Ignorance is Bliss: NCAA Opens Huge Can of Worms by Reinstating Auburn Tigers QB Cameron Newton's Eligibility
by T Kyle King on Dec 1, 2010 3:28 PM EST
in Football
Email
PrintA couple of readers already have beaten me to the punch on this one, but it bears amplification: Cameron Newton was determined by the NCAA to have been the subject of an amateurism violation, as a result of which the Auburn Tigers declared him ineligible, . . . and the reinstatement committee moved with unprecedented swiftness immediately to reinstate his eligibility.
This is ridiculous. The NCAA determined that Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers attempted to "market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment to attend college and play football"---in short, that the allegations we have heard in the press essentially were true (and these are the "facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff")---but, because this scheme ostensibly was orchestrated by his father (who, by all accounts, including Cam Newton’s, wielded enormous sway over his son’s choice), the younger Newton has been cleared to play without conditions, while the elder Newton has had his "access" to the Auburn program "limited." Gee, that’s a heck of a punishment for a guy whose son has two games left in his career on the Plains.
The NCAA determined on Monday that a violation had occurred. Auburn declared Newton ineligible on Tuesday. The NCAA reinstated Newton on Wednesday. How long did the sword hang over the heads of the players, coaches, and administrators in Athens, Chapel Hill, Columbia, and Tuscaloosa while the NCAA left those programs twisting in the wind earlier this year? Might the fact that there now are television ratings and BCS bowl dollars to consider have caused the NCAA’s glacial pace to be replaced with lightning swiftness?
As noted by Year2, though, this is far from an acquittal, much less an exoneration. Reports the NCAA in a carefully-worded release:
Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity. . . .
Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete's involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation.
In short, Auburn could still pay the price for this one, even though the NCAA apparently has concluded that Auburn merely being Auburn is not sufficient evidence of Auburn cheating. (This presumption is fair in a technical legal sense, although it is open to debate whether it is reasonable in reality.)
In the meantime, though, Clay Travis’s concerns suddenly seem much more important. Just think how much better the Georgia Bulldogs’ season might have been if A.J. Green had told the NCAA that his father was the one who signed onto Facebook and sold that jersey. Cam Newton’s NCAA defense basically boils down to this: "My own father appears to have shopped me around like chattel property, but it’s all right, because he was consistent enough in his treatment of me as a fungible commodity rather than as a human being not to give me any of whatever money he may have received in the deal."
As fans, our fervent hope when someone associated with our preferred sports program is accused of wrongdoing is that we’re not backing the wrong horse. At the end of the day, our strong desire is to be able to say, "Everyone involved was innocent." Given the facts as determined by the NCAA and agreed to by Auburn University, no Tiger fan can make such a claim here. There is a wide divide separating "proven innocent" from "insufficient evidence." When your history of going undefeated on the gridiron invariably coincides with seasons in which at least one of your sports programs was on probation, though, you become accustomed to having to take your successes any way you can find them.
There are no moral victories at Auburn, but, for all the sighs of relief being heard on the Plains today, we now have been given reason by the NCAA to believe that there have been a dozen immoral victories at Auburn this season . . . and counting.
Go ‘Dawgs!
216 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Green =/= Newton, thanks
If A.J Green’s dad sells his jersey, he’s still monetarily benefitting from his son. We can talk all day long about whether Cecil Newton (who can all agree is something to scrape off both MSU’s and Auburn’s shoes) ever got paid, but he’s reportedly fully cooperated with both the NCAA and Auburn and they’re satisfied no money ever changed hands. As far as we know, Cam didn’t benefit. Cecil didn’t benefit. Green did. In your hypothetical, his father would.
Apples, oranges, etc.
by JCCW Jerry on Dec 1, 2010 3:41 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
That's all fine and dandy, Jerry,
but the rule states that if anyone in the player’s immediate family solicits money from a University or someone representing that university (booster, whatever), then the player has broken the rule and is ineligible, regardless of knowledge. To me, it shouldn’t so much be Auburn who’s in trouble as it should Cam.
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 1, 2010 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
Granted
Auburn has as little a chance of winning 11 games without Newton this year as Florida had of doing the same with Brantley. Therefore, Auburn’s in trouble, too.
No offense
but I don’t think that’s what the rule specifically states, or Cam would be ineligible and gone. The NCAA knows the rule was broken. They said he was OK. I think they (and Auburn’s compliance dept.) know more about their own bylaws than, well, us.
actually
that’s exactly the way the rule is written. accepting money and asking for money is seen as equals in the NCAAs eyes. Not to mention that AU Miss St and the NCAA all agree that this happened. To to tune that he was declared ineligible because the rule was broken.
Just because they go back on the own rules they’ve laid down — well shit, I dunno what that means. I guess it means the NCAA really sucks
by knowshon loves legos on Dec 1, 2010 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
I was paraphrasing, but here's the rule
SEC Bylaw Section 14.01.3.2:
If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or 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 (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.
A solicitation is a request or encouragement of another to perform an act, which, in Cam’s case (where his father was shopping him as a pay-for-play situation) would be agreeing to receive improper benefits. Since Auburn did, indeed, rule Cam ineligible yesterday, it would certainly seem that they agree with that conclusion. Right now, his saving grace must be his (alleged) ignorance of his father’s unethical behavior.
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 1, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Rec'd
FYI…I am stealing your argument and posting it on Team Speed Kills.
Great point.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
A few things
1. That’s the SEC’s bylaw, not the NCAA’s. The NCAA has their own set, and that’s what we’re talking about, right?
2. Auburn ruled Cam ineligible because that’s the process by which the NCAA rules; school suspends while waiting for ruling, applies for reinstatement, NCAA reinstates or doesn’t. I don’t think it’s indicative of any kind of admission on Auburn’s part.
3. Of course “his saving grace must be his (alleged) ignorance of his father’s unethical behavior.” No one’s debating this.
Look, the bottom line is that you’re saying the NCAA (and AU’s compliance professionals) is saying its own bylaws say this, but you and a lot of other people on the Internet say they say this, and I’m supposed to believe the latter over the former. That John Q. Blog Commenter knows more about the NCAA than it knows about itself, to the extent that an organization as capricious and arbitrary as the NCAA cna be known at all.
No offense, but that’s nuts. And with that, I’m out; I just wanted to point out that the Green and Newton comparison doesn’t hold, not debate the NCAA’s ruling.
Fair enough...
But it’s also naïve to think that there is no way that the NCAA can’t interpret its own rules in a biased manner.
Sure, it’s their rules, they can interpret them how they choose, but that doesn’t mean that they enforce said rules evenly or fairly. If I run a business, I can create all kinds of policies, but I can also enforce those policies as I choose. If person A makes more money, I’m more lenient. If person B is a nuisance, I am less lenient. Same logic applies here.
I am not debating the rule itself, only the interpretation. Ultimately, you’re right. They decide Cam’s eligibility, not me or any other commenter. That doesn’t mean that their interpretation was fair or right.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
by Jman781 on Dec 1, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The writer of this comment has just been sacked
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
by RedCrake on Dec 1, 2010 8:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
"I don’t think it’s indicative of any kind of admission on Auburn’s part."
That’s simply not true. Part of the statement issued by the NCAA upon Newton’s reinstatement was that Auburn agreed to the facts the NCAA had found. That doesn’t include an admission of any wrongdoing on Auburn’s part (although there is no guarantee that the ongoing investigation will not reveal any such wrongdoing), but it does include an acknowledgment that, essentially, the reports we’ve heard about Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers are true.
I understand your point about the difference between the A.J. Green and Cam Newton situations, but you’re assuming facts not in evidence when you presume that Cecil Newton didn’t receive anything. All this reinstatement indicates is the Cam Newton can play on Saturday. The fact that the NCAA investigation is continuing means that there are many cards left in play.
If you’re right that there’s a distinction between my hypothetical regarding A.J. Green and your interpretation of this ruling regarding Cecil Newton, it means Cecil Newton shopped his son around, demanded a six-figure payoff at a time when his church needed money, and, somewhere along the way, decided for whatever reason not to insist upon money before steering his son away from the school Cam preferred. I suppose that could be true, but darned if I know how or why that could happen.
Go 'Dawgs!
Yes
I should have been more specific; I meant that Cam being ruled ineligible wasn’t an admission on Auburn’s part that he should have been treated as ineligible before or had done any wrongdoing personally. Obviously they’ve admitted that Cecil was asked for his money.
But as for my “presum[ing] that Cecil Newton didn’t receive anything,” please show me where I presumed that. I specifically said that we don’t know whether he did or not, but that that doesn’t much matter given that the NCAA currently believes he didn’t, does it? Until they do, the Dad-sells-jersey-on-Facebook simply isn’t a valid analogy for the current Newton situation. The question isn’t whether Newton would be ineligible if his father had taken money, the question is whether he’s ineligible based on what the NCAA knows now, and yes, there’s a big distinction between what appears to be the current state of the investigation and your Green hypothetical, which would have been more accurate if his Dad had put the jersey on eBay and then taken it down before it sold.
Now you're just shucking and jiving, Jerry.
By hiding behind your own ignorance and attempting to confine the conversation to “what appears to be the current state of the investigation,” you’re letting your partisanship overwhelm your common sense. By operating from the presumption that the relevant analogy is that A.J.‘s father took the jersey off of eBay “before it sold,” you’re necessarily presuming Cam’s dad didn’t receive any money. Even if you’re right, you’re clearly making that assumption.
Even if Auburn didn’t admit it, what possible argument is there that Cam wasn’t ineligible before? At a minimum, Auburn was on notice before the Georgia game that his eligibility was in doubt, and this situation didn’t just arise on Monday; it arose before Cam Newton ever enrolled at Auburn.
Go 'Dawgs!
Hey, I'm just a lawyer ...
But I am not 100% persuaded that Auburn’s compliance department is being completely forthright. Maybe it’s just my experience with impeaching witnesses on the basis of prior convictions of violations involving dishonesty.
(Yes, I know we’re talking about completely different standards and rules and concepts of “evidence”; I simply feel compelled to make an attempt at humor — mean, spiteful (in a totally heartfelt way) humor.)
by NCT on Dec 1, 2010 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"You’re clearly making that assumption"
No, I’m really not. Your analogy says that with their ruling today, the NCAA has OK’d family members receiving benefits on behalf of their progeny. How? What does the ruling have to do with accepting benefits when it’s obvious the NCAA doesn’t believe—for the time being—any benefits were received?
Hate to jump in here, but ...
What does the ruling have to do with accepting benefits when it’s obvious the NCAA doesn’t believe—for the time being—any benefits were received?
That is not what the NCAA said. The release is right here:
Please quote for me where in that release the NCAA says it doesn’t believe that benefits were received.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
"Auburn University football student-athlete Cam Newton is immediately eligible to compete"
Or “Reinstatement decisions are made by the NCAA national office staff and can include conditions such as withholding from competition and repayment of extra benefits. Newton was reinstated without any conditions.”
