Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

[jojo]

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.

Again, the NCAA absolutely WILL advise (i.e. tell if that helps you get past semantics) a university when they have uncovered information that may effect a player's eligibility. Ask your acquaintances-they will verify this. It's been argued that the NCAA comes down harder on institutions that play players with questionable eligibility. How would an institution be expected to know about eligibility concerns if the NCAA doesn't advise them (tell) of such concerns? Seriously, think about what you're arguing.

At this point, I'm operating under the assumption that Auburn has not been informed by the NCAA that Cam's eligibility may be in jeopardy. It's just not Auburn's MO to play a player after the NCAA would advise them about eligibility issues. That decision would be made by the administration (i.e. President Gogue) so it wouldn't be an athletic department-driven decision making process. People I've spoken to on campus have indicated the NCAA has not formally told Auburn that Cam's eligibility is in question at this point.

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.

It's just as easy a leap to assume this was a Rogers/MSU thing. The facts as they currently stand support this lack of a leap. Again, my position has been to form an opinion based upon only what we know for certain. This isn't because I'm biased by the War Eagle cry. it's the standard the NCAA uses as espoused by NCAA President Mark Emmert:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...2c1d629b8bd95a

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

Provide specific links and maybe that will help move the discussion of just what Cecil admitted forward....

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.

Yes. Shown to be nothing-i.e. no proof of any connection between MM and Cam which was counter to how most interpreted the report across the web apparently including you since you considered it the next obvious step.

[Brutus]

Again, the NCAA absolutely WILL advise (i.e. tell if that helps you get past semantics) a university when they have uncovered information that may effect a player's eligibility. Ask your acquaintances-they will verify this. It's been argued that the NCAA comes down harder on institutions that play players with questionable eligibility. How would an institution be expected to know about eligibility concerns if the NCAA doesn't advise them (tell) of such concerns? Seriously, think about what you're arguing.

I don't get what you're trying to argue here. That the NCAA sends notice to an institution of allegations of wrongdoing? Sure. Who's denying that? But they don't ever advise an institution whether or not to suspend a player. That's the institution's job.

The process (usually) is as follows:

* NCAA receives information or becomes aware of allegations, then notifies the institution of the allegations if the institution was not already aware. In this case, the SEC forwarded the allegations before the season, and Auburn was aware of the situation, so this step really wasn't absolutely necessary. Auburn couldn't act as if it didn't already know about the potential issue of eligibility (as if that would matter anyhow).

* Institution then must file a report, cooperate with investigators and take corrective action or explain why they did not do anything wrong.

* If it involves a specific student-athlete, it is up to the institution whether or not to suspend the player (basically rendering him or her ineligible) then seek reinstatement by the NCAA

* The NCAA conducts its investigation into the matter

* They send notice of essentially whether or not they believe the institution is guilty of the allegations

* The institution is expected to then punish itself and at the next hearing, the NCAA will hear arguments as to whether or not the punishment is satisfactory

* Several weeks later, the NCAA will send notice of the final verdict

At no point during the process does the NCAA 'advise' the institution on whether or not it should be proactive in suspending a player. Either the institution decides to suspend the player and then seek reinstatement on the belief they are eligible or the NCAA will rule (after the fact) the player should have been suspended to begin with. There's no in between.

At this point, I'm operating under the assumption that Auburn has not been informed by the NCAA that Cam's eligibility may be in jeopardy. It's just not Auburn's MO to play a player after the NCAA would advise them about eligibility issues. That decision would be made by the administration (i.e. President Gogue) so it wouldn't be an athletic department-driven decision making process. People I've spoken to on campus have indicated the NCAA has not formally told Auburn that Cam's eligibility is in question at this point.

I find that hard to believe, but going with the assumption that's the case, it doesn't mean Auburn is off the hook. It is the institution's job to decide whether or not the player should have been ineligible. The NCAA could come down after the fact and decide Auburn acted negligently in not suspending Newton.

It's just as easy a leap to assume this was a Rogers/MSU thing. The facts as they currently stand support this lack of a leap. Again, my position has been to form an opinion based upon only what we know for certain. This isn't because I'm biased by the War Eagle cry. it's the standard the NCAA uses as espoused by NCAA President Mark Emmert:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...2c1d629b8bd95a



Provide specific links and maybe that will help move the discussion of just what Cecil admitted forward....

You're splitting hairs. We've already tried moving the discussion forward, but you're stuck on referring to the initial story as unscourced and uncorroborated when Cecil already admitted he discussed a pay-for-play plan. What more do you need to see this story has legs to it? A signed confession? The man already admitted he discussed getting money in return for his son's services. I don't see why this discussion can't move forward based on that. I'd say that's probable cause.

