligible and not Kanter. So it probably will come down to the Appeals process again IMO.

 

I agree with your line of thinking. Its just unbelievably stupid that the NCAA is getting away with it. I would love to hear their reasoning for allowing so many kids to play, but putting their foot down with Enes.

 

Equally stupid was giving Wall a two game suspension, but one of them was an exhibition game.

The difference between Kanter and Newton is that Newton was actually an adult when this happened and therefore responsible for himself. Kanter on the other hand was NOT an adult when this took place.

The difference between Kanter and Newton is that Newton was actually an adult when this happened and therefore responsible for himself. Kanter on the other hand was NOT an adult when this took place.

 

That has nothing to do with it. As you seen with that statement, Newton being adult would not have mattered if his dad did accept money. They clearly say if his dad had received money, they he would have been ineligible even if he didn't know about it. That is the difference between the two, even if Kanter didn't know just like Newton claims he didn't now. It does not matter because Kanter was found to have gotten money, and even agreed to those findings. As of right now they have not found that Newton has taken money. That statement they made there to me, just shows what they will say for why Kanter is ruled ineligible if they do that.

The difference between Kanter and Newton is that Newton was actually an adult when this happened and therefore responsible for himself. Kanter on the other hand was NOT an adult when this took place.

I agree about the differences, but then again I agree with mobaar in that the NCAA just makes up the rules as they go along, I now believe that each day these people go to work they have no idea what their interpretation of the rules will be for the day.

 

Hopefully these latest events involving the NCAA will start the end of the NCAA as it stands now, it's a complete joke! As well as them causing all this grief for the student/athletes for no reason! Now there is a Vandy player who BOUGHT a parking pass from another student (who happened to be a student manager) is now said to have broke an NCAA rule, Are you kidding me? A parking pass? I think the NCAA needs to start seeing the student part of the athlete as well, as many students buy and sell parking passes.

The NCAA stepped in it with the Newton situation and now they are trying to clean their shoes.

In looking at this commentary, I believe that in periods going foward, the NCAA will probably look to re-word their laws concerning player-representatives soliciting or receiving money. They may even go as far as differenciating between the soliciting of cash vs the actual receipt of cash for players' recruitment.

 

However, any attempt by the NCAA to install a new rule and to retroactively reinforce it will be swiftly met with a lawsuit. I just hope the NCAA is not so dumb it will attempt to change the rules in which Kanter was to abide by, after the fact.

 

That would be like prosecuting someone for making home made beer a week before prohibition took effect. It just wouldn't stand up in court.

That has nothing to do with it. As you seen with that statement, Newton being adult would not have mattered if his dad did accept money. They clearly say if his dad had received money, they he would have been ineligible even if he didn't know about it. That is the difference between the two, even if Kanter didn't know just like Newton claims he didn't now. It does not matter because Kanter was found to have gotten money, and even agreed to those findings. As of right now they have not found that Newton has taken money. That statement they made there to me, just shows what they will say for why Kanter is ruled ineligible if they do that.

 

But it's still different, in that Newton's dad was out to make money off of his son, where as the Kanter's weren't and have even stated they'd pay it back, similar to an extent but completely different reasons for money being involved in the scenarios.

What really stinks IMO is that a HS SR who gets drafted to play pro baseball makes millions and don't pan out, but then can go straight to college and play football. Even after the millions he made or hundreds of thousands. But Kanter cant do this or just pay back 13,000, the NCAA is stupid

But it's still different, in that Newton's dad was out to make money off of his son, where as the Kanter's weren't and have even stated they'd pay it back, similar to an extent but completely different reasons for money being involved in the scenarios.

 

It makes no difference, it is still receiving money no matter which way you look at it. They money is what makes the biggest difference out of both. Yes Newtons dad was trying to get money out of it, but as or right now it looks like he didn't get any. While Kanter wasn't trying to get money out of it, he did still actually get money. That statement that said about it, makes it pretty clear that money being received makes the biggest difference out of it. I just don't like the chances now after reading that statement, which I hope I am wrong.

I hate to beat a dead horse but how long will this ordeal continue? I think it's ridiculous yes or no with this process and the appeal if it comes it really that simple! I'm really beginning to think the NCCA or someone doesn't want UK to have this game changer for this year or next! In my opinion they rule on everybody else quicker and I understand the out of the country player concept but just rule!

Go Big Blue!

I hate to beat a dead horse but how long will this ordeal continue? I think it's ridiculous yes or no with this process and the appeal if it comes it really that simple! I'm really beginning to think the NCCA or someone doesn't want UK to have this game changer for this year or next! In my opinion they rule on everybody else quicker and I understand the out of the country player concept but just rule!

Go Big Blue!

 

They didn't rule on Renardo Sidney last year until late February. This isn't just a let's hold out as long as we can to get UK thing.