Or “According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete’s father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment to attend college and play football. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship,” a paragraph thsat would without question include the mention of benefits if the NCAA found them
Honestly, CNF. You really think the NCAA found evidence of a $180-200,000 payment sitting around in Cecil Newton’s financial records and just chose to completely ignore it in favor of tagging Cecil with the solicitation offense?
I think we must agree...
To disagree.
I don’t blame you. As an Auburn fan, you have to believe that all parties are being 100% truthful, impartial, and unbiased. I would do the same thing.
I and some others choose to believe that the NCAA has only ruled Cam eligible for now and that there are facts still out there that haven’t been considered or have been intentionally ignored. The case isn’t closed.
Additionally, the NCAA and SEC may have ulterior motives in keeping Cam eligible and may have swayed their decisions and explanations to make sure Cam plays on Saturday (and beyond). Instead of applying the black and white facts that have been stipulated by Miss. State, Auburn, the SEC, Cecil Newton, Rogers, etc. and impartially deciding whether there was a violation and applying the punishment accordingly, it’s possible (note that I am not saying guaranteed) that the SEC and NCAA started with the premise that Cam was innocent and then worked backward to make their premise correct. It’s possible that the NCAA and the SEC are intentionally not adhering to the rules, since as you say, its their rules and no one can challenge their interpretations. To say that laws and rules are always followed by those who create them is simply disingenuous.
Once again, I don’t blame you, for you have no other option but to put your head in the sand and hope that everything just goes away. If I were an Auburn fan, I would have my head in the sand, too.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
This is why I need to stay the hell out of other people's comment threads
I try to make one simple point — the presence of NCAA-confirmed accepted benefits means the Green and Newton cases are not analogous, and that Newton’s defense wouldn’t have worked for Green — and I wind up told I have my head in the sand, lectured about my partisanship negating my common sense, and have words I never said or even implied shoved in my mouth.
It’s completely beside the point I want to make, but since the lot of you seem convinced I feel otherwise, I’ll state for the record: Cecil Newton may have been paid off. Someone at Auburn may have bought Cam. The investigation could bring a USC-style hammer on our heads. I don’t know. It’s possible. At the very least, the idea that Cam had no idea his Dad was shopping him seems a little silly.
But since there’s no evidence (or at least, no evidence the NCAA has found) that any of that has happened, what does that have to do with my original point? As I said at the very beginning: we can talk all day about whether Cecil was paid or not. What I’m interested in -ALL I’m interested in discussing - is Kyle’s claim that Newton’s defense would have worked for Green when there’s a very, very big difference between them in the NCAA’s eyes.
Kyle, you going to respond to that, or just accuse me of “shucking and jiving” again?
No, that's actually the first clear thing you've said.
The other times, you were making unspoken yet still quite clear assumptions that you later denied you were making.
The only possible distinction between my A.J. Green hypothetical and your version of Cecil Newton’s activities is that, in one instance, money changed hands, and, in the other, it didn’t. Since money changed hands in the A.J. Green situation, you necessarily are assuming that money didn’t change hands in the Cecil Newton case. Otherwise, the distinction you draw is no distinction. I don’t know how you can possibly claim that you did not imply that Cecil Newton didn’t receive money, since the receipt of money, vel non, was the entire basis for your distinction.
That was the “shucking and jiving” of which I accused you: you made an assumption, and, when called upon it, you pretended you hadn’t and relied on carefully-phrased evasions to deny the obvious. Beyond that, I see the sense of what you’re saying, even though I respectfully disagree with you. We’ll just have to see how it all plays out in the end.
I certainly hope you don’t leave here convinced that you shouldn’t participate in comment threads here. You do fine work, and you’re welcome here, even though we’re sometimes going to disagree (occasionally heatedly) over issues of consequence.
Go 'Dawgs!
You're not listening to me, Kyle
For the umpteenth time, what my “version of Cecil Newton’s activities” is has nothing to do with the point I’m making. It’s the NCAA’s version I’m interested in, and unless you believe that version — see below — has secret, hidden evidence that Cecil got paid that the NCAA is choosing to blithely ignore, the Newton and Green cases aren’t similar enough for your analogy to hold. What I may or not be presuming/assuming has nothing to do with the benefits/no benefits differences in the cases as the NCAA sees them. It’s beyond aggravating to be accused of deaf partisanship and “shucking and jiving” when you’re the one, Kyle, who’s changing the subject from what the NCAA has found to presumptions I haven’t made.
But here, since you won’t listen to me, I’ll let Year2 speak for me:
“Why did the NCAA not act in the same way it did in the _________ scandal?
Because this case is unique. Cocknfire already covered why this is different from the Albert Means case. It’s not the like the Reggie Bush case because the NCAA found that both Bush and USC assistant coach Todd McNair knew about the extra benefits. This is different from Damon Stoudamire because his dad was found to have received extra benefits while no one at the moment has any evidence of Cecil Newton receiving any money. This different from A.J. Green because he received money for the jersey he sold. This is different from Marvin Austin and friends because they got free travel and a party thrown for them.
Noticing a trend? The difference here is that according to the story that the NCAA currently believes, Cecil Newton never got any money from anyone. As that’s the case, you can’t compare this to another case where someone actually received extra benefits of some kind."
Do you disagree with that?
I'll ask another question
Do you believe that Year2 is presuming Cecil Newton to not have taken any benefits? Because he and I are arguing the same thing here, and by your reading of my argument, that means he must be assuming the same things I am.
Yes, I disagree with that, and, yes, . . .
. . . I believe Year2 is presuming Cecil Newton didn’t take any benefits. While I am a fan of Year2’s work generally, I found his coverage of yesterday’s developments at Team Speed Kills to be a bit naive and C&F’s coverage of the same events to be superior. (I am referring to the coverage of this one story, not to Year2’s work overall.)
Broadly speaking, the NCAA concluded that (a) Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers did what news reports said they did, but (b) there was insufficient evidence at this time to conclude that Cameron Newton knew about it or benefited from it.
Those are narrow conclusions, with which Auburn agreed, and they expressly do not preclude further findings as the investigation moves forward. I do not believe any sort of sweeping conclusion was made about whether Cecil Newton received the benefits that Auburn, the NCAA, and the SEC all expressly acknowledge that he sought; the ruling on Cam’s reinstatement (which was required only because he was ruled ineligible, which only happened because the NCAA found, and Auburn agreed, that a violation had occurred) deals strictly with the insufficiency of evidence of what Cam knew and when he knew it, and has nothing whatever to do with what his father may have done without his knowledge.
I will grant that both our positions are based equally on opposite unspoken assumptions—-mine, on the belief that Cecil Newton probably received something (based on a sequence of known events that really doesn’t make much sense if he didn’t receive anything); yours, on the belief that Cecil Newton probably received nothing (or, if you prefer, on the belief that the NCAA lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that Cecil Newton received something)—-but there’s simply no way either of us can say this situation is like or unlike another situation without making certain assumptions about the ways in which the situations were similar or different. Maybe that assumption is “in this case, we know money changed hands, and, in the other case, we don’t know for sure whether it did,” but there’s some assuming going on there, however finely we wish to tune it.
I apologize if I misapprehended your point, Jerry, although I think this largely has been a semantic argument. I haven’t been attempting to change to subject; I’ve been attempting to clarify your position regarding an ancillary point I made above.
I regret the confusion, I thank you for the clarification, and I yield the floor.
Go 'Dawgs!
I do appreciate your graciousness, Kyle
and I likewise apologize if I’ve misinterpreted anything you’ve written here.
But there’s a few things I admit I’m still baffled by, starting with your statement that Year2 is ALSO presuming Cecil to not be on the take, which I have to think he’d be quite surprised by. (Can I ask him?) I have to ask: is it even possible, in your eyes, to feel that the NCAA has no evidence currently that Cecil received anything but might find that evidence in the future? Or does assuming they have none now automatically dictate that you presume there’s none to find? And if it’s the former, what makes you believe either he or I have decided they won’t?
I also can’t fathom why you’re still trying to talk about what either you or I are presuming about the case in the first place. You’re right, we can’t compare “situations” without making assumptions, which is why we have to compare the actual cases as the NCAA has laid them out for us. Yes, if Cecil Newton is found to have taken money, you will be right that A.J. Green could have used the “my Dad did it” defense. But until such time as the NCAA announces that he has, your analogy is premature. You keep talking about how I’m making assumptions, but until such time that we know Cecil got paid, aren’t I the one dealing in the facts—only what the NCAA has firmly stated about the Newtons, which includes Cecil asking for money but does not include him being paid—and you the one who’s assuming there’s something the NCAA isn’t showing us? Isn’ t saying the NCAA’s case is already equivalent to Green’s jumping the gun until such time as it’s revealed Cecil did, in fact, accept benefits?
Maybe not, if you really believe that the NCAA is holding “cards” already that show that Cecil took money. As there’s no way for either one of us to definitely prove what the NCAA knows or doesn’t, all I can do is point towards Ockham’s Razor and ask which of these scenarios seems more plausible:
Scenario A: The NCAA finds evidence that someone at Auburn (or I guess MSU) has paid Cecil Newton an extravagant sum of money, a finding that flagrantly violates the “impermissible benefits” bylaws, would immediately subject Auburn to major violations, and in past cases (here’s an extremely minor version of the same scenario) would nuke Cam’s eligibility on the spot. The NCAA decides to declare Cam unconditionally eligible anyway, not even requiring him to pay back a dime of his father’s ill-gotten gains. They announce to the world that Cecil has broken one bylaw, but decide to simply not mention their other evidence. The NCAA president himself comes out defending their decision, even knowing that eventually he’ll announce findings that make the current decision—as well as the SECCG and the national title game—a total farce.
Also, when the SEC announces that their current position is that there was no “actual payment of an improper benefit” and that any requests from Cecil for payment “were rejected,” they are either lying, or have been misinformed by the NCAA despite the fact that Slive said the SEC got their information from the NCAA just last Monday.
Or Scenario B: the NCAA decides that without evidence of payment, solicitation alone is not enough to declare Cam ineligible given his lack of knowledge of the situation, and declare him eligible, while keeping the door open on the specific question of Cecil’s potential benefits in the event new evidence surfaces later.
You’re telling me you pick Scenario A, and that I’m blinded by partisanship when I pick Scenario B. Kyle, sorry, but I don’t get it.
When you write below
Obviously, the NCAA has something on Cecil, or they wouldn’t have found a violation occurred and Auburn wouldn’t have admitted expressly that it did. How else could the NCAA have found a violation occurred, but that there was not sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or Auburn knew about it, if the NCAA didn’t have dope on Cecil? The NCAA has dope on someone, and Cecil’s the only one left.
don’t you think the violation in question is Cecil’s solicitation, the one we know about already? Why look for the mysterious, conspiratorial explanation when there’s an easy one available?