Yes. Shown to be nothing-i.e. no proof of any connection between MM and Cam which was counter to how most interpreted the report across the web apparently including you since you considered it the next obvious step.

How has it shown to be nothing? There are millions of possible connections that could exist outside of a wire tap. So because they reportedly don't have it on tape there's nothing to the story? That seems a bit outrageous.

[jojo]

I don't get what you're trying to argue here.

It's this simple. The NCAA advises, tells, informs (any other word that allows you to get over semantics) the institution if they have reason to believe one of its players may face a change in their eligibility. It appears the NCAA has yet to give Auburn reason to believe Cam's eligibility may be in question.

I find that hard to believe, but going with the assumption that's the case, it doesn't mean Auburn is off the hook. It is the institution's job to decide whether or not the player should have been ineligible. The NCAA could come down after the fact and decide Auburn acted negligently in not suspending Newton.

The NCAA would have to have cause to make such a judgment. If Auburn was playing Cam despite being advised by the NCAA that his eligibility was in question, that would be a different situation. As it stands, the NCAA would have to prove that Auburn knew facts that proved Cam was ineligible. It's clearly Auburn's position that such a conclusion can not be supported.

Auburn is only on the hook if they are in fact guilty or if they are in fact playing Cam after they have been informed that the NCAA has reason to doubt his eligibility. There is zero reason to this point to believe the first if is in fact the case. The second if may in fact be true but if so, it would represent a departure from the way auburn has traditionally responded to the NCAA, it would be inconsistent with how they have interacted with both the SEC and the NCAA during this case, and it would be counter to info I've heard through the grapevine (which I believe considering how Auburn has acted in the past). I just do not believe Auburn would play Cam if the NCAA informed the program that they have reason to doubt Cam's eligibility.

You're splitting hairs. We've already tried moving the discussion forward, but you're stuck on referring to the initial story as unscourced and uncorroborated when Cecil already admitted he discussed a pay-for-play plan. What more do you need to see this story has legs to it? A signed confession? The man already admitted he discussed getting money in return for his son's services. I don't see why this discussion can't move forward based on that. I'd say that's probable cause.

Please provide specific links that indicate we should except the above characterization as absolute fact.

How has it shown to be nothing? There are millions of possible connections that could exist outside of a wire tap. So because they reportedly don't have it on tape there's nothing to the story? That seems a bit outrageous.

Brutus what it means is that absent actual facts assuming connections exist is supposition.

It's kind of like the tigerdroppings site that is so appealing to some. It's a slippery slope to casually accept supposition as fact because one ends up saying weird things like Auburn paid Dyer and Cam through funneling money via Colonial bank, an institution that ceased to exist months before Auburn recruited either player or absurdly idiotic statements like Gogue wanted to sit Cam against Georgia but Lowder, Dye, Jacobs, Rane and McGregor overruled Auburn's president.

[Brutus]

It's this simple. The NCAA advises, tells, informs (any other word that allows you to get over semantics) the institution if they have reason to believe one of its players may face a change in their eligibility. It appears the NCAA has yet to give Auburn reason to believe Cam's eligibility may be in question.

They didn't need to inform Auburn. Auburn already knew about it! The SEC brought forward the allegations after informing Auburn of their intentions. That was Mike Slive's own words on the matter. The NCAA did not need to inform Auburn of the allegations because it was already on record.

And again, the NCAA need not make an institution aware for them to believe the eligibility is in question. The burden is on the institution to make that judgment call at all times. That has been verified by the NCAA publicly on numerous occasions.

The NCAA would have to have cause to make such a judgment. If Auburn was playing Cam despite being advised by the NCAA that his eligibility was in question, that would be a different situation. As it stands, the NCAA would have to prove that Auburn knew facts that proved Cam was ineligible. It's clearly Auburn's position that such a conclusion can not be supported.

Auburn is only on the hook if they are in fact guilty or if they are in fact playing Cam after they have been informed that the NCAA has reason to doubt his eligibility. There is zero reason to this point to believe the first if is in fact the case. The second if may in fact be true but if so, it would represent a departure from the way auburn has traditionally responded to the NCAA, it would be inconsistent with how they have interacted with both the SEC and the NCAA during this case, and it would be counter to info I've heard through the grapevine (which I believe considering how Auburn has acted in the past). I just do not believe Auburn would play Cam if the NCAA informed the program that they have reason to doubt Cam's eligibility.

