Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

[jojo]

Rogers is an innocent victim of the evil Cecil. That's why MSU continued to recruit Cam well after Rogers' approached MSU for money claiming he could deliver Cam. That's also why MSU only reported the allegations to the SEC after Cam went to Auburn and did so using language so vague that it was impossible for the SEC to investigate. That's also why MSU ignored repeated requests by the SEC to elaborate upon their original allegations only doing so after an unprecedented 7 month delay. That's also why MSU was less than forthcoming when they finally answered the SEC.

Yep, Rogers is simply a victim who was taken advantage of....

Unfortunately for MSU, links between Auburn and pay for play schemes just aren't materializing. Cam hasn't been accused of anything. That's right, lost in all of this is the reality that Cam has not been accused of anything. Frankly, at this point, there hasn't been anything other than hearsay to suggest that Cecil was asking for money and even less to support the notion that Cecil was the driving force behind Rogers' efforts. Bell seems to corroborate some of Rogers' story though Bell admits he never heard Cecil actually ask for money and the texts detailing the elaborate pay schedule that could actually corroborate Bell were apparently lost due to water damage. Things could obviously change but the principle players in this ordeal aren't adding up to a crush of facts.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...o-one/related/

[jojo]

IF Auburn gets nailed to the wall and set on fire by the NCAA, it will probably be because the rumors are true about the FBI wiretapping McGregor (gambling proprietor, Auburn booster and business partner of Bobby Lowder, a name every SEC fan knows) and having Auburn dead to rights on a lot more than Cam Newton, information they happily shared with the NCAA once the figures involved were indicted and the wiretaps were unsealed.

Or that could all be a bunch of hooey. Guess we'll find out eventually.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...o-one/related/

According to the Birmingham News, and citing multiple unnamed sources, “[w]iretaps made as part of the recent federal investigation into vote-buying in the Alabama Legislature contain no conversations that connect Victoryland owner Milton McGregor to quarterback Cam Newton’s recruitment to Auburn.”

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=13522648

"Contrary to postings on celebrity and sports blogs, Milton McGregor has never had any contact direct or indirect with Cam Newton, Cecil Newton - Cam's father, Kenny Rogers or anyone purporting to represent Cam Newton. Mr. McGregor has never been asked to provide money for any recruitment or compensation of any current or prospective student athlete including Cam Newton at Auburn or any other school, and has never provided any type of compensation in that regard period no exceptions. As a proud supporter of Auburn University Mr. McGregor wants it known that he does cheer loudly for Cam Newton and thinks he is the best athlete in college football."

[KronoRed]

Also on a different SEC note, weren't there rumors about UF having to vacate their Sugar Bowl win against UC?

Not that I ever heard, there was an "agent" who claimed he have given money to a UF offensive linemen who had gone pro, but it was debunked pretty quickly.

[Brutus]

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...o-one/related/



http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=13522648

A couple of attorneys denying allegations on behalf of their clients? Shocking.

[jojo]

A couple of attorneys denying allegations on behalf of their clients? Shocking.

“[w]iretaps made as part of the recent federal investigation into vote-buying in the Alabama Legislature contain no conversations that connect Victoryland owner Milton McGregor to quarterback Cam Newton’s recruitment to Auburn.”

It's fairly significant for the Newton's lawyer to answer some of the questions the way they did publicly for the first time:

(Has he taken money?)
"No money has been offered to Cam. Cam Newton has not asked for any money."

(Talked to NCAA?)
"Cam Newton, Cecil Newton and Jackie Newton have participated in the ongoing NCAA investigation. They have been truthful and candid with the NCAA and will continue to cooperate with the NCAA and will produce and answer any and all questions that the NCAA has for them."

(Cam didn't know?)
"I don't think there's any question that Cam knew nothing about any money discussions, if any discussions were had."