You write “this ruling had nothing to do with whether Cecil Newton got paid,” but this the same organization so obsessed with benefits that they wanted USC’s running back to sit a game for a golf cart ride; if the NCAA knew Cecil got paid, Cam would not be playing. The ruling isn’t exclusively about Cecil being on the the take, no, but that doesn’t mean we can’t take some the most obvious meanings from it. And until the NCAA finds and rules that Cecil did do the things you’ve assumed he’s done, the A.J Green analogy doesn’t hold up.
There is a huge difference
… between saying “I believe this did not happen” and “I haven’t seen any evidence of this having happened”.
The NCAA may or may not believe benefits were received. As far as I can tell, they’re not saying one way or another what they believe, because forming a belief one way or the other while the investigation is ongoing would be premature.
by NCT on Dec 2, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Fine
Amend that sentence to “How? What does the ruling have to do with accepting benefits when it’s obvious the NCAA doesn’t have any evidence—for the time being—any benefits were received?”
I don't think that's at all obvious.
Broadly speaking, what the NCAA concluded was that (a) the widely reported pay-for-play scheme orchestrated by Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers happened, but (b) there is no evidence that Cam Newton knew about it or received any cash personally.
The NCAA rather clearly has reserved judgment on the larger questions, including whether anyone received benefits.
Go 'Dawgs!
Regarding your point (b), Kyle,
the NCAA didn’t even say there is no evidence that Cam knew about it. Yes, I’m nitpicking here, but the actual statement was “There is insufficient evidence at this time…”. In my opinion, there’s quite a difference between no evidence and insufficient evidence. No evidence would lead me to believe the kid was squeaky clean, but the phrase “insufficient evidence at this time” leads me to believe that there is SOME evidence (though not enough to prove it) and that more may or may not come.
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 2, 2010 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
So you think it's possible
The NCAA has evidence that Cecil Newton got paid, but they just decided to ignore it when making this ruling and decided to make no mention of it at all in their report.
Same question I had for CNF: Really? Really?
NCAA is not just the prosecutor
The NCAA is the judge. It doesn’t just come forward when it has evidence – it comes forward whenit makes rulings. It can sit on evidence forever while making a ruling.
by first and thom on Dec 2, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
And in the meantime
it’ll give Newton the clear, unconditional, “pay nothing back” go-ahead to play even when Green and all the other players who have gotten benefits were forced to sit.
That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
And hey, look at that
NCAA Prez: “In the Cam Newton reinstatement case, there was not sufficient evidence available to establish he had any knowledge of his father’s actions and there was no indication he actually received any impermissible benefit.”
the last “he” seems to also refer to Cam, rather than Cecil, so I don’t see how it furthers your point.
By the way, at what point will the site stop making the comments smaller and just start over on the right? This is going to end in an acrostic.
"It'll only be reviewed because the guys up in the booth want to watch it a few times too." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf16_mw0nxs
Honestly
Everyone else is willing to squint as hard as they possibly can to find room for the NCAA to have dope on Cecil, but I’m the guy with partisan blinders on. Right.
by JCCW Jerry on Dec 2, 2010 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, you are.
There’s no squinting involved here. It’s merely a matter of reading what’s been written, starting with what you quoted from the NCAA.
If you don’t believe me, go back and re-read what was written at Team Speed Kills, because C&F seems to get it just fine: Cecil Newton shopped Cameron Newton around to the highest bidden; the NCAA found a violation to have occurred; Auburn acknowledged the violation occurred; Auburn declared Cam ineligible; the NCAA granted Auburn’s application for reinstatement due to an insufficiency of evidence that Cam knew what his father was doing (which all concerned admit that Cecil did); the NCAA carefully pointed out that it investigation is ongoing.
Obviously, the NCAA has something on Cecil, or they wouldn’t have found a violation occurred and Auburn wouldn’t have admitted expressly that it did. How else could the NCAA have found a violation occurred, but that there was not sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or Auburn knew about it, if the NCAA didn’t have dope on Cecil? The NCAA has dope on someone, and Cecil’s the only one left.
The fact that the NCAA emphasized that the reinstatement decision was separate from the investigation underscores that point. If you’re not seeing that when you read this . . .:
Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity. . . . Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete’s involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation.
. . . then, yes, you are wearing partisan blinders.
Go 'Dawgs!
Exactly!
The reinstatement decision was about whether Cam received a benefit. The ongoing investigation is about whether Cecil received a benefit, which might have ramifications both for Auburn and for Cam.
Go 'Dawgs!
It makes 100 per cent sense, Jerry.
In fact, you’ve been the one going to great pains to point out the distinction: A.J. Green got money for selling his jersey, but the NCAA lacks sufficient evidence to determine that Cameron Newton received anything impermissible. Accordingly, A.J. Green’s reinstatement came with conditions (repay the money and serve a four-game suspension) and Cameron Newton’s didn’t.
All the NCAA determined was that it didn’t have enough evidence to say Cam got money. The investigation into whether Cecil got money is ongoing. We know a violation occurred that was sufficient to get Cam declared ineligible; Auburn agreed to that, and had to apply to have him reinstated. The NCAA was careful to point out that this was just a reinstatement decision, and was separate from the investigation.
it makes perfect sense.
Go 'Dawgs!
I wouldn't use the word "ignore," but, . . .
. . . since this ruling had nothing to do with whether Cecil Newton got paid (beyond the fact that Cecil Newton shopped his son around for money, which the NCAA found and which Auburn agreed happened), but, rather, had to do solely and narrowly with whether there was evidence adequate to establish whether Cameron Newton knew about it; and, since the NCAA expressly stated that it was making only a reinstatement determination, which was entirely separate from the ongoing investigation; and, since the NCAA typically is circumspect about the details of what its investigation has uncovered until handing down a final report (as evidenced by the complete radio silence surrounding, e.g., the oft-delayed report on the USC sanctions, the ultimate punishment for A.J. Green during long days of wild speculation, and the determination in this instance that a violation had occurred, which happened on Monday but was not reported until Wednesday), yeah, I’d say the NCAA’s decision not to put all its cards on the table by issuing an interim report midway through an investigation, at a time when all that was being done was reporting on the narrow question of reinstatement, is prudent, responsible, consistent, and typical. Really.
Go 'Dawgs!
Sure, Jerry,
we’re talking about the NCAA and I cited the SEC Bylaws, but…out of curiosity…what conference championship game is Auburn playing in on Saturday? What’s that you say? The SEC? Oh, well…that’s interesting, I guess they must be able to enforce those rules on Cam after all.
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 2, 2010 8:43 AM EST up reply actions
So now that his ruling is helpful to Auburn
instead of harmful to it, you’re okay with referencing the SEC and not the NCAA? Interesting.
Whether or not my interpretation was correct wasn’t what you were refuting with your first point. Your point was, and I quote, “That’s the SEC’s bylaw, not the NCAA’s. The NCAA has their own set, and that’s what we’re talking about, right?”
Whether or not my interpretation is correct is neither here nor there, what is at issue (or what I was taking issue with) was your dismissal of my point by implying that it was inapplicable because it involved the SEC and not the NCAA.
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 2, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Fine, it was applicable, whatever
Whether it’s the SEC’s or the NCAA’s bylaws, Newton’s OK, so it doesn’t matter.
Well, that is the bottom line.
I ask you in all sincerity, though: does Mike Slive’s interpretation of the SEC rule seem to you to be a fair reading of the clear language of that rule? Auburn and the NCAA both stipulated to the fact that Cecil Newton was part of a pay-for-play scheme involving inducements to get a former Florida player to enroll either at Auburn or at Mississippi State. Cecil Newton is Cameron Newton’s father. How else could that rule be read fairly, other than to say that Cam Newton (even if through no fault of his own, or of anyone affiliated with Auburn) is ineligible?
Mike Slive is a clever lawyer, and he’s used some sleight of hand by deflecting attention from the real issues (e.g., his reference to the fact that a strained reading of the rule would make it impermissible for a player to receive a hamburger, which, while technically true, is irrelevant, given the sums of cash Cecil Newton sought; what Cecil Newton did seems precisely like the sort of activity the rule was designed to prevent).
I should add here that (a) Mike Slive’s interpretation came from the SEC commissioner’s office, so no one associated with Auburn is responsible for it, and (b) we know of no evidence that anyone associated with Auburn paid any money to Cecil Newton.
With the above stipulations, doesn’t Mike Slive’s interpretation strike you as strained, in an attempt to keep the best player on the league’s best team eligible at least long enough for the SEC to get two teams into BCS bowls? Once again, no one at Auburn is to blame for any of that, so I’m not pointing fingers at the Loveliest Village; I’m talking about the powers that be in Birmingham, and their strong incentive to sweep whatever wrongdoing occurred under the run at least until after January 10.
Put another way, do you think this rule would have been read the same way for John Brantley, a disappointing player on a 7-5 team?
Go 'Dawgs!
On that same note,
there are two questions that his ruling make me ask. The first is, if Mike Slive thinks the rule is so draconian as to prevent a student athlete from receiving as much as a hamburger, then why was the rule passed in the first place? The second is, since when has a rule being illogical (which this one, in my opinion, isn’t, but whatever) stopped the NCAA or the SEC from enforcing it?
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 2, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
On this point
We’re going to agree to disagree, and I’m not interested in discussing it further. My personal take is that there’s a loophole, Auburn exploited it, and I’d be fine with seeing it closed in the future.
I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you, Jerry.
I’m asking this question sincerely: what’s the loophole?
The SEC Bylaw seems to me to be clearly worded, and clearly applicable. Mike Slive simply seems to me to be dodging the proper application of the rule because it’s not in the league’s interests for him to do so.
His “explanation” to Clay Travis appeared to me to be all winks and obfuscations. (Once again, this is a shot at Slive, not at Cameron Newton or anyone else affiliated with Auburn.) What “loophole” is he exploiting? It looks to me like he’s merely ignoring the established facts about Cecil Newton and the obvious import of a clear rule.
Go 'Dawgs!
Honestly, Kyle
I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. I’m certainly no expert on NCAA bylaws. What I know is that Auburn’s compliance professionals—who are experts—argued that because there was no evidence Cam knew about his Dad asking for money, because no money ever actually changed hands, and because Cam enrolled in a school that wasn’t where his Dad had had those discussions, he was eligible. And the NCAA and SEC—who are also experts—agreed with them. In my opinion, if there wasn’t a basis in the bylaws to rule Newton eligible, he wouldn’t be eligible.
As above: I don’t understand why you need to pull the “Mike Slive (oh, and the NCAA, which gains nothing from Auburn’s participation in the BCS) is pulling strings for Auburn” conspiracy-theory explanation when the “they found a loophole in the bylaws” explanation is simpler, easier, and for my money, better.
I don’t understand how a rule that states “if anyone in the immediate family” can be enforced. What if you have a family member that you have no relationship with that is trying to profit from your success? How is it then fair to punish the Athlete?
by Lisa Hall Campfield on Dec 1, 2010 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
It's ok - they are more of guidelines than rules.......
