http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=5872192&sportCat=ncf (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=5872192&sportCat=ncf)
"Amazing. The NCAA just made it possible for anyone with a blue-chip prospect to shop that player without fear of real punishment. Football player ... hoops player -- doesn't matter. All you have to do is say the kid didn't have a clue about the sales price and it's like nothing happened. Plausible deniability."
scary stuff if you think about it. and a hell of a slippery slope for the NCAA to start
I know I couldn't punish a player for having a dip sh1t dad. Cue the Maymon jokes...
Just heard on ESPN he was deemed ineligible on Tuesday by Auburn...messed up!
Interesting take from Wilbon on PTI today. He believes that if Auburn wasn't a game away from the BCS title game and/or didn't have BCS party-crasher TCU waiting to take their place if they falter, Newton would have been suspended. In any event, really bad precedent for the NCAA to set.
Moving on, someone get Tokoto's dad on the phone with Dick Strong!
I think one of the key points in the reinstatement is that as far as the evidence has proven thus far, that no payoff ever occurred.
Absent that benefit, I think its a tough decision to punish a kid for a sleazy move by his dad.
I also saw that the decision was made by the Student Athlete Reinstatement staff. That is to say, not a committee comprised of the membership that addresses reinstatement requests. I believe staff only issues decisions based off available precedent and guidelines from the committee.
So maybe stupid-a$$ dads have already been covered in other NCAA cases?
Quote from: NCAARules on December 01, 2010, 11:16:44 PM
I think one of the key points in the reinstatement is that as far as the evidence has proven thus far, that no payoff ever occurred.
And that Auburn appears to have not been involved at all.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on December 02, 2010, 12:29:59 AM
And that Auburn appears to have not been involved at all.
Exactly. If a school is caught there would be a huge penalty to pay.
So Cecil Newton wanted 180K for his son to go to Miss. State, but then had no problem with his son going to Auburn for no cash? And he never asked anybody from Auburn for anything improper? He was only comfortable suggesting a payment plan with someone from MSU? I'm not buying it. The Heisman and the possible National Championship will be revoked within 3 years. And, I agree with a previous poster, this is a slippery slope in terms of the player "not knowing" and somebody else seeking some form of payment.
Quote from: d6 on December 02, 2010, 06:41:26 AM
So Cecil Newton wanted 180K for his son to go to Miss. State, but then had no problem with his son going to Auburn for no cash? And he never asked anybody from Auburn for anything improper? He was only comfortable suggesting a payment plan with someone from MSU? I'm not buying it. The Heisman and the possible National Championship will be revoked within 3 years. And, I agree with a previous poster, this is a slippery slope in terms of the player "not knowing" and somebody else seeking some form of payment.
Is it at least 1% possible that Cam wanted to go to Auburn, Cecil knew that MSU wanted him and tried to get a little something something but couldn't change Cam's mind?
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on December 02, 2010, 07:12:08 AM
Is it at least 1% possible that Cam wanted to go to Auburn, Cecil knew that MSU wanted him and tried to get a little something something but couldn't change Cam's mind?
Okay. I'll give that a 1% chance. But I still believe that there is a 99% chance the Heisman will be revoked.......:)
I love how the NCAA turned their head at this situation and allowed his father to take the fall... Are you kidding me that Cam didn't know this was going on?
I don't get it. The rule states that if someone solicits payment (it doesn't have to be the kid), regardless of whether or not he's paid, that the player is permanently ineligible. The NCAA came out and said that the dad solicited for $180K for his kid to go to MSU (while the kid supposedly doesn't know, yet is irrelevant anyway). So, how in the world is he not done with college football?
If TCU wasn't sitting there at #3 on the cusp of the national championship game, something tells me this might have unfolded differently.
They aren't going to punish the kid for something his dad did with another institution. Yes, it is a violation to have a family member solicit cash from another schools, but the penalty may fall short of permanent inelligibility. The NCAA was in a tough spot here...they have no evidence that they received cash, or solicited cash from Auburn. And to a degree I think Wilbon is right. If this happened last summer, Newton is likely not playing this year. But it happens in the middle of the football season, They aren't going to remove the star player, and therefore punish the team, without any evidence indicting Auburn.
Quote from: PE8983 on December 02, 2010, 08:25:57 AM
I don't get it. The rule states that if someone solicits payment (it doesn't have to be the kid), regardless of whether or not he's paid, that the player is permanently ineligible. The NCAA came out and said that the dad solicited for $180K for his kid to go to MSU (while the kid supposedly doesn't know, yet is irrelevant anyway). So, how in the world is he not done with college football?
I think the relevant language in the NCAA by-law says that a third party can't solicit payment
on the player's behalf. Apparently, the NCAA is hanging its hat on the fact that there's insufficient evidence that Cam knew what Papa Newton was up to, so the solicitation wasn't made on Cam's behalf.