Read more: http://wareagleextra.blogspot.com/20...#ixzz15j3mOpea

Several things are becoming clearer with time. First, Cam had no knowledge of talks concerning money. Second, MSU acted in bad faith concerning the reporting of the allegations as their behavior represents an orchestrated pattern that seems more aimed at damaging Auburn's football program than complying with rules and ethical standards. Third, as the main players in this circus have circled their wagons, we are basically only left with facts that establish a solid link between Rogers and Bell (and that's mostly just because they admit it)-in other words, the only thing that is clear in this mess is that Rogers approached a couple of MSU boosters and solicited money while claiming to be a representative of Cecil though it has yet to be corroborated that Cecil asked Rogers to solicit money.

Clearly the NCAA did not recommend that Auburn keep Cam out of the Georgia game.

That's where this mess stands a week before the Iron Bowl.

[Brutus]

It's fairly significant for the Newton's lawyer to answer some of the questions the way they did publicly for the first time:




Read more: http://wareagleextra.blogspot.com/20...#ixzz15j3mOpea

Several things are becoming clearer with time. First, Cam had no knowledge of talks concerning money. Second, MSU acted in bad faith concerning the reporting of the allegations as their behavior represents an orchestrated pattern that seems more aimed at damaging Auburn's football program than complying with rules and ethical standards. Third, as the main players in this circus have circled their wagons, we are basically only left with facts that establish a solid link between Rogers and Bell (and that's mostly just because they admit it)-in other words, the only thing that is clear in this mess is that Rogers approached a couple of MSU boosters and solicited money while claiming to be a representative of Cecil though it has yet to be corroborated that Cecil asked Rogers to solicit money.

Clearly the NCAA did not recommend that Auburn keep Cam out of the Georgia game.

That's where this mess stands a week before the Iron Bowl.

Fairly clear? I guess you're choosing to ignore the part of the story that he called "recruiters" noting why he was going to Auburn. I think that's still a pretty big elephant in the room that most people outside of Auburn don't believe has been dealt with despite these denials. The worst thing in the world was the father admitting guilt.

Second, I can tell you 100% having friends in compliance at a few different D-1 institutions and knowing how this process typically operates that the NCAA does NOT make recommendations on such a thing. It's completely and totally up to the school to use discretion whether or not to play a player that might turn out to be ineligible.

The NCAA is absolutely hands-off until after the investigation. They do not make recommendations. It's the school's job to decide that until the NCAA makes a ruling.

The fact that Newton played last week meant absolutely nothing other than Auburn deciding it was worth the risk. In fact, at this point, I actually don't blame them. If Newton gets in trouble, their season is likely over with anyhow, as the wins will probably be vacated. So suspending him now won't really change their status any. May as well continue playing him. They knew before the season much of what they know now. So his playing won't change their culpability any.

[jojo]

Fairly clear? I guess you're choosing to ignore the part of the story that he called "recruiters" noting why he was going to Auburn. I think that's still a pretty big elephant in the room that most people outside of Auburn don't believe has been dealt with despite these denials. The worst thing in the world was the father admitting guilt.

Both of those issues that you are accepting as fact are uncorroborated and based upon unnamed sources that are counter to denials from the Newtons. Jeeps, waterlogged text messages? What's next from the Rogers' gang? Cecil was about to be paid but a dog ate the check before Rogers could give it to Cecil?

Second, I can tell you 100% having friends in compliance at a few different D-1 institutions and knowing how this process typically operates that the NCAA does NOT make recommendations on such a thing. It's completely and totally up to the school to use discretion whether or not to play a player that might turn out to be ineligible.

And I can tell you 100% that Auburn has worked closely with the NCAA and the SEC concerning Cam's eligibility and the NCAA does indeed make recommendations about whether a player should sit out. It's completely up to the university to heed them or not.

The fact that Newton played last week meant absolutely nothing other than Auburn deciding it was worth the risk. In fact, at this point, I actually don't blame them. If Newton gets in trouble, their season is likely over with anyhow, as the wins will probably be vacated. So suspending him now won't really change their status any. May as well continue playing him. They knew before the season much of what they know now. So his playing won't change their culpability any.

