SEC Commissioner Mike Slive attempted to defend his conference’s decision to rule Cam Newton eligible after the NCAA announced its ruling Wednesday.
Slive to Clay Travis of AOL Fanhouse:
1. The intent of the legislation.
“Based on my research the league’s intent when it added this bylaw was to ensure that if an athlete participated in an NCAA investigation that he wasn’t able to transfer to another institution within our own conference. Essentially to keep one institution from getting into trouble and then have an individual attend another school in the same conference.
“You could read this bylaw expansively to conclude that an athlete is ineligible at all institutions for receiving a hamburger. I did not believe and do not believe that was the intent of the rule.”
The SEC bylaw: “If 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 such student-athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.”
With all due respect to Mr. Slive, what on earth is he talking about?
2. The uniqueness of this case.
“This was a case of first impression. (A case of first impression has no existing precedent). The SEC had to determine whether it violated SEC bylaws for an individual’s family member to solicit funds from an institution that is different from the one he attended. Ultimately, I had to determine what the appropriate league response was after balancing all of these factors and after considering all of that I did not believe that he had violated our bylaws.”
The SEC bylaw on the books states, “such student-athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.”
With all due respect to Mr. Slive, what on earth is he talking about?
3. The legislative history of the bylaw
“The league added that bylaw in 1985. That’s a long time ago and since that time it has never been applied by me as commissioner to rule someone ineligible and I don’t believe any of my predecessors have ever applied it to make someone ineligible either. That was significant.”
So if a law is on the books but has never been enforced, it should be ignored?
Ahhh, so that’s what Slive is talking about.