The great question I heard on this topic was this
"If TCU had 1 loss, would Cam Newton be deemed eligible?"
Very interesting thought... you would hope it was the same, but you never know.
I don't buy the TCU part in all this. Remember, the NCAA does not govern the BCS.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on December 01, 2010, 10:36:20 PM
Interesting take from Wilbon on PTI today. He believes that if Auburn wasn't a game away from the BCS title game and/or didn't have BCS party-crasher TCU waiting to take their place if they falter, Newton would have been suspended. In any event, really bad precedent for the NCAA to set.
Hopefully, SC can beat Auburn and we can see further fallout of the situation.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 02, 2010, 09:37:20 AM
I don't buy the TCU part in all this. Remember, the NCAA does not govern the BCS.
Agreed. The NCAA doesn't care who participates in the BCSCG.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 02, 2010, 10:05:09 AM
Agreed. The NCAA doesn't care who participates in the BCSCG.
On a related note, what's stopping the NCAA from overshooting the BCS and getting their own TV contract for a college football tournament?
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on December 02, 2010, 10:07:21 AM
On a related note, what's stopping the NCAA from overshooting the BCS and getting their own TV contract for a college football tournament?
The BCS schools could split from the NCAA and form their own entity.
Quote from: Litehouse on December 02, 2010, 10:43:02 AM
The BCS schools could split from the NCAA and form their own entity.
Yep. Right now there is a balance. Police our schools and do the work to set up the championships, and we'll give you all the money from those championship events.
Just don't touch our football money or we're outta here.
Can't really blame the BCS schools. Right now, they leave a lot of money on the table with March Madness. The NCAA basically uses MM money to fund all the other championships D1 through D3. If they are the school generating the most interest, shouldn't they be the ones benefitting from it?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 02, 2010, 10:49:26 AM
Yep. Right now there is a balance. Police our schools and do the work to set up the championships, and we'll give you all the money from those championship events.
Just don't touch our football money or we're outta here.
Can't really blame the BCS schools. Right now, they leave a lot of money on the table with March Madness. The NCAA basically uses MM money to fund all the other championships D1 through D3. If they are the school generating the most interest, shouldn't they be the ones benefitting from it?
Why can't the NCAA start running a football tournament and then everyone can have more money from the basketball tournament?
The BCS schools get most of the football money in alliance with the bowls. It makes a TON more than the basketball tourney does. The BCS schools have no financial incentive to change anything.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 02, 2010, 11:59:33 AM
The BCS schools get most of the football money in alliance with the bowls. It makes a TON more than the basketball tourney does. The BCS schools have no financial incentive to change anything.
Man, whoever it was at the NCAA back in the day who said, "Eh, let D1 football decide a national champion by the AP poll. What's the worst that could happen?" was a moron.
So Kentucky and Kanter claiming Newton Exemption now on appeal. There is a brown ring around the NCAA toilet bowl right now.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5880507
Perhaps a conspiracy theory but...
Mike Slive, a former Ivy league educated, former defense attorney, commissioner of CUSA (and defender of all things wrong with UC, Memphis, and Looeyville) and now SEC commissioner, who used to chair the infractions committee of the NCAA, (and who had a role on who sits on the committee)......
Per wikipedia......In 1990, he became senior partner and founder of the Mike Slive-Mike Glazier Sports Group, a legal practice specializing in representing colleges and universities in athletics-related matters
Mike Slive is the most destructive force in college athletics.>>>>
Dodds........
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on December 03, 2010, 09:21:18 PMSo Kentucky and Kanter claiming Newton Exemption now on appeal. There is a brown ring around the NCAA toilet bowl right now.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5880507
(http://www.collectiveroots.org/files/u3/can_of_worms.jpg)
I am sure I have the minority view on this, and hate to throw it out there because I am first and foremost a Marquette basketball fan, but my second favorite team is Auburn football and I am a season ticket holder - so I am biased, that being said ...
I believe the NCAA got it right on Newton, and as much as I love ESPN, I believe their reporting was terrible on this story - and believe me their reporters were camped out everywhere in Auburn.
In reports I've seen that the NCAA has about 2,000 of these cases on going - someone says that someone asked for money to influence a player to go somewhere. When you go back and read the endless coverage of this issue, what you basically had was the following:
3 former Mississippi State players getting quoted over and over about conversations they had with each other, and when any of them said something new it was played up as new breaking news. This breaking news included the agent (already in trouble with the NFLPA) changing his story from saying he hadn't talked to one of the other players in 20 years to that he had. Another story was that one of the former players had a text message from the agent-former player saying he was with Cecil Newton but he couldn't produce it because his phone was water damaged - which would have proved what? There really were ridiculous excuses for stories.