This is wrong on so many levels. The NCAA needs no cause to make judgment. This isn't the court of law. The NCAA can do what they want as they want. All they need to know is that Auburn had any reason in the world to suspect Newton could have been ineligible and they can find them culpable for playing him. Guess what? Auburn knew of these allegations before the season. They need absolutely NO notice to be found culpable. The SEC has already publicly said everyone knew about this ahead of time. Thereby, Auburn needed no notice. They already know, knew and have known that Newton's eligibility could at some point be questioned. They played him and now they will be likely culpable if in fact there was any solicitation or acceptance of benefits.

Again, the NCAA DOES NOT have to notify an institution to make that institution culpable. AT ALL. I absolutely promise on my career that the NCAA can find any institution liable for playing anyone even in absence of ever being notified. What do you think happened to Memphis with Derrick Rose? As a matter of fact, he was CLEARED by the clearinghouse and Memphis played him. AFTER he played and left, it was found his scores were flagged. The NCAA imposed a penalty on Memphis because they didn't suspect he was ineligible. They were never notified prior to his playing. Did that change the fact they were put on probation? Vacate wins? Nope.

Please provide specific links that indicate we should except the above characterization as absolute fact.

What characterization. The one where he admitted to discussing the plan? You didn't see the links posted in this thread about that?

Brutus what it means is that absent actual facts assuming connections exist is supposition.

It's kind of like the tigerdroppings site that is so appealing to some. It's a slippery slope to casually accept supposition as fact because one ends up saying weird things like Auburn paid Dyer and Cam through funneling money via Colonial bank, an institution that ceased to exist months before Auburn recruited either player or absurdly idiotic statements like Gogue wanted to sit Cam against Georgia but Lowder, Dye, Jacobs, Rane and McGregor overruled Auburn's president.

In a court of law it would be probable cause. Do we know he's guilty? That will be for the judge and/or jury to decide. But we now know enough to suspect he's our guy and that he may well be guilty. I'm proceeding on that belief now that I've seen a partial confession and tons of additional details to what you first characterized as "unsubstantiated sources." We're getting far past that stage.

As for the tigerdroppings site... that was an intensely well researched post. You can get away with calling some of it supposition, but there were too many documented links to be able to refute the validity of all of it. Like I said above, one only has to believe 10% of it is true, and it's bad news for Auburn.

And I would argue that it's pretty fair to say perhaps only 10% is true. Wouldn't you? How much supposition is it to say a small fraction is likely factual. Even so, a small fraction can cause a lot of trouble.

[jojo]

They didn't need to inform Auburn. Auburn already knew about it! The SEC brought forward the allegations after informing Auburn of their intentions. That was Mike Slive's own words on the matter. The NCAA did not need to inform Auburn of the allegations because it was already on record.

They kinda do.

And again, the NCAA need not make an institution aware for them to believe the eligibility is in question. The burden is on the institution to make that judgment call at all times. That has been verified by the NCAA publicly on numerous occasions.

Based upon quotes from the NCAA president and the SEC president (where both call for a reliance upon facts/avoiding a rush to judgment), neither body seems to be at a place where they believe Cam's eligibility will change. Clearly it's Auburn's position that Cam remains eligible.

This is wrong on so many levels. The NCAA needs no cause to make judgment. This isn't the court of law. The NCAA can do what they want as they want.

Actually no they can't. They have a thick set of guidelines that they adhere to...

All they need to know is that Auburn had any reason in the world to suspect Newton could have been ineligible and they can find them culpable for playing him.

That's also not actually accurate. The NCAA doesn't sledgehammer institutions just because....

Guess what? Auburn knew of these allegations before the season. They need absolutely NO notice to be found culpable. The SEC has already publicly said everyone knew about this ahead of time. Thereby, Auburn needed no notice. They already know, knew and have known that Newton's eligibility could at some point be questioned. They played him and now they will be likely culpable if in fact there was any solicitation or acceptance of benefits.

The SEC's stance is that MSU's original report did not use language that was specific enough to actually allow an investigation and MSU's subsequent behavior was tantamount to them ignoring the SEC's investigative procedure.

Again, the NCAA DOES NOT have to notify an institution to make that institution culpable. AT ALL. I absolutely promise on my career that the NCAA can find any institution liable for playing anyone even in absence of ever being notified. What do you think happened to Memphis with Derrick Rose? As a matter of fact, he was CLEARED by the clearinghouse and Memphis played him. AFTER he played and left, it was found his scores were flagged. The NCAA imposed a penalty on Memphis because they didn't suspect he was ineligible. They were never notified prior to his playing. Did that change the fact they were put on probation? Vacate wins? Nope.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The NCAA charged Memphis with fully knowing Rose's SAT was bogus when they recruited him and further ruled that Rose would've been ineligible regardless shortly after the season started because Memphis was also illegally allowing Rose's family to travel with the team. Concerning Cam, MSU's behavior made it virtually impossible to know anything about his recruitment to MSU.

