mayjay said: @JayHawkFanToo You missedvthe salient point: a parent “shopping” his kid will be deemed an agent. Period. And the kid will know that. So, if the parent accepts money, it will be imputed to be money to the agent to steer the kid. Now, if a kid can prove he had no clue his parent was even representing him, well, maybe you have got something there. As I understand it, the correct wording should be…a parent “shopping” his kid CAN be deemed an agent…where before it could not. Again and as I understand it after reading a number of articles on the subject, there still needs to be a tacit understanding or agreement that the parent is acting as an agent. If the kid has no clue what the parent is doing on his behalf or doing it without his permission then the athlete has a good case to not lose eligibility. Absent evidence such as e-mails, texts or recorded phone conversations, it would be a difficult task for the NCAA to prove knowledge and intent; it was not able to do it with Cam Newton. A good test case is needed to set once and for all the required burden of proof both ways.

They all poison!