It means the NCAA did not recommend that Auburn sit Cam out.

I know you've made your mind up and its possible that eventually you may be right concerning Cam being declared ineligible but right now your position is ahead of the facts and its entirely possible that the facts may never catch up.

[MWM]

No offense jojo as you're clearly a very smart guy, but it's got to the point it's hard to take seriously what you're saying on this topic. You seem to refuse to look at what seems obvious to everyone else.

[jojo]

No offense jojo as you're clearly a very smart guy, but it's got to the point it's hard to take seriously what you're saying on this topic. You seem to refuse to look at what seems obvious to everyone else.

Then engage me on the points I'm missing....

[Scrap Irony]

The NCAA is absolutely hands-off until after the investigation. They do not make recommendations. It's the school's job to decide that until the NCAA makes a ruling.

The fact that Newton played last week meant absolutely nothing other than Auburn deciding it was worth the risk. In fact, at this point, I actually don't blame them. If Newton gets in trouble, their season is likely over with anyhow, as the wins will probably be vacated. So suspending him now won't really change their status any. May as well continue playing him. They knew before the season much of what they know now. So his playing won't change their culpability any.

Yep.

The NCAA, like Fight Club, doesn't talk about investigations while they're taking place.

That the NCAA hasn't told the Tigers anything should hold no weight one way or another.

And whatever any lawyer says should never be taken at face value. Ever.

What is significant is the possible "proof" the NCAA might find.

[jojo]

Yep.

The NCAA, like Fight Club, doesn't talk about investigations while they're taking place.

That the NCAA hasn't told the Tigers anything should hold no weight one way or another.

And whatever any lawyer says should never be taken at face value. Ever.

What is significant is the possible "proof" the NCAA might find.

The NCAA will indeed advise a university that a player's eligibility is in question which is tantamount to suggesting the university should suspend/sit the player based upon info the NCAA has gathered.

The "possible" proof the NCAA may find is largely supposition at this point.

[Brutus]

The NCAA will indeed advise a university that a player's eligibility is in question which is tantamount to suggesting the university should suspend/sit the player based upon info the NCAA has gathered.

The "possible" proof the NCAA may find is largely supposition at this point.

Clearly you don't want to hear anything differently, so believe me at your own peril, but people that have dealt with the NCAA for a living will tell you the NCAA does not give recommendations. And the NCAA--they've said as much. There has been a few reports the past few weeks where they've even said the burden is completely on the institution to decide whether a player is eligible initially. They'll rule after the fact, but during the process, they do not give much feedback on the decisions to play or not play a player.

Look, I usually give the benefit of the doubt when a report like this comes out. And after the first report, I did. But since then, everything that has come out has provided more and more detail. Here you have a father that has admitted to having these conversations. And absolutely nothing has been disproven. To me... that's a major red flag in itself.

Add to the fact that laundry list of information provided on that LSU site... and you have a real mess. Is it true some of that might be exaggerated, out of context or perhaps even flat out untrue? Sure. But if even 10% of the information compiled in that report is true... Auburn will be in such a world of hurt. Everytime the FBI has gotten involved on an NCAA investigation... it's turned out to be trouble for the institution. Why? Because frankly there are no schools that are truly clean from booster involvement/shenanigans.

[jojo]

Clearly you don't want to hear anything differently, so believe me at your own peril, but people that have dealt with the NCAA for a living will tell you the NCAA does not give recommendations

Brutus I have listened carefully to you. My position has been to form an opinion based upon only what we know for certain. You've accepted certain things as reality using a lower burden of proof than I. That doesn't make me close minded. My opinion is fluid and will continue to change as new facts emerge. Again, the NCAA absolutely WILL advise a university when they have uncovered information that may effect a player's eligibility. Ask you acquaintances-they will verify this.