What characterization. The one where he admitted to discussing the plan? You didn't see the links posted in this thread about that?

We've already went over those... "an unnamed source says Cecil said something"... text messages that don't exist prove something or other... Bell and co actually admit Cecil didn't talk of money in front of them....

Again, please provide specific quotes and we can discuss them in turn.

In a court of law it would be probable cause. Do we know he's guilty? That will be for the judge and/or jury to decide. But we now know enough to suspect he's our guy and that he may well be guilty. I'm proceeding on that belief now that I've seen a partial confession and tons of additional details to what you first characterized as "unsubstantiated sources." We're getting far past that stage.

What exactly do "we" suspect?

As for the tigerdroppings site... that was an intensely well researched post. You can get away with calling some of it supposition, but there were too many documented links to be able to refute the validity of all of it. Like I said above, one only has to believe 10% of it is true, and it's bad news for Auburn.

Please point to everything in that post related to Cam's recruitment to Auburn (or MSU for that matter) that is actually valid... Also, if 90% of it is unreliable, who does one know which 10% to trust?

[Brutus]

They kinda do.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that a school has to be informed of potential eligibility problems, but that's absolutely not the case and you can go through all the NCAA documentation and you'll find that is nowhere to be found.

The burden rests completely on an institution to use discretion at all times. If reasonable doubt can be established that an institution even suspected there might be even a question raised, they can be in trouble for not suspending the player. Absolutely never does the NCAA have to notify an institution of an eligibility problem for them to get in trouble for it.

Based upon quotes from the NCAA president and the SEC president (where both call for a reliance upon facts/avoiding a rush to judgment), neither body seems to be at a place where they believe Cam's eligibility will change. Clearly it's Auburn's position that Cam remains eligible.

The NCAA President hasn't commented on this case. And they won't do so while the investigation is ongoing. So I can feel confident you're mistaken on that end. All Slive said was that at the time, they felt it was a matter for the NCAA and they passed along the information they had.

Actually no they can't. They have a thick set of guidelines that they adhere to...

And I'm sure if you've gone through those guidelines, you'll see there is a ton of discretion used on both they and their member institutions for cooperation, culpability, telling the truth, etc. There are a lot of rules but within the procedures and guidelines, there's a ton of subjectivity.

That's also not actually accurate. The NCAA doesn't sledgehammer institutions just because....

Not sure what to respond here?

The SEC's stance is that MSU's original report did not use language that was specific enough to actually allow an investigation and MSU's subsequent behavior was tantamount to them ignoring the SEC's investigative procedure.

The gist of the report was that Newton's father was soliciting money. That part wasn't vague and the message was clear. The onus, at that point, in the eyes of the NCAA, shifted on Auburn to make certain he was eligible before playing him. Since they never suspended him, they'll likely take the fall if he's found ineligible. It doesn't matter if there was ever a formal letter sent or how MSU's report to the SEC looked. None of that matters. The only thing that matters was: did Auburn have reason to believe he could be ineligible. It's hard for any non-partisan to objectively answer "no."

You're comparing apples to oranges. The NCAA charged Memphis with fully knowing Rose's SAT was bogus when they recruited him and further ruled that Rose would've been ineligible regardless shortly after the season started because Memphis was also illegally allowing Rose's family to travel with the team. Concerning Cam, MSU's behavior made it virtually impossible to know anything about his recruitment to MSU.

But the score could have raised questions with the eligibility clearinghouse and didn't. And despite it getting past the NCAA, they still retroactively punished Memphis. That's the point here. The NCAA can come back on an institution at any point in time for not proceeding with the utmost caution.

But I honestly can't believe you're suggesting that Mississippi State's behavior caused Auburn to not know about the situation. Come on! They make an allegation that Newton was soliciting money and thereby Auburn just shrugs their shoulders and plays him? That won't fly with the NCAA and I can't believe you're buying it.

We've already went over those... "an unnamed source says Cecil said something"... text messages that don't exist prove something or other... Bell and co actually admit Cecil didn't talk of money in front of them....

Again, please provide specific quotes and we can discuss them in turn.

Cecil himself is on the record admitting the conversations took place. Again, do you want signed documentation? Are you asking to see Cecil's admission of the discussions? You are telling me you didn't already see that? Or are you wanting me to go through the formality to prove a point? I know it's not possible you simply missed that big of a story given how much the issue concerns your interests. So what more do you want?

I really can't believe you're intentionally being so obtuse. I know you're an intelligent guy, and I have no problem with your issues with supposition and demanding a requisite burden of proof before jumping to conclusions. But I also know you can't really think a leopard changes his spots. You have someone admitting they discussed solicitation, and you want to quickly reverse course and suggest it's not probable someone who's not adverse to accepting money would shop around a bit? What's the one about ocean front property?