Because the reporting was so extensive people started believing ridiculous things like that Auburn would have all its games forfeited as a punishment etc. The only new news beyond the circle of three former MSU players was the revelation from Florida of some of Newton's academic records, a release that as noted was a federal violation if it came from the school.
So the system kept unfolding in which Auburn was not allowed to comment on an ongoing investigation, the NCAA does not comment on an ongoing investigations, and the NCAA didn't have an avenue to proactively come out and say, "He is innocent," because if they did that they'd have to do it for the vast majority of the 2,000 cases in front of them. the fact is if cases aren't proven, as most aren't, nothing is ever said.
But with the media drumroll contining, I believe they just had to have some avenue, and that was for Auburn to declare him ineligible for a day to give the NCAA an avenue so that they could publicly reinstate him.
But at the core, there was a very simple legal argument going on - not over whether or not Auburn would forfeit games or not but over:
a - should Newton be declare ineligible for any time (and 4 games is the MAXIMUM sentence in these cases) because his father solicited benefits on his behalf, or
b - was Newton therefore only ineligible to play for Mississippi State, and still eligible to play for Auburn.
Remember, the precedent was on Auburn's side in this. The closest case was when Alabama (sorry to pick on our hated rival) actually had boosters who PAID high school coaches (not just were asked for) $480,000 for a lineman without the lineman's knowledge. He was instantly declared ineligible to play at Alabama and Bama got 5 years probation, BUT the lineman was able to transfer to Memphis and was not suspended for a single game.
Yes, Auburn knew the rumors were out there that an ask had been made of MSU, and I believe their due diligence in going through every financial record of the Newtons and his father's churches to make sure they could find no record of any bump in income before signing Newton probably carried a lot of sway with the NCAA.
I really wonder how many D1 athletes would lose ineligibility if the same level of scrutiny were used both in the financial reviews and as well as withering media coverage. I believe many find out at some point later in their lives that someone close to them who encouraged them to go to a particular team got something. Not saying it's right, but there are so many boosters out there who just want to help out the team.
Thank goodness Marquette has had such a sterling clean record so none of us had to endure this.
While Auburn certainly can't match MUs unblemished record, I do believe their current program is clean, and much of the coverage was unfair - which is why they simply stopped talking to the media about it.
Of course I could be wrong at some point in the future, but Cam was volunteering at day care centers and running around campus pushing off on a little manual scooter, not driving around campus on a jacked up pickup like Reggie Bush.
I believe the more dangerous precedent would have been to give into pressure to nail Auburn based on a few ex-players at MSU, when every other program who recruited Cam said they say nothing irregular at any point.
I'll take the 1% chance proposed earlier in this strand, but even if I'm wrong and Cam knew his Dad had made an offer that wasn't followed through on, I think a case in which another institution was involved with no evidence of any money actually changing hands (at least yet) led to the correct ruling.
If I turn out to be wrong, feel free to drag up this strand in the future and reply to remind me, but as soon as I'm done with the live stream of Marquette-Longwood, I'm turning over the CBS to cheer on Cam.
From Easterbrook's TMQ today http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101207_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101207_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl)
Here's how to understand the NCAA doing nothing about the Cam Newton allegations: Follow the money. In the case of USC and Reggie Bush, the NCAA essentially held Bush accountable for the actions of close family members, regardless of whether Bush knew they'd broken rules. In the case of Auburn and Newton, the NCAA essentially held Newton not accountable for the actions of close family members, regardless of whether Newton knew they'd broken rules. Why the different standards? As Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein, "follow the money."
In Bush's case, the finding was retroactive. This meant that though Bush and USC were embarrassed, no money had to be returned -- the bowl and ticket revenue from the season in question were already banked. In Newton's case, the finding was prospective. Had Newton been held accountable for family actions, disqualifying him just before the S.E.C. championship, Auburn almost surely would have taken a loss in future marketing and bowl money. Though the NCAA takes no share of Auburn's football income -- NCAA revenue derives from broadcast fees for the March Madness men's basketball tournament -- the NCAA wants sports-power universities to do well at the gate and in bowl earnings. Knowing that holding Newton accountable would harm Auburn's money position, the NCAA cleared him.
Rules should be consistent. Either both Bush and Newton were in the wrong, or neither Bush or Newton were in the wrong. Instead we have a double standard so fouled up NCAA president Mark Emmert says, "We recognize that many people are outraged" by the decision. Don't be surprised if, months or years from now, the NCAA changes course, calls Newton ineligible and voids the wins in the 2010 Auburn season. By then, the money safely will be in the bank.
Suffice it to say that Cam Newton is dirty.
His dad did the dealing and he didn't know? Bull
He was caught cheating twice at Fla.
The old adage: Where there is smoke, there is fire.