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by tankertoad on Dec 1, 2010 5:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I see what you did there .....
Hang the code, and hang the rules. They’re more like guidelines anyway.
Dang witty, that one!
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
"In a fair fight I'd kill you."
“Well that’s not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?”
Bobby Lowder Jack Sparrow
Well, my guess is that you have to have the rule that way,
and make exceptions retroactively, as opposed to having it open. Otherwise, athletes could just claim ignorance while their families profit off of them (which is why this is such a can of worms).
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 1, 2010 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
The problem you have
Is that the NCAA can’t punish the family directly, as nothing they do besides punishing the child (and, by proxy, the school) can hurt them. Regardless, the family likely will be able to just delay for long enough for the player to enter the draft, and BOOM, just like in the Reggie Bush saga, if you can’t afford to keep people quiet, nothing will ever come out. Reggie and his family were stupid and refused to pay the hush money, otherwise he’d still have his heisman.
That's a fair point, Lisa.
I tend to agree with hailtogeorgia’s interpretation; if you didn’t have such a rule, kids could simply use their parents as bag men and ignore the rule with impunity. As it stands, in the wake of this ruling, that’s essentially the precedent the NCAA has established, provided the athlete can maintain plausible deniability. As long as the athlete doesn’t create a paper (or, more likely, electronic, through texts, tweets, or e-mails) trail, he can maintain that deniability.
Beyond that, I would simply say this: you are quite right that, in the situation you describe (e.g., the estranged father of an athlete raised by his mother attempts to shake down a school), it would be unfair to punish the athlete . . . but that is by no means the situation we have here, where Cecil Newton was a powerful (some would say dominant) influence in his son’s life.
Go 'Dawgs!
You would also think
That the school recruiting him would likely find it odd if an immediate family member of a player was soliciting money when that player had never mentioned his immediate family member/brought that immediate family member on a visit.
I find it hard to believe that a school wouldn’t be absolutely certain that any money they give will go to someone who has direct and substantial influence on that athlete’s decision. They would do their research before putting themselves in potential hot water like that.
nevermind
Its just the soliciting that is at issue.
The fact that the estranged father solicited the money, regardless of whether or not the school gave it is what the rule would punish.
There may still be an issue of whether an estranged parent would be considered “immediate family,” however.
Let me get this straight.
The NCAA suspended Dareus only two games for dealing with agents on two separate occassions and Cam Newton only one (yes…one) day for his father trying to get $180,000 for his son’s services, yet AJ Green got four games for selling a dang jersey for $1,000? Really?
The NCAA is ruling that as long as players don’t “know” that they are breaking rules, they can be involved in all sorts of transgressions. However, they better not dare make a penny off themselves. Greedy punks. Want my son to play for your school? Sure, but it’ll cost ya, just don’t tell my son. As long as he doesn’t “know”, he’ll still get to play even if the NCAA finds out. Great rule.
I hate the NCAA so much.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
Flailing the deceased or semi-deceased equine again?
Auburn handed us our ass on the football field. Give it a rest. All the NCAA sanctions will not make up for that nor for St. Mark’s failures the past two years. Jeez.
And if the NCAA was even remotely consistent in it's punishments and timelines to issue said punishments -
AJ would have played in 3 losses, 2 of which would likely be won (MSU and CU) and the CMR hate would be much lower. \
Yes, we got our ass handed to us.
No, the NCAA is not fair, consistent or unbiased in it’s uneven handedness in handing down punishments.
4 games for a jersey and 4 months of investigation is NOT the same as 2 weeks of investigation, a one day suspension, and then reinstatement. There is obviously some good old boy back room crap going on.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by tankertoad on Dec 1, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
correction and more clarity
AJ should have gotten the first two games suspended. Which would have impacted the Arky and MSU game dramatically, giving AJ a chance to get more warmed up and be a bigger impact both with play calling, AM learning the ropes as games went on, to include the CU game.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by tankertoad on Dec 1, 2010 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd, and you said it best.
This whole subject has me so irate, I cannot be a constructive contributor on this subject.
If you're gonna do it, go ugly early.
You really think
We’d have still beaten MSU? I would think the Arkansas game is much more likely the swin in that duo. We basically beat them minus a defensive breakdown. Think how much of an impact Green could have had in a game where our offense was essentially unfettered ALREADY. MSU beat us a bit more convincingly.
Yes I do -
Because the earlier AM & AJ start working together – the better. AJ made an amazing catch in the CU game – but that’s my point – had the pass been a little better, an easier catch. MSU is a legit team for sure, but it was a close game & a little more firepower would have helped. Arky with AJ could have warmed up that a little.
I realize we should win with or without AJ – so to stay on topic my point is the NCAA ( as previously debated here) is ridiculously inconsistent.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
by tankertoad on Dec 1, 2010 4:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Try to be a little less wilfully ignorant, jujdawg.
by vineyarddawg’s dad on Dec 1, 2010 4:35 PM EST
This isn't a dead horse; this is breaking news, and I've given this very little coverage, . . .
. . . even in the week leading up to our game with Auburn, when it was all anyone on ESPN was discussing. If anything, I’ve been reserved and circumspect in addressing this topic.
The fact that Georgia lost to Auburn for the first time in five years isn’t what’s at issue, and I’m happy to discuss the state of the Georgia program in any of the several comment threads in which that subject is relevant.
The NCAA has made a highly dubious ruling that creates a terrible precedent for the future. In the process, the powers that be in college football essentially have said it is all right for a man to sell his son’s services to the highest bidder, as long as he keeps his son in the dark and doesn’t allow him any of the proceeds. Frankly, it’s disgusting, and it’s worse that, so far, he’s getting away with it.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Dec 1, 2010 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Got the popcorn ready...
this is gonna be a fun thread. Kyle, I hope you brought your raingear, because I’ve got a feeling a s**tstorm is coming.
I was just about to say "CHOO CHOO" here comes the sour grapes train!
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
This can't be over, can it?
Either way, Auburn might be well advised to reign in their glee just a tad. I think Mike Slive, using his sway as the commissioner in the most powerful conference, has influenced a short-term solution to a long-term issue and the NCAA probably, based on what evidence they have today, had to make a “game-time” decision. They’ve made it. I doubt they’re comfortable with it. I don’t think the NCAA likes to be backed into a corner and it almost sounds like they were. It’ll be interesting to see what the post-season brings.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
I think that's a fair assessment, Dave.
Mike Slive would like every team in the SEC to stay out of trouble with the NCAA, but he’s not going to lose his job if Auburn gets on probation for the umpteenth time on his watch. If the revenue stream starts to move in the wrong direction while other conferences are beefing up their rosters and increasing their incomes, though, he could be on the hot seat.
What’s the worst thing that could happen right now, from Mike Slive’s perspective? Clearly, it’s Cam Newton being held out of the SEC Championship Game as the league prepares to send him to New York as the Heisman Trophy frontrunner and (quite probably) to the BCS National Championship Game. If Newton doesn’t play Saturday, South Carolina wins, and the Plainsmen are looking at possible sanctions, there’s a chance we don’t get two teams into the BCS. It’s in Mike Slive’s interest to get Cam Newton cleared for the next two games, even if subsequent sanctions are forthcoming.
Go 'Dawgs!
So What's Worse
If after the season, nothing ever happens or comes of this other than what’s already been reported. And we’re left with a million unanswered questions and accusations.
Or. If the find out AU paid Cecil and sanctions come down and it’s very apparent that Slive and the SEC dragged their feet on figuring it all out because of what you mentioned above.
by knowshon loves legos on Dec 2, 2010 9:54 AM EST up reply actions
After the events we've just witnessed...
… there is no longer any possible outcome that is “good.”
by vineyarddawg on Dec 2, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
But if at this point they have declared Cam eligible there doesn't appear to be any scenario in which AU will forfeit games.
If they find out later that Auburn paid money to Newton then then Auburn will be sanctioned. But it doesn’t seem that that would involve forfeiting games for playing an ineligible player. I guess there are other grounds for vacating wins ?
Go Gamecocks!
Well, if Auburn paid Newton,
then by natural progression, Newton would be ineligible.
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 1, 2010 4:40 PM EST up reply actions
Not to be rude or snarky,
but are you familiar with the reply button? If you click it on the comment to which you wish to reply, it will place your comment under that comment. It makes the thread much easier to read.
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 1, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
did it again, hailtogeorgia, even though I clicked on the reply under your post.
This time I was already logged in while on the previous reply post to you and to vineyard, I was not. Could that be it?
That very well may have something to do with it.
It could also be a glitch with the browser you’re running. I used to have an old browser format that would only let me reply about half the time.
by hailtogeorgia on Dec 1, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, I think "willfully ignorant" accurately summarizes your comment, jujdawg.
You say Kyle is beating a dead horse because:
Auburn handed us our ass on the football field. Give it a rest. All the NCAA sanctions will not make up for that nor for St. Mark’s failures the past two years. Jeez.
The fact that this is a clear, intentional disregarding of the discussion over the previous 3 weeks at DawgSports should be obvious, but since you’re still “playing ignorant,” let me spell it out for you:
1) We’ve had plenty of Auburn fans trolling on over to this blog and shouting “HATERS!” at both Kyle and most of the other regulars. In spite of rational, reasonable discourse to the contrary, those people, and now you, with your above comment, are implying that all of the reservations and complaints we have with this ruling by the NCAA can be summarized in one salient point: We hate Auburn and we want to get back at them because they beat us this year (and we suck, and Mark Richt should be fired because he sucks, too).
Nothing could be further from the truth, which I am quite sure you know very well, and are choosing to ignore.
2) St. Mark wrote a book in the Bible. I don’t see what he has to do with this discussion. (See how willful ignorance works?)
3) Mark Richt hasn’t lost to Auburn for the past two years. He’s lost once in the past 2 years. In fact, Mark Richt-coached teams have a 6-4 record against Auburn. How many other current SEC head coaches have a winning record against Auburn? (Hint: Nick Saban doesn’t.)
Georgia has had 2 disappointing seasons in a row now under Mark Richt, but that has little bearing on the outrage this decision by the NCAA has generated.
The NCAA is unevenly enforcing its rules, and clearly appears to be skewing its decision in favor of a team who is in a position to win a national championship in a major revenue-generating sport. Surely you can see how the appearance of such an injustice would cause outrage.
by vineyarddawg on Dec 1, 2010 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, I can't see how the appearance of such an injustice would cause outrage,
and don’t call me Shirley. It’s a game, not world peace or obtaining adequate medical care, that the NCAA holds sway over__so “such an injustice” doesn’t quite get it for me. And, I’m a Methodist, and although not a theologian, I don’t think we recognize saints, but, what the hay, if I’m wrong about that, “ignorance is bliss” according to the title above. This whole thing appears to me a complaint by juvenile acting adults that “it ain’t fair”. Once, when I was a child, I made that complaint to my daddy. His response: “The fair comes to the county once a year, son, and stays 4 or 5 days. Other than that, there ain’t nothing fair about life.”