Look, my credentials probably don't mean squat to you, and perhaps they shouldn't. While I fully don't know any more than you do about this case itself, I'll submit that you're intentionally overlooking or ignoring some of what we do know. But more to the point, in my five years covering this, getting to know coaches, athletics personnel, compliance, admissions, etc., and the stories I've written about rules, compliance and recruiting, I can tell you some of the level of comfort you have on this issue is based on faulty logic (i.e. the NCAA hasn't done this, therefore all is well). Scrap, who I believe has also covered some in the past, has corroborated that.

I may have an old quote from Ohio State's compliance director on this topic as I did a 3-part interview with him once and this subject once came up in the course of the interviews. It's likely I don't have his interview saved on this hard drive, as most of my old work was saved on a computer that is probably in storage. But essentially the idea was that a school has to constantly be aware of anything that could lead to an athlete's ineligibility at all times, and it's completely on them whether they "knew or should have known" anything pertaining to the eligibility or impermissible conduct. In this case, the very fact it was submitted to the SEC before the season in a report (vague or not) is practically a smoking gun when it comes to diligence.

The proper course of action in this case, if it's determined Newton was ineligible, was Auburn should have immediately suspended him and done their investigative work. If Mississippi State didn't cooperate and they couldn't find any reason he was ineligible, they would have then forwarded everything they knew to the NCAA and requested reinstatement. It's likely, then, the NCAA would have done so, and Auburn likely would be off the hook if he's later found ineligible for outside solicitation. In fact, an NCAA compliance official once told me that 95 percent of "ineligibility" issues, i.e. people being ruled ineligible and reinstated, never make it public. That means for every 5 high profile athletes you hear about getting ruled ineligible or suspended, 95 were ruled ineligible and reinstated the proper way before you ever heard about it.

Auburn didn't do it that way. If they had, they'd be in a much better situation. But now the odds are against Auburn. Even if they did not give him money (they meaning coaches or even boosters), because they didn't go that route, it's a lot more likely they could be facing vacation of wins.

[jojo]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that a school has to be informed of potential eligibility problems, but that's absolutely not the case and you can go through all the NCAA documentation and you'll find that is nowhere to be found.

That is the way it is done.

The burden rests completely on an institution to use discretion at all times. If reasonable doubt can be established that an institution even suspected there might be even a question raised, they can be in trouble for not suspending the player. Absolutely never does the NCAA have to notify an institution of an eligibility problem for them to get in trouble for it.

The standard is that the institution acted in good faith. Given the SEC didn't feel it could ascertain if the allegation was credible, there is no way that Auburn would be held to a higher standard.

All Slive said was that at the time, they felt it was a matter for the NCAA and they passed along the information they had.

That's not an accurate characterization as Slive has said it was a complete and unprecedented breakdown of process. His language describing how this was handled was about as harsh as an SEC commissioner will ever use when talking about a member.

The gist of the report was that Newton's father was soliciting money. That part wasn't vague and the message was clear. The onus, at that point, in the eyes of the NCAA, shifted on Auburn to make certain he was eligible before playing him. Since they never suspended him, they'll likely take the fall if he's found ineligible. It doesn't matter if there was ever a formal letter sent or how MSU's report to the SEC looked. None of that matters. The only thing that matters was: did Auburn have reason to believe he could be ineligible. It's hard for any non-partisan to objectively answer "no."

That is not the standard the NCAA applies. If that were the case no recruit would ever hit the field because allegations would abound. The SEC couldn't proceed with an investigation given the vagueness of MSU's initial report. It's that simple. MSU made it impossible to determine anything. And it wasn't an accident. MSU doesn't get to whisper into the wind and prevent it's rivals from recruiting.

But the score could have raised questions with the eligibility clearinghouse and didn't. And despite it getting past the NCAA, they still retroactively punished Memphis. That's the point here. The NCAA can come back on an institution at any point in time for not proceeding with the utmost caution.

The point is that the NCAA accused Memphis of actually knowing he was ineligible from the get go because they knew his score was bogus and he shouldn't be declared eligible. In other words, the NCAA took the view that since Memphis knew he was ineligible they don't get a pass because the NCAA made a mistake, especially since the mistake was made in part by Memphis withholding information. You keep arguing that the NCAA expects institutions to be self policing yet you can't draw the distinction?

But I honestly can't believe you're suggesting that Mississippi State's behavior caused Auburn to not know about the situation. Come on! They make an allegation that Newton was soliciting money and thereby Auburn just shrugs their shoulders and plays him? That won't fly with the NCAA and I can't believe you're buying it.