Look, I usually give the benefit of the doubt when a report like this comes out. And after the first report, I did. But since then, everything that has come out has provided more and more detail. Here you have a father that has admitted to having these conversations. And absolutely nothing has been disproven. To me... that's a major red flag in itself.

This is a key distinction. There has been a single report that relied completely upon an unnamed source who alleged Cecil was part of a conversation about money in exchange for a commitment. This is a pretty weak point to begin with and even if it were absolutely true, it's difficult to interpret it's significance. For instance, did it mean Cecil was pushing hard for Rogers to solicit money from MSU or did it mean that Rogers had initiated a conversation with Cecil about the possibility in the hopes of solidifying his ties to the family? There's a huge swath of nuances here which could dramatically influence how this mess should be viewed. In short, this needs much more light before we just blithely call it another "fact".

Add to the fact that laundry list of information provided on that LSU site... and you have a real mess. Is it true some of that might be exaggerated, out of context or perhaps even flat out untrue? Sure. But if even 10% of the information compiled in that report is true... Auburn will be in such a world of hurt. Everytime the FBI has gotten involved on an NCAA investigation... it's turned out to be trouble for the institution. Why? Because frankly there are no schools that are truly clean from booster involvement/shenanigans.

Again you're simply assuming links that aren't there. You were all over the TMZ report as validation that the next obvious step has begun. But the TMZ report and the blogotivity that ran with it was later shown to be nothing.

[Brutus]

Brutus I have listened carefully to you. My position has been to form an opinion based upon only what we know for certain. You've accepted certain things as reality using a lower burden of proof than I. That doesn't make me close minded. My opinion is fluid and will continue to change as new facts emerge. Again, the NCAA absolutely WILL advise a university when they have uncovered information that may effect a player's eligibility. Ask you acquaintances-they will verify this.

I don't think you're listening carefully enough, because I'm telling you they (my acquaintances) have said the NCAA absolutely does NOT advise a university. This is coming from these same individuals that deal with them on a daily basis. That's not the modus operandi of the NCAA. I have had this conversation with them several times long before this incident, but I even spoke with each of them more about it since. They both independently reiterated the NCAA does not advise institutions on that matter.

I'm not accepting anything as a reality. But I'm playing the percentages at this point that it seems the burden of proof has shifted with all the details emerging. It's a pretty easy leap now to assume someone continued to ask for a handout when there's (by Cecil's admission) precedent.

This is a key distinction. There has been a single report that relied completely upon an unnamed source who alleged Cecil was part of a conversation about money in exchange for a commitment. This is a pretty weak point to begin with and even if it were absolutely true, it's difficult to interpret it's significance. For instance, did it mean Cecil was pushing hard for Rogers to solicit money from MSU or did it mean that Rogers had initiated a conversation with Cecil about the possibility in the hopes of solidifying his ties to the family? There's a huge swath of nuances here which could dramatically influence how this mess should be viewed. In short, this needs much more light before we just blithely call it another "fact".

And yet Cecil admitted that conversation took place. What does that tell you?

Again you're simply assuming links that aren't there. You were all over the TMZ report as validation that the next obvious step has begun. But the TMZ report and the blogotivity that ran with it was later shown to be nothing.

Shown to be nothing? The only thing that has been reported since was that there's no taped conversations on the Newton situation. It didn't do anything to discredit the TMZ report. In fact, TMZ didn't even conclude that there were any taped conversations to the report that surfaced had more to do with other assumptions that TMZ never made.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Brutus is right about the NCAA and advising a University about this type of thing. It is 100% up to the university how they want to handle it. In fact how they handle it can make a big difference in the ultimate punishment or lack there of (i.e. USC and Reggie Bush vs. OSU and Troy Smith or Michigan and RichRod).

Auburn is choosing to handle it with Newton still playing and rolling the dice that it works out for them. However if it doesn't the punishment will most likely be much worse than had they sat him.