@mayjay
The NCAA did close a loophole but the main but not the only reason Newton’s eligibility was reinstated is still in place. The NCAA could not “prove” that Cam knew of his father’s activities and this is why he was not officially “cleared” only “reinstated” and apparently, if in the future information becomes available (highly unlikely) that Cam knew about it, then the NCAA can retroactively declare him ineligible and take away all the wins in which he played.
Until the Newton incident, for an individual to be considered an agent a formal agreement was required with the athlete and parents were not considered agents so Cam’s father could not have been considered an agent. Now, THAT loophole was eliminated and a parent can be considered an agent but in order to be one and agreement still has to exist and for the athlete to be deemed ineligible, he has to be aware of what is going on. If an athlete is not aware that others, including a parent, are “shopping” him or asking for and receiving benefits on his behalf then he would not lose eligibility, that part has not changed and makes sense since an individual should not be punished because of the actions of others without his permission or knowledge. That is the part that I was trying to find where an athlete could be declared ineligible for action committed by others on his behalf but without his knowledge and TTBOMK that is not the case. Lots of articles describing the case and ensuing changes but I have not seen one that states definitely that an athlete would be ineligible because of the action of others without his knowledge.
If Silvio indeed did not know or participated on the money exchange between Maryland, Adidas, Under Armour and his guardian then he appears to be in good shape.