My grandfather certainly knew whereof he spoke upon that point, and . . .
. . . I’m not about to contradict him.
However, there is supposed to be at least a semblance of fairness inherent in the rule of law, which is designed to limit the ability of those who wield power to act arbitrarily and capriciously, and Mike Slive sure seems to have gone out of his way willfully to misapply a clearly-worded rule in a situation in which the rule clearly applies. It is reasonable to question his incentive for doing so.
As I noted in one of my replies to Jerry above, one need not assume that Cameron Newton or anyone affiliated with Auburn did anything improper in this situation; the facts stipulated by the NCAA and the involved institutions demonstrate that the father of a former Florida player attempted to obtain improper benefits from Auburn and from Mississippi State as part of the recruitment process. Assuming for the sake of argument that no one ever paid him a dime, how does that not violate the SEC rule? The rule states:
If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or 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 (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student-athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.
Auburn, Florida, and Mississippi State are member institutions of the Southeastern Conference. Cecil Newton is Cameron Newton’s father. $180,000.00 is a form of assistance beyond that permitted by the SEC Bylaws. To paraphrase Antonin Scalia, that rule would be a model of draftsmanship, had it not proven so unavailing.
It seems reasonable to me to call attention to authority figures abusing their authority and ignoring the rules by which they are supposed to be governed. No, it isn’t world peace, but, then again, this isn’t a world peace weblog, either.
Go 'Dawgs!
So, am I to understand that the purpose of the last two paragraphs of
your original article which originated this thread are a reasonble attempt to “call attention to authority figures abusing their authority and ignoring the rules by which they are supposed to be governed.” Seems more like this site’s usual venomous assault on Auburn and the school’s alumni than anything reasonable. To borrow from your rule of law theory, discretion in meting out punishment has served this country well in the past__up until the right wing decided that mandatory minimums were politically expedient and tied the hands of the judiciary. Rules are meant to be followed, it is true, but flexibility and discretion in determining the appropriate punishment for their violations is a necessity if any respect for the law is to be fostered. Two wrongs have never made a right__so “wronging” Cam Newton for something his father will never make up for the “wrong” (and I believe it was) done to AJ Green and UGA. If Newton himself is later proved to be “guilty” personally, they can can adjust the punishment I suppose, but it won’t change what we all know happened on the field. Finally, I wish to point out that my son-in-law is an Auburn graduate and that he is the finest human being I have ever known.
the only answer I’ve seen to this (which, by the way, does not seem to be the answer Slive provided) is that if Cecil solicited but did not actually make a deal, he neither received nor agreed to receive, but rather asked to receive – what Matt Hinton described as sticking out your hand, with no one putting anything in it.
"It'll only be reviewed because the guys up in the booth want to watch it a few times too." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf16_mw0nxs
It's all about money
as I stated in the other thread. The SEC and NCAA couldn’t stand the loss of revenue if Cam were ruled ineligible. My only hope – the Chickens kick the crap out of Auburn in the SEC Championship game thus derailing the money train. I will watch the officiating closely as I suspect the SEC is waist deep in poop.
Before anyone screams sour grapes let me note – I am simply depressed – my favorite pastime (college football) has been tainted by the love of money – CRAP.
No offense taken, hailtogeorgia, but I thought I did__just like I did when I posted this.
But then, age sometimes limits my memory as well as my motor skills.
All I will say is that
I don’t know everything surrounding the situation, but it all seems a little sketch. Especially with how gung-ho the NCAA seemed about enforcing its rules earlier in the year.
Other than that, I don’t have much to say about the issue.
What gets me is the timing
Auburn suddenly learns after the Iron Bowl and Newton is ineligible, even though the story all along had been that Auburn already knew what had transpired.
Nothing happened in the intervening months since the pay-for-play allegations, excpept that Auburn figured out what happened and self-reported after the regular season was over.
I said a month ago that the timing of the Newton allegations was fishy. The timing of the reinstatement is every bit as fishy.
It's also quite curious that, after so many previous reports surfaced in the news media, . . .
. . . the NCAA ruling on Monday and Auburn’s ineligibility decision on Tuesday were kept under wraps until after the reinstatement ruling on Wednesday. Why? NCAA investigations into Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina earlier in the year didn’t involve such secrecy; violations were found, players were declared ineligible, and reinstatements were sought in the clear light of day . . . and the schools involved all willingly held players out of games as soon as they knew there might be an issue, even if they had not yet been declared ineligible.
Go 'Dawgs!
Upon further reflection, this might be the biggest problem I have with this issue.
With all of the eligibility questions swirling in the open around other programs, why was it necessary to keep an official NCAA ruling such a big secret until after it has (ostensibly) been resolved (temporarily)?
Here's my issue
They’re letting him off essentially because they feel like it would be unfair to punish him for something he did not know was going on, that that part of the rule is a “technicality” that shouldn’t be enforced because it’s not fair. But with AJ, they dropped the hammer because he sold his own personal property to someone who was defined, under a technicality, as an agent. At UNC, one of the players received $20 from a former player and friend and was suspended on the same kind of technicality. They are absolutely not being even handed with their punishments this year. So what if he didn’t know? You really think AJ knew this guy fit some obscure definition of an agent? Screw him, the rules say he is ineligible. I don’t care if it’s not fair to him because he “didn’t know”. That’s the reason you have rules, so everyone’s treated the same and you don’t allow emotional or other interests to interfere. The NCAA lost all respectability in my eyes today.
by elfcrash on Dec 1, 2010 5:20 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Yes!
What’s the point of the rule if all the kid needs to do is deny knowing anything about the solicitation? I get that it’s not fair to punish the kid, but does anyone really think that a child or their parent is going to admit that the player knew, especially when the national title is potentially on the line?
by ECR on Dec 1, 2010 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
The NCAA
Would likely argue that in AJ’s situation, money changed hands. Thus, there’s a distinction.
Even if AJ didn’t know who was buying his jersey, the mere act of selling the jersey to anyone, was a violation. Fine. I have no problem with that (actually I do, but bear with me).
In the Cam situation, no money changed hands. Thus, the NCAA is likely saying that in the AJ case, if AJ’s dad put his jersey on Craig’s List but had no takers, he would be innocent due to the failure of his father to break the rule (assuming AJ had no knowledge of the proposed sale).
The only difference is that the NCAA has admitted that what Cecil did was wrong, regardless of his failure to make money. In admitting the violation, the NCAA has forced itself to hang its hat on the “Cam didn’t know” argument. This is just not right, for Cam indirectly benefitted from a violated rule. As Kyle said above, should Cam be rewarded for his father’s failure to make money off his scheme? I would buy the ruling more if the NCAA stated that as long as money doesn’t change hands, shop away. They don’t. They admit it’s wrong, but no one gets punished for the violation.
How is that fair or right? I believe that if Auburn has a couple of losses this year, Cam would be forced to sit out more than a day. But they have an ulterior motive in keeping Cam eligible, but that’s simply my opinion.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
What if Auburn loses Saturday?
How fast will the NCAA crank up the investigation into the matter? I believe that if Auburn wants to really slow the NCAA investigation process (and I don’t believe they or the FBI are through poking around) they need to win. A loss deletes the perceived incentive for the NCAA to sweep this aside temporarily. This is going to be fun!
Know thy enemy...
by CoachSpurlock on Dec 1, 2010 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mere Act of Selling
My understanding was that AJ selling the jersey was against the rules solely because the buyer was an obscure definition of an agent. If he had sold it to someone who wasn’t an agent under any reading of the rules, it wouldn’t have been a violation. Or at least that was my understanding of the situation.
I believe this to be true.
I think, perhaps, if AJ’d sold the jersey to a booster, that might also have been a problem. But if he’d sold it to a random person for some spending dough, it would have been the same as if you or I pawned a bicycle — he’s not restricted from buying or selling personal possessions just because he’s a college athlete.
by NCT on Dec 1, 2010 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
I think you're mistaken
I’m not 100% sure, but I believe that the act of selling the jersey was a violation, period. The fact that he sold it so someone who fit the NCAA definition of an agent just made his punishment that much more severe.
Was it specifically the jersey, then?
… that he was profiting from something specifically tied to his athletic performance?
by NCT on Dec 2, 2010 8:30 AM EST up reply actions
Yes
At least that’s my understanding. Even if he’d sold the jersey to some other college student for $100, it still would have been a violation.
That's my understanding, too...
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
I agree, Jman781.
If we were talking about John Brantley here, who has been a disappointment on a 7-5 Florida team, this would have been handled differently.
Go 'Dawgs!
Seems like a very legitmate discussion
….whether you are an Auburn fan or not so much.
Without repeating what has been said above, the fact that a (presumed) Heisman trophy winner and QB on a team pretty likely to be in the MNC game, got declared ineligible and reinstated in one day, with a number of pretty unsavory facts reported for weeks, now deemed true….all that seems to merit a few raised eyebrows all round….Green or other cases notwithstanding.
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the Dawgs of war; - Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1
By T Kyle's own admission,
he hates Auburn. Clearly that hate has provided a certain slant to his viewpoint here.
Not trying to piss anyone off, but it really seems like a lot of the disappointment over Georgia’s season has been deflected towards Auburn this year. I mean you can call us scumbags all you want, but we are having a good year and our players/coaches/AD seem to be keeping out of trouble. We have not had a problem with fighting on the field all season with the exception of the UGA game. Not even at Bama, who we loathe much more than you guys. Then on Saturday, I see UGA players mixing it up with Tech players before the game. Really, what is the common denominator here?
I fully expect to be berated for this post, but I really don’t see how hating Auburn helps the situation at Georgia.
The mixing up...
is an annual tradition. It was not a near “fight” as you seem to insinuate here. And we are not the only traditional rivals to meet near mid-field and jump around getting hyped. Happens a lot. Fairley didn’t try to intentionally hurt McElroy on multiple occassions, so Bama didn’t have to retaliate. There’s your common denominator.
Know thy enemy...
by CoachSpurlock on Dec 1, 2010 6:46 PM EST up reply actions
I assume that's the same reason it's getting so much play on Alabama, Florida, Tennessee and national sites?
Not to mention that Thayer Evans. That guy is just a bitter Auburn hater because . . . I don’t know.
Yes, we’re all fascinated with Auburn and think about you all the time. It consumes us. Happy?
/Predictable Auburn fan remains predictable.
If it makes you feel any better
I thought Newton was dirty way before he ever got to Auburn.
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
by RedCrake on Dec 1, 2010 7:04 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Ha!
Not trying to piss anyone off, but it really seems like a lot of the disappointment over Georgia’s season has been deflected towards Auburn this year
.
You flatter yourself.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
by DavetheDawg on Dec 1, 2010 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
All this time Craig T has been telling us how obsessed we are with Georgia Tech . . .
and it turns out it was really Auburn the whole time. Zoinks! It’s like a Scooby Doo mystery in shoulder pads.