Again, MSU's initial report was too vague for the SEC to even act upon it and MSU stonewalled for another 7 months before offering up just a little more info. There is no reasonable standard that would hold that Auburn shouldve known any of the details about MSU's recruitment of Cam above and beyond what MSU shared with the SEC.

There is a big difference between Memphis knowing a SAT score was faked and clearing a player anyway and MSU reporting vague improprieties and refusing to give details.

Cecil himself is on the record admitting the conversations took place. Again, do you want signed documentation?

No, just, again, please provide the link that verifies that statement.

Are you asking to see Cecil's admission of the discussions? You are telling me you didn't already see that? Or are you wanting me to go through the formality to prove a point? I know it's not possible you simply missed that big of a story given how much the issue concerns your interests. So what more do you want?

Just a link to the story where Cecil says he asked for money.

I really can't believe you're intentionally being so obtuse.

I'm waiting for the facts because the devil is in the details. That's not being obtuse.

I can tell you some of the level of comfort you have on this issue is based on faulty logic (i.e. the NCAA hasn't done this, therefore all is well).

My argument is that Auburn has no reason to declare Newton ineligible and they are acting in good faith.

I may have an old quote from Ohio State's compliance director on this topic as I did a 3-part interview with him once and this subject once came up in the course of the interviews. It's likely I don't have his interview saved on this hard drive, as most of my old work was saved on a computer that is probably in storage. But essentially the idea was that a school has to constantly be aware of anything that could lead to an athlete's ineligibility at all times, and it's completely on them whether they "knew or should have known" anything pertaining to the eligibility or impermissible conduct. In this case, the very fact it was submitted to the SEC before the season in a report (vague or not) is practically a smoking gun when it comes to diligence.

You're assuming Auburn didn't make every effort to investigate the issue of Cam's eligibility. MSU hasn't acted in good faith. Nothing to date suggests Auburn hasn't.

The proper course of action in this case, if it's determined Newton was ineligible, was Auburn should have immediately suspended him and done their investigative work.

Newton hasn't been determined to be ineligible. That's the whole point. And it's the place where you and I are stuck. You're ahead of the facts and I'm waiting for them.

[jojo]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5818116

[Scrap Irony]

The point is that the NCAA accused Memphis of actually knowing he was ineligible from the get go because they knew his score was bogus and he shouldn't be declared eligible. In other words, the NCAA took the view that since Memphis knew he was ineligible they don't get a pass because the NCAA made a mistake, especially since the mistake was made in part by Memphis withholding information. You keep arguing that the NCAA expects institutions to be self policing yet you can't draw the distinction?

Not to get this discussion sidetracked, but, no, they absolutely did NOT accuse Memphis of knowingly playing an ineligible player or withholding information.

They accused Memphis of:
1) giving a player's family improper benefits via plane rides that were not paid back, and,
2) playing an athlete who was ineligible because his test score was red-flagged.

There was NOTHING in the report about Memphis knowingy doing anything. (Were there something about this, Calipari haters would have much more traction to their vitriol.)

This is the third NCAA-related "fact" that you're just wrong on, jojo. And these are easy things to check, really. Perhaps the web site you use for these facts is faulty?

[jojo]

Not to get this discussion sidetracked, but, no, they absolutely did NOT accuse Memphis of knowingly playing an ineligible player or withholding information.

They accused Memphis of:
1) giving a player's family improper benefits via plane rides that were not paid back, and,
2) playing an athlete who was ineligible because his test score was red-flagged.

There was NOTHING in the report about Memphis knowingy doing anything. (Were there something about this, Calipari haters would have much more traction to their vitriol.)

This is the source for my statement about the NCAA accusations concerning Rose:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Rose#cite_note-46

According to the University of Memphis' legal counsel Sheri Lipman, a month after the loss to the Kansas Jayhawks, the NCAA sent a letter to the school stating that Rose had "an invalidated standardized test score the previous year at Chicago's Simeon High School". The next January, the NCAA sent another letter, charging Memphis with knowing that Rose had someone else take his SAT for him.

Here's the actual original letter sent to Memphis from the NCAA on January 16, 2009:

http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/090527/memphis.pdf

The official allegations don't actually charge Memphis with knowing Rose had someone else take his SAT but it is clear that it maintains actions by Memphis essentially made Rose ineligible regardless of whether they knew for certain that the SAT score was bogus.

The NCAA also said this:

The NCAA said the committee pressed Memphis officials during a hearing on the matter about why steps weren’t taken in November 2007 to bench the ineligible player and avoid problems.