We'd have gotten away with it, too, . . .
. . . if it hadn’t been for those meddling NCAA investigators!
Go 'Dawgs!
Like Zoinks Scoob
It was like T. Kyle King the whole time!
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
I Corinthians 9:24
by Southern Dawg on Dec 1, 2010 8:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah i thought the guy looked fairly similar
what’s funny is its the only villain without his mask that i could find on google search. And if i was any good with photoshop i would have put a beard on him for you.
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
I Corinthians 9:24
by Southern Dawg on Dec 2, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, please, kngry7.
Yes, I hate Auburn, but I hate y’all when we’re good and y’all are bad, too. If anything, I’ve soft-pedaled this one; go back and re-read the postings appearing here the week before the Deep South’s Oldest Rivalry, when the Cam Newton story was in all the headlines, and you’ll see that I more or less ignored it altogether. I certainly haven’t harped on this. Incidentally, I hate Florida and Georgia Tech, as well, but they happen not to be embroiled in NCAA investigations.
I applaud your sleight of hand in using the phrase “mixing it up,” because you know that two groups of players jumped up and down near one another, and nothing more; there were no punches thrown, no one pushed anyone, and no one had to be separated. That is quite different from the punk behavior demonstrated by the Plainsmen on the field against the Bulldogs . . . which is why none of our players were ejected, and two of yours were. Your “common denominator” argument is comical.
You’re quite right that hating Auburn doesn’t help the situation at Georgia. I hate Auburn on general principle, regardless of whether it helps Georgia. In my defense, though, pretty much every story to have come out of the Loveliest Village in the last half-century validates my contempt, doesn’t it?
Finally, for what it’s worth, neutral observers agree with me.
Go 'Dawgs!
That's a spurious argument...
…first, I haven’t seen Auburn or their fans referred to as “scumbags” on this site…could have missed it maybe.
And sometimes I get a bit uncomfortable with TK’s use of the word “hate”…but I never take it in it’s most literal sense, though I will let TK speak for himself.
The “kerfuffle” (sp?) at the beginning of the GA-Tech game was silly…no way compares to the issues at the end of the Auburn-Ga game…though I don’t deny we’ve had similar instances in the past….all that has nothing to do with the Newton situation and subsequent discussion.
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the Dawgs of war; - Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1
Thanks, Vietnam Dog.
I apologize if it makes you uncomfortable; I realize “hate” is a strong word, and I hope it’s clear in context that it doesn’t mean the same thing it does between rival sports fans as it does between, say, warring neighboring tribes. As with “Auburna delenda est!”, it is not true in the literal sense, but is instead an expression of the intensity of the rivalry. As I try to emphasize with reasonable frequency, sports rivalries are institutional, not personal, and (except for the week of the game) I have tried to reduce my usage of “I hate Auburn” around here.
I don’t know that I’ve ever used the term “scumbag”; I know that, at times, I have let my emotions get the better of me, as when I directed sophomoric name-calling at Urban Meyer in a posting in which I otherwise tried to make a cogent case (later confirmed) that he had withheld information regarding the Gators’ change of defensive coordinators until after signing day. I shouldn’t have done it, I apologized for doing it, and I try to keep that sort of thing under control, although I confess to being imperfect. If I used the term, I regret it.
Go 'Dawgs!
Hmph.
Whatever. I know some Auburn alumni whom I like and would never use the term “scumbag” to refer to Auburn fans in any general sense (some AU fans are scumbags, but so are some UGA fans).
The school and program? I’d have much less hesitation using the word.
by NCT on Dec 1, 2010 9:56 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, absolutely!
On the pre-Auburn edition of “The Dawg Gone Podcast,” I noted that I knew many more likable Auburn fans now than I did a decade ago, but I had no hesitation about referring to the athletic program on the Plains as being historically the bailiwick of “cheating sons of bitches.”
Go 'Dawgs!
Scumbags everywhere are offended at being compared to Auubrn fans....
Run Lindsay Run!
by ausdawg85 on Dec 1, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks, kngry7!
I can’t help noticing that, when calling it “Grade A hate” and “Nice work,” you never indicated that it was wrong! :)
Go 'Dawgs!
Well, the facts as you stated them are not wrong.
…but would I be wrong in assuming that you were supremely disappointed with today’s ruling? By editorializing and calling the decision “ridiculous” and calling Auburn’s victories this season “immoral,” I think you’ve pretty well told us all how you feel…
Is this a feeling based on the facts and your disagreement with the NCAA’s and SEC’s interpretation of their own bylaws or with some gut feeling that Auburn must have done something wrong that we are getting away with?
I'd say it's more than just a gut feeling.
I’m sure you’re feeling better than you felt before, and you have every right to feel that way, but can you honestly tell me (a) you think everything about Cam Newton’s recruitment to Auburn was on the up and up, and (b) you think you’ve heard the last of this?
My view of the ridiculousness of the decision is based upon a reading of the plain meaning of the rules in question; please note that many other commentators, including Clay Travis, agree with me upon this point, and they don’t have nearly the contempt for Auburn that I do. The fact that I’m biased doesn’t make me wrong.
My view of the immorality of the wins the Tigers have amassed this season is based upon Auburn’s explicit admission of the fact that a violation occurred that rendered Cam Newton ineligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics. The technicality that he wasn’t officially declared ineligible until Monday doesn’t change the fact that the circumstances causing his ineligibility (which, to repeat, Auburn admits) antedated this football season . . . and every other school (including Georgia) implicated in any of these investigations voluntarily held players out of games as soon as they knew there might be an issue. Auburn was formally informed of what they already knew—-that Newton might be ineligible—-a couple of days before the Georgia game. The Plainsmen played him anyway, and clearly won only because Newton was on the field.
Auburn beat Georgia because Auburn played a player the Tigers knew might be ineligible, who was later found to be ineligible, and, for the moment, Auburn is getting away with cheating. Yeah, that ticks me off, and, while you may enjoy the result of that dishonest behavior on the part of your team, you know it’s true. Heck, Auburn admits it’s true, although the Plainsmen wouldn’t put it in those forthright terms.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Dec 2, 2010 7:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Great post...
But can you blame the Auburn fans for putting their collective heads in the sand? I don’t.
I agree with you 100%. I don’t understand why some Auburn fans tend to think that just because we lost to them, we want revenge. As others, you, and I have stated, I have no problem with the Tebow-led Gators or the Cadillac-Brown-Campbell led Aubies beating the tar out of us and winning mNCs or SEC Championships. None. Why? Because they were better and they played eligible players. Period.
Why would I care about the UGA v. Auburn game this year? Giving us a win in that game makes us a whopping 7-5. Whoopie!!!! YES! Give me a break. The argument that we’re sore losers would hold more water if the Auburn loss was the difference between us going or not going to the SEC Championship game. Unfortunately for UGA, the South Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, and Miss. State games also have something to do with our poor season.
Gah.
Oh, and most UGA fans had a problem with Fairley, not Cam…
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
How many days did we have to wait for AJ's appealed suspension to be decided?
AU not only knew what was coming down earlier this week, they already had their appeal ready to go after Newton’s “suspension.” Where there is $ involved, the SEC and NCAA are judge, jury, and executioner.
Will USC get off the hook now?
The NCAA’s decision Wednesday to reinstate Auburn quarterback Cam Newton without penalty despite the prohibited actions of his father surprised USC Athletic Director Pat Haden.
Haden oversees a program that was hit with some of the harshest NCAA sanctions in college sports history, in part because Reggie Bush’s parents were found to have accepted prohibited extra benefits from agents and would-be sports marketers. Bush’s stepfather also helped set up a fledgling sports-marketing venture.
"In the Reggie Bush case, when the parent [did] something inappropriate the kid and the school suffered," Haden said.
Haden, who succeeded Mike Garrett in August, said the Newton ruling is at odds with how USC is attempting to educate athletes and their parents regarding NCAA rules.
"I was always told the parent is the child," Haden said. "That’s what we’ve been telling our kids. If the parent does something inappropriate the child suffers the consequences."
USC is scheduled to appear before the NCAA’s Infractions Appeals Committee next month. Haden said school attorneys would probably review the Newton case.
"Intuitively, it seems appropriate that we would discuss it," he said.
h/t L.A. Times
Know thy enemy...
by CoachSpurlock on Dec 1, 2010 6:49 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Nice pickup Coach.
What the NCAA has done, for the moment, is declare that plausible deniability creates an absolute defense. This is a dangerous precedent, as Mr. Haden acknowledges. Perhaps even more dangerous is the possibility that the NCAA will say at some point that there was no precedential value to this decision and remind us all that " the facts of each case must be reviewed on their own merit." This would further erode the already flimsy faith many have in the NCAA’s enforcement regime.
My take? Mike Slive has pushed the NCAA to put some lipstick on the pig before they put her at the front of the Christmas parade. If Auburn earns a cut of BCS money and deposits it in the conference kitty, I don’t think Vandy’s going to have to give their share back if we find out in 3 years that Cam has a numbered account in Belize that was opened with Bobby Lowder’s deposit slip. My sense is that this is about deflecting some of the attention away for the SEC Championship Game. This is not a vindication, just an acknowledgment that at this particularly important juncture, there’s not enough plausible evidence to implicate Cam Newton or Auburn. If that’s the conclusion the NCAA has reached “based on the information available” then so be it.
For my part, I still find it absurd that Cecil Newton would require $180,000 for his son to sign with MSU but let him sign with Auburn for free. Unless of course he meant "it’s not going to be free this time [except for Gene Chizik because I just love that man]. That’s simply absurd to anyone not wearing the darkest of blue and orange glasses. I also don’t seem to recall hearing about how Pastor Newton savagely cut off support for his son. So, while I can’t verify it, my hunch is that Cecil Newton accepted money from someone for his son to play football at Auburn, and that same son benefited, at least indirectly, from that payment.
If anything, today’s findings strengthen that belief for me. The Auburn administration and MSU administrations after all agreed with the NCAA findings, which were essentially that Cecil Newton pimped his son’s athletic talents for cash. Let’s also not lose sight of the fact that this means that even the Auburn athletic department concedes, in essence, that Cecil Newton is a slimy wease, and that he’s been lying straight to the cameras right up until he lawyered up, with a guy who was “a million percent sure” that no member of the Newton family solicited money for Cam’s services. For Heaven’s sake, let’s not forget that.
by MaconDawg on Dec 1, 2010 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It seems the NCAA has opened themselves up to some liability
Now I’m not the accomplished lawyer that T Kyle King Esq. is, but as a law student it seems to me that, were the NCAA to rule otherwise in a subsequent case, that an enterprising young lawyer might be able to bring them to court and force the NCAA to allow the player to play.
cam...
all i know is i want to puke when he does the kissing thing…seriously, i find it really disturbing for some reason. if it weren’t for stuff like that, i think i might have a little bit easier time rooting for the guy.