The above suggests the NCAA thought there was reason for Memphis to question the SAT scores. It's clear why they took that position. Memphis administrators and coaches in fact specifically had a meeting with Rose about his ACT and SAT scores before the 2007-2008 season began because he had failed to meet minimum standards three times before finally scoring significantly better on the fourth and qualifying attempt. The extent of Memphis' oversight appears to involve them taking Rose's word that he took the exam for himself despite a divergent test score over multiple attempts being an obvious red flag. That's the point of these tests-they are predictive and thus useful to essentially normalize GPA across a gradient of academic rigor (i.e. a GPA of 3.8 with a SAT score of 800 isn't as impressive as a GPA of 3.3 with a SAT score of 1450). This was not a vague allegation that was impossible to investigate. Memphis had actual test scores and should be considered experts concerning evaluating academic metrics. They apparently did not attempt to verify Rose actually took his test. It's easy to see why the NCAA would conclude Memphis did/should have known. His test scores should have been considered red flagged before he ever stepped on the court. Memphis didn't have their season vacated because they were an innocent institution that had no way of knowing his SAT was bogus and then got unfairly blindsided. Their season was vacated because the NCAA took the stance that they knew there was substantial reason to believe his SAT was bogus and they declared him eligible anyway.

Then add on top of that the allegation that Rose was ineligible during the fall of 2007 because receiving improper benefits...

Here's a copy of NCAA bylaws for those interested BTW:

http://www.maine.edu/pdf/NCAADivisio...sandBylaws.pdf

This is the third NCAA-related "fact" that you're just wrong on, jojo. And these are easy things to check, really. Perhaps the web site you use for these facts is faulty?

The characterization was a fair one that frankly was not wrong. But the argument that I can't/don't think for myself? Not so fair. BTW, I don't read "Auburn fan blogs" as the thinly veiled attack also suggests.

[Brutus]

That is the way it is done.

So I guess my acquaintances are mistaken when they tell me it absolutely is not a mandate the NCAA send a notice of allegation in order for a player to be ruled retroactively ineligible and hold the institution culpable? Is that what you're suggesting? They would tell you flat out that you're mistaken. While it's true that's done as a matter of principal, it is absolutely not a prerequisite.

The standard is that the institution acted in good faith. Given the SEC didn't feel it could ascertain if the allegation was credible, there is no way that Auburn would be held to a higher standard.

Nowhere did the SEC say or think the allegation wasn't credible. And the NCAA looks at good faith as going by the general expectations for what they have to handle an incident (i.e. suspend the player and seek reinstatement). Hard to say someone acted in good faith when they didn't abide by that expectation.

That's not an accurate characterization as Slive has said it was a complete and unprecedented breakdown of process. His language describing how this was handled was about as harsh as an SEC commissioner will ever use when talking about a member.

Two things: the initial allegation still doesn't go away and he's not the NCAA.

That is not the standard the NCAA applies. If that were the case no recruit would ever hit the field because allegations would abound. The SEC couldn't proceed with an investigation given the vagueness of MSU's initial report. It's that simple. MSU made it impossible to determine anything. And it wasn't an accident. MSU doesn't get to whisper into the wind and prevent it's rivals from recruiting.

No offense, but since everything you're telling me is completely against what those who do it for a living have told me, I don't think you know enough about the standard the NCAA applies. Your standard as you are saying it is mistaken.

It's very simple... an allegation was raised on Newton. Auburn simply could have declared him ineligible and if/when Mississippi State stonewalled, sought immediate reinstatement and they would have been in the clear. They didn't do that.

The point is that the NCAA accused Memphis of actually knowing he was ineligible from the get go because they knew his score was bogus and he shouldn't be declared eligible. In other words, the NCAA took the view that since Memphis knew he was ineligible they don't get a pass because the NCAA made a mistake, especially since the mistake was made in part by Memphis withholding information. You keep arguing that the NCAA expects institutions to be self policing yet you can't draw the distinction?

That's not entirely true, as Scrap pointed out (word of advice, don't source Wikipedia for material).

Here is the public report from the NCAA Major Infractions database. From the introduction, a very key statement:

While the institution was in the process of investigating the head women's golf coach, it received an e-mail message on May 13, 2008, from Educational Testing Services (ETS). ETS notified institutional officials that the SAT test score for a men's basketball studentathlete ("student-athlete 1") had been invalidated. Significantly, the institution had concerns previously raised regarding student-athlete 1's academics. The invalidation of student-athlete 1's test score resulted in student-athlete 1 competing while academically ineligible for the entire 2007-08 season. A competitive advantage was obtained by the institution as a result of student-athlete 1's ineligible competition.

The report does say that Memphis was alerted to possible discrepancies prior to the 2007-08 season by the Chicago Public Schools internal audit board. But you know what's interesting? The NCAA never told Memphis he could be ineligible, as you are insisting needs to be the case.