"Now, I'm gonna go get off my horse by getting onto a smaller horse, and then onto a large dog, until I'm near enough to the ground to roll off."
by Bravely going forward on Dec 1, 2010 7:28 PM EST reply actions
I pointed it out in a gameday thread awhile back
But given the AJ/Cam comparison… during the Auburn SouthCarolina game, Newton did a chicken dance following a score. Clearly not a celebration penalty compared the abomination that was AJ Green’s performance after scoring against LSU last year.
But we already knew that SEC officiating was wildly inconsistent didn’t we.
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
by RedCrake on Dec 1, 2010 7:43 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It's totally consistent,
If you are leading the league you get all the calls your way. It does not vary by team or year.
by hbtd on Dec 2, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's just that the NCAA likes Auburn
and doesn’t care for you so much. What of it? Kyle hates Auburn, yet I enjoy his writing and his blog. So, the NCAA dislikes you, despises Alabama and likes Auburn. Big deal. No whining!
Granted, you have come nowhere near the Bammers in your collective “dawg” responses. Kudos for that!
I noted in another thread earlier (a thread everyone has avoided since this one was posted):
…and the Bammers lose it entirely. I am astonished by their boards. I had popped over to one just as this information was being released. They had been in complete Bammer conspiracy theory mode. It is truly amazing. They had Pat Dye, Cam Newton, Bobby Lowder and the Yella Fella (no idea who that is) being arrested tonight or tomorrow morning ("just as soon as they can finish gitt’n them indatments typed up"), the FBI shutting down Auburn, Auburn "loosing" (sic) its SACS "accredidation" (sic), Auburn being kicked out of the SEC and the NCAA, the "Yella Fella" having a helicopter on standby in a hidden field in the woods "above Dothan" to take himself, his wife and their "younguns" to the Bahamas to "avoid justiss," ad nauseam…
And then suddenly:
"Them NCAA bastards hate us and they love them assholes down at the barn! Boo Hoo! Boo Hoo! Boo Hoo Hoo Hoo! Boooooooooooooooooo… HOO!"
Incredible. Though they finally got one thing correct: The NCAA is partial to Auburn and has no use for Alabama. And they only have so much use for Georgia, but don’t tell anyone here that.
Bammers. And dawgs. And their incessant whining.
Y su madre. Y su esposa tambien. She’s so fat that she went swimming in the ocean and Spain claimed her!
We're not whining.
We’re pointing out a glaring inconsistency, a gaping loophole, and a horrendous precedent. The fact that neutral observers (such as the one I linked to above) agree with us ought to make that clear enough, even to an observer who is as biased for Auburn as I admittedly am biased against the Plainsmen.
By the way, if the NCAA had done this for an Alabama player, the Auburn message boards would be going twice as crazy with conspiracy theories as Bulldog and Crimson Tide message boards combined, and we both know it.
Go 'Dawgs!
One other little thing...
They had been in complete Bammer conspiracy theory mode. It is truly amazing. They had Pat Dye, Cam Newton, Bobby Lowder and the Yella Fella (no idea who that is) being arrested tonight or tomorrow morning
About that ‘Yella Fella’ guy….If Gene Chizik wakes up in the morning and he’s got a new addition on the back of his house, then Auburn should definately start worrying.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
AWESOME!
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Reading Stephen1980 after a couple of glasses of vino..
….is always a challenge for me
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the Dawgs of war; - Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1
Dr. Timothy Leary...
would’ve loved his posts.
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
I don't necessarily disagree with your point
But we’ve both been around enough Auburn folks to know that if Cam Newton played for Bama and this went down, the Auburn fanbase would be going apeshit.
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
by RedCrake on Dec 1, 2010 8:42 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
As much as Auburn fans might wish it were otherwise, . . .
. . . this by no means ends the Cam Newton saga. As C&F cogently explained at Team Speed Kills, the NCAA made a strictly limited ruling.
Go 'Dawgs!
I can agree with that
But, nothing we did as Auburn fans controlled the manner in which the NCAA has handled this investigation nor any rulings to date. That’s not to say that I agree with any “loopholes” and I feel certain that such loopholes will quickly cease to exist.
SO, with that said, I’ll just continue to take whatever pleasure is allowed by today’s ruling for as long as it lasts; I’ll continue to be a fan of my team and wish them the best come Saturday; and should AU be able to again defeat USCe, then I’ll be hoping for the best of results in the BCSNCG.
And that’s probably what each of you would do in a similar scenario.
DWWD -- WDE!
Fair enough, ATL_AU_FAN.
I think there probably are shoes remaining to be dropped, but I can’t conscientiously blame you for taking the position you are taking.
Go 'Dawgs!
Well said.
This is exactly what we’d do. Unless I was a fan who’d written a six-figure check for the player in question (or had other such firsthand knowledge beyond what we publicly know now about the Newton matter), I’d have no choice but to assume or at least hope for the best and enjoy the moment.
I think thats a solid and reasonable outlook
Sounds like me regarding AJ Green leading up to the beginning of the season for what that’s worth.
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
by RedCrake on Dec 1, 2010 10:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah
and I didn’t like the manner in which the AJ thing was handled either. The NCAA came in questioning a trip to South Beach that AJ never took and the NCAA left after discovering the whole jersey-selling scenario.
People can say what they want about Auburn being a “one man team” with Cam but there’s not a single team playing on Saturday’s that doesn’t suffer when one of their best is sidelined.
DWWD -- WDE!
AU FAN..agree with you there
…… reminds me of when I lived in Omaha the first time..early 80s. Locals used to tell me “Georgia is a one man team (Walker)”…then the year after he was gone we went 11-1 and knocked Texas out of the National title…lost only to Auburn that year ….doh!! Did I just remind myself of that!
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the Dawgs of war; - Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1
Not to be overly technical, but we were 10-1-1.
The tie was with Clemson. Your point still stands, though.
Go 'Dawgs!
In addition, Clay Travis provides us with insight into Mike Slive's thinking, . . .
. . . and it seems pretty clear that the commissioner is thinking with his wallet, using dubious logic to get around the clear language of the SEC rule that makes Cam Newton ineligible before promising to close the barn door after he has allowed the horse to escape make millions of dollars for the conference.
Go 'Dawgs!
Slive acknowledged that he was concerned by the precedent set in the Cam Newton case — that family members may solicit benefits from one university while remaining eligible at another. As a result Slive said the SEC would sponsor and send legislation to the NCAA to close the Cam Newton loophole and prevent future instances such as this from occurring. “To the extent that the current legislation is not thorough enough, we are going to work to get national legislation passed to close this loophole,” Slive said.
So Silve just said – it’s really wrong, but it’s not against the rules today, so Cam gets to play, we get the money and we’ll make the rules stricter for absolutely every single future college athlete.
In other words, it’s all good as long as we get to make money and the kids don’t get any. Nice.
I can bake like a demon.
Yeah, that's basically it.
(I’m counting down until an Auburn fan shows up to mention the Georgia players who sold their SEC championship rings after the 2002 season, but there was no rule prohibiting that sale, even though the coaching staff told them not to do it. The rules subsequently were changed to forbid it, which is why it was not permitted for A.J. Green to sell his jersey in 2010, but, at the time the rings were sold, no rule prevented it. Here, there is a rule that renders Cam Newton ineligible for what Auburn admits Cecil Newton did. That rule simply isn’t being applied because it is not in the SEC’s interest to apply it at the moment.)
Go 'Dawgs!
So let me see....
(I was a bit busy today and so I’m late to the party) – but if I get this all correctly -
Facts not in dispute:
Cecil Newton in conjunction with Kenny Rogers solicited cash in exchange for Cam signing with MSU.
Kenny Rogers is an agent as defined by the NCAA.
MSU declined to pay.
Cam subsequently signed with Auburn.
MSU reported the solicitation to the SEC in January and provided additional information in July.
The NCAA subsequently investigated.
In this week’s activity, the NCAA determined Cecil Newton & Kenny Rogers violated the NCAA’s rules when they attempted to work a pay for play scheme for Cam signing with MSU.
Conclusions:
Most people are focusing on whether or not Cam knew and whether or not money change hands.
While the NCAA rules are not available on line to the general public, I did find this little tidbit: a player is not eligible if the player has “ever accepted money, transportation or other benefits from an agent or agreed to have an agent market your athletics ability or reputation in that sport;”
Correct me if I am mistaken but if a) Kenny Rogers is an agent and b) he worked the pay-for-play scheme then do we not have a violation in that an agent marketed Cam Newton’s athletics ability or reputation in football?
I can bake like a demon.
Yeah, I think you've got a pretty good handle on the situation, podunkdawg.
By the way, here is the SEC Bylaw that Mike Slive says does not apply to Cam Newton:
If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or 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 (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student-athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.
As Clay Travis has demonstrated, the commissioner’s position is preposterous, given the facts to which Auburn and the NCAA have agreed, and the manner in which this was handled smacks of preferential treatment. We are, after all, talking about the Heisman Trophy frontrunner and the spark plug of the team currently ranked No. 1 in the BCS standings, two details that could make millions of dollars for the SEC if the league places two teams in the BCS (as it almost certainly will, as long as a Cam Newton-led Auburn squad is available to be one of them).
Does anyone believe Mike Slive would have applied the same rule in the same way if it was, say, John Brantley, a disappointing player on a 7-5 team?
Go 'Dawgs!
But leaving the money aside -
did they not also violate the agent marketing ability rule?
I can bake like a demon.
Not if Cam didn't agree to have the agent market his athletics ability.
The agent, in collusion with the father, marketed the player without the player’s consent or even knowledge, apparently. At least, that’s their story and they dare anyone to prove otherwise.
smart lady right there
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
So we can get Crowell, as well as every other recruit we want. We just need to start passing around the collection plate and making calls to these kids’ parents. Then, as long as we win next season, it’s all good, right? While I’d like to believe that a lot of families would say no to this kind of thing, I’d still bet you could fill a two-deep with blue chippers whose families don’t mind at all. Is there anything right now that would prevent a school from doing this, other than (as Macondawg brought up above), claiming that this case has no precedential value? And how long will schools who get jobbed by the NCAA continue to go along with that kind of inconsistency?
"It'll only be reviewed because the guys up in the booth want to watch it a few times too." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf16_mw0nxs
Not so fast, my friend.
There’s a set of rules dealing with an institution’s and its booster’s activities (your scenario) that’s separate from the rules dealing with a player’s activities. There may be overlapping consequences, but the rules are different. I can offer to do things for a player or his family that would get UGA into trouble but that would not affect the player’s eligibility.
I got the impression that a clear violation of the rules was going unpunished because they can’t prove either Cam or Auburn knew anything, and that as a result it would be unfair to punish either, but that doesn’t seem to square with what you’re saying. Could you clarify either where I’m wrong or the distinction between the two scenarios? Because while it seems likely the rules will be changing soon, I’d like to know what types of situations could play out if the current rule were implemented in other cases as it’s being done here.
"It'll only be reviewed because the guys up in the booth want to watch it a few times too." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf16_mw0nxs
From what I understand, if Cam was playing at MSU, or if Kenny Rogers had affiliations with Auburn, we’re talking a different ballgame (NCT’s point).
Right now we have a smoking gun at one school and the athlete at another conference school.
Logic should allow us to draw some conclusions, or at the bare minimum hold Cam & Preacher accountable for the prior negotiations, but there’s a supposed loophole between the two events.
Here's how it squares
As MT1 pointed out, neither Cecil nor Rogers is affiliated with Auburn in the way I’m affiliated with UGA (by the NCAA’s definition of “booster”). Rogers is an agent. He’s afffiliated with MSU, arguably, which is why part of this package of announcements was MSU’s that they are putting up walls between itself and Rogers.
If, instead of (or in addition to) Rogers, there were someone affiliated with the Auburn program negotiating with Cecil, I believe we’d have a different outcome, even if no money changed hands. At that point, it likely would become important to know how much Auburn itself knew or reasonably should have known about the (potential) transaction.
by NCT on Dec 2, 2010 8:38 AM EST up reply actions
At the end of the day
what we’ve learned here is that NCAA does not stand for National Collegiate Athletics Association but that it actually stands for National Committee for Aberrant Assessments.
I can bake like a demon.
This never would have happened if Michael Adams was President of the NCAA
Whoops!
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
by RedCrake on Dec 1, 2010 10:32 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
T Kyle, you are one unhappy camper
TKK, I think you may be the biggest “sore loser” of all time, and about as exciting as the new littly uga mascot. Find some happiness my friend. Write about something you know something about… hate ain’t gonna bring down the Tigers!
That is a completely inane comeback TigersWin
TTK has repeatedly said, and rightly so, this is not about Auburn beating Georgia (this year at least…4-1 last five years UGA)….Auburn whipped us no question. But what about the facts of the latest revelations…tell the truth …what if Mr. Newton was playing for Tuscaloosa?…would you have the same retort?
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the Dawgs of war; - Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1
I don't think anybody was accusing TKK of being exciting.
He is a lawyer, writer, blogger, family man, TV/radio star, but nothing on you I’m sure TW. But how is discussing the arbitrary and ridiculous rulings by the NCAA…in both the Newton and AJ Green cases…evidence of being a sore loser? Dude we hate Auburn, and you and your fanbase showing their rears here certainly are excited over your first win in 5 years.
Good for you. Drill you in Athens next year.
Run Lindsay Run!
TigersWin, you've just been sent a warning asking you to try contributing something useful.
To your point, though, I would ask you to search the archives of this site before drawing conclusions. I don’t think I was a sore loser even in the wake of Georgia’s loss to Auburn, and I’ve certainly gotten over that by now. Do you honestly think my reaction would have been different if this had occurred before the Bulldogs’ game against the Tigers?
It will please you to know that I am quite happy, but I nevertheless am able to point out wrongheaded legal interpretations when I see them; I’d like to think that this is “something [I] know something about,” what with that whole “practicing law for the last thirteen years” thing and all.
Hate won’t bring down the Tigers. The truth very well might. When that happens, hating Auburn will merely be a bonus.
Go 'Dawgs!
I'm not sure
what you hoped to accomplish by posting such a statement. I certainly see nothing wrong with engaging rival fans, perhaps to the point of extreme disagreement, but your post seems to go “out-of-the-way” for the purpose of simply starting crap.
I’ve had posts on Dawg Sports where T. Kyle (and others) and I have not agreed – but we’ve always remained civil; I know he “hates” Auburn but I understand his stance when such statement is made. (And it’s not as if I’m a huge UGA fan so it works both ways.)
I don’t know if TKK qualifies as a “sore loser” – I don’t care. To me, he’s like a number of fans who are not pleased with a loss.
I agree with you that “hate ain’t gonna bring down the Tigers!” but posts such as your sure “ain’t gonna bruise the BullDawgs” either…
Sorry if you disagree.
DWWD -- WDE!
Leave already
I can’t stand your reasonable positions! Let me fume in ignorance!
by first and thom on Dec 2, 2010 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks, ATL_AU_FAN.
Guys like you, War Eagle Atlanta, JCCW Jerry, jd is legend, Jay Coulter, et al., are why I am careful to say ours is an institutional rivalry rather than a personal one. If any of y’all make it to Athens next fall, be sure to let me know, and we’ll cross paths in the Classic City.
Go 'Dawgs!
One thing that blows my mind
is how much classier Gator fans behaved after beating us compared to Auburn fans’ behavior after their win. When Chokegate got blown out of proportion, we had Gator fans on this site trying to talk us off the ledge. Any time we say anything negative about Auburn, Newton, Fairley, etc, we are bombarded with Auburn fans saying ridiculous things about how Fairely’s actions are justifiable, how we’re just bitter about losing to Auburn, how questioning the NCAA’s BS rulings is whining, etc. After we lost to the Gators, we had Gator fans behaving in a (mostly) classy manner. After we lost to Auburn, we had Auburn fans gloating about Fairley’s actions and Cam’s ability to weasel out of punishment. Does that mean Gator fans are classier than Auburn fans? I think my head just exploded.
by Cherokee's Grip on Dec 1, 2010 10:50 PM EST reply actions
We generally get a good class of commenter around here, whether native or rival.
War Eagle Atlanta, ATL_AU_FAN, jd is legend, JCCW Jerry, and a number of other Auburn fans come around here from time to time and represent their fan base well. Unfortunately, anytime a team exceeds expectations, many of that team’s fans get a bit egotistical (yes, it even happens to us), and some elements of a fan base with a newly inflated ego make asses of themselves.
Basically, this is why MaconDawg and I may have to heed the suggestion that we implement a waiting period before new members can start commenting. Generally, the repeat commenters are good people, without regard to fan base; it’s the ones who show up to stir the pot who represent their team poorly, whether they bleed red, gold, or orange.
Go 'Dawgs!
What is this exceeding expectations you speak of?
Have you forgotten that Mark Richt has been on a downward trend since the late 70’s?
"I want anything wearing red and black to tear the head off anything that isn't." - Lewis Grizzard
by RedCrake on Dec 1, 2010 11:59 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Can we just not linger...
… on the fact that most of the Gator fans we’ve encountered on this blog this year have been classy and generally pleasant to deal with?
Geez, you can’t stereotype anybody anymore…
by vineyarddawg on Dec 1, 2010 11:49 PM EST up reply actions
You're right, of course.
My constitutional inability to leave nonsense unrebutted sometimes gets the better of me. It is a defect of character, albeit one that serves me well in many instances, both personally and professionally.
Go 'Dawgs!
Or the echidnas.
From Wikipedia:
In Greek mythology, Echidna… was half woman half snake, known as the “Mother of All Monsters” because most of the monsters in Greek myth were mothered by her.
by vineyarddawg on Dec 1, 2010 11:56 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, just one more thing...
So if Auburn decided on Monday that Cam Newton was ineligible, based on an investigation that started back in January, wouldn’t that mean that, by Auburn’s own admission, he has been ineligible for this entire season?
Actually, nevermind
I guess the NCAA ruling him eligible would resolve that issue.
In the strictest technical sense, he became ineligible when he was declared ineligible . . .
. . . on Tuesday (following the NCAA’s finding on Monday that a violation had occurred), but his eligibility was reinstated on Wednesday, so he was only formally ineligible for approximately 24 hours earlier this week.
However, Auburn was formally alerted to the possibility of an eligibility issue a couple of days before the Georgia game, so Cameron Newton played ten games in which Auburn was aware of an investigation and two games (against Georgia and Alabama) in which Auburn was on notice of the eligibility issue, which ultimately resulted in a declaration of ineligibility (however short-lived). Since the declaration of ineligibility arose from a violation that occurred prior to the season, it is only by virtue of a technicality that he wasn’t retroactively ineligible, and, should sufficient evidence emerge, a subsequent declaration of ineligibility yet may occur.
I would note that, when Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and (I believe) Alabama were made aware of similar eligibility issues, each of those programs voluntarily sat players who had not been found ineligible, and the games they were held out of retroactively counted toward subsequent suspensions. In short, yes, there is some cognitive dissonance going on here, and, no, it does not well serve respect for the rule of law.
Go 'Dawgs!
This whole thig smells really bad.
I tend to think theso-called Bammer conspirorists (sp.?) are on the right track.
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/messagetopic.asp?p=22778676
It's a gas, gas, gas.
All Of This Leads...
… to one conclusion which stinks to high Heaven of Mike Slive.
To paraphrase: He that saves his conference shall lose it.
This guy will destroy the SEC in pursuit of the almighty cha-ching.
Mark my words.
by Comin' Down The Track on Dec 2, 2010 1:18 PM EST reply actions
Here's Another Sucky...
… element upon which to ponder.
Now we all have to hold our noses and hope Sakerlina drills the Barners.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
by Comin' Down The Track on Dec 2, 2010 5:56 PM EST reply actions
Mr. King, I take issue with your post!
After all, “chattel property” is redundant. The rest, however, is right on point. Were I an enterprising young Techie, I would use my computer skills and significant free time on weekends to develop a new computer program. Entitled “Boy Blinders,” it intercepts communications between parents and agents/coaches while sending regular e-mail reminders to sons that their enrollment decision belongs to their fathers. These reminders, embossed with bible verses and Precious Moments® images, will assure high schoolers that their fathers will make enrollment decisions with their* best interests at heart.
Moreover, T Kyle, I understand your frustration. Yet it has a simple solution: win games. If we’re the 10-0 team, I can assure you that (a) Mr. Fairley is flagged, suspended, and dishonored for his hits on Murray, (b) we’re the team whose wins aren’t vacated until each SEC team’s BCS money is safely invested offshore. Therefore, wisdom be damned! In all thy getting, get victories! (/troopertayloristheproverbs7harlot)
*The program assumes that the ambiguity of this particular “their” will slip past the typical blue-chip high school football recruit.
I see what you did there
seriously, the boy is good.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Excellent, excellent find NCT.
I see the “Champ” series really appealing to today’s blue chipper. Think you could land a Jamaal Fudge endorsement as well?
I am more familiar with Precious Moments than a reasonable man ought to be.
My brother and I took a road trip* a few years back. It just so happened that Carthage, MO, was a short detour from the Route. Among the dozens of sights one may enjoy while getting one’s kicks is the Precious Moments Park and Chapel. Before this six-day road trip, I didn’t realize how many ways it was possible to be stunned.
To wit (for just a few):
*I strongly recommend getting hip to this timely tip.
by NCT on Dec 4, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
Incidentally,
That big praying hands statue is located in Tulsa Oklahoma, and on my way to go dancing last night, I drove right past it. So if any of y’all decide to get your kicks on route 66 – y’all let me know…..
I can bake like a demon.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
Related FanShots on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