Further, the test was never flagged officially by the SAT administration. It was only, after the fact, invalidated. What's the point here? That they were not able to substantiate anything at the time, didn't rule him ineligible (and never received an NCAA inquiry on the matter), yet they were proactively punished.

Again, MSU's initial report was too vague for the SEC to even act upon it and MSU stonewalled for another 7 months before offering up just a little more info. There is no reasonable standard that would hold that Auburn shouldve known any of the details about MSU's recruitment of Cam above and beyond what MSU shared with the SEC.

They knew what the allegation was and didn't follow the NCAA's guidelines for handling it. The onus is on them regardless of how MSU acted. That's a poor excuse and the NCAA would not accept that coming from Auburn.

There is a big difference between Memphis knowing a SAT score was faked and clearing a player anyway and MSU reporting vague improprieties and refusing to give details.

The NCAA didn't charge Memphis knowing it was fake. They charged them for not essentially making certain he was eligible before they played him (hint hint). The test scores were never officially flagged until after the season. did they know it was fake? It's very possible. My contention all along is that having the test taken in Detroit (the home city of William Wesley), he may have been involved. But that admittedly was never mentioned, let alone insinuated, by the NCAA. That was not a factor.

No, just, again, please provide the link that verifies that statement.



Just a link to the story where Cecil says he asked for money.

You never answered my question. Are you suggesting you didn't see the statement? I find that hard to believe. It feels as if you're just being difficult. If you truly haven't seen it, I will show you the link (though it was posted in this thread, it would take very little work to find it). But if you haven't seen it, I'll post it again. I feel as if you already know what was said.

My argument is that Auburn has no reason to declare Newton ineligible and they are acting in good faith.

Clearly your expectation of what constitutes good faith doesn't align with the burden the NCAA imposes on member institutions. Good faith is doing everything they can to act on any hint of impropriety. Auburn didn't follow the standards of conduct expected for a situation like this.

You're assuming Auburn didn't make every effort to investigate the issue of Cam's eligibility. MSU hasn't acted in good faith. Nothing to date suggests Auburn hasn't.

They didn't declare the player ineligible and seek reinstatement. They never suspended the player at all. They never complained to the NCAA about the lack of cooperation with Mississippi State. You can't look someone in the face and say you did everything possible under good faith to investigate by throwing your hands up in the air just because one school supposedly makes it difficult on you.

Newton hasn't been determined to be ineligible. That's the whole point. And it's the place where you and I are stuck. You're ahead of the facts and I'm waiting for them.

You're ignoring them. You're right he hasn't been determined ineligible. That part we agree on. And yes, there is some level of supposition. However, you're off base on how the case procedure works within the NCAA and if you would accept what others are trying to tell you about it, your position would change at how it pertains to potential consequences at Auburn. As is, I don't think you really want to know the truth.

[MWM]

The problem jojo is that you're NOT waiting for the facts. You've made several "it's becoming clear to me" statements where you're pretty much drawing conclusions. You seem to have already decided that Cam had no knowledge of any of the discussions taking place, that it's "clear" that he didn't solicit or receive money from Auburn, that Rogers was doing it on his own, etc.... Your comments in this thread are not of someone who's waiting for anything.

And talking about suppositions, you seem to be taking the approach that if we don't know it now, it just didn't happen. You ought to know how flawed that kind if logic is. You can deny it all you want, but there's A LOT of evidence right now that the Newton camp was after cash for his commitment to play football. You can go on all you want about sources being "unsubstantiated" at this point, but as Brutus has pointed out, just about everything that's been alleged has been confirmed by the primary source at this point. It's naive to think there's nothing else here and this if there were, the NCAA would have said otherwise.

In the beginning of this thread you stated that this was a non-story and something that was known about for a long time. With every new discovery you've taken that same approach that it will go nowhere and it's all speculation. Like others have said, you're obviously a smart guy, but you're cashing in a lot of chips with your approach to this story.

[Roy Tucker]

I can't say I'm following all the twists and turns of this thread.

But if Auburn continues to do well and make the BCS title game and win and Newton wins the Heisman and *then* all this money stuff comes true with ensuing punishments, college football as a whole is going to get a really big and ugly black eye.

[KronoRed]

I can't say I'm following all the twists and turns of this thread.

But if Auburn continues to do well and make the BCS title game and win and Newton wins the Heisman and *then* all this money stuff comes true with ensuing punishments, college football as a whole is going to get a really big and ugly black eye.

A bigger one then USC and their shenanigans?

I think all of this has already cost Newton a Heisman shot, they won't want to take a chance of having to vacate the award again.

[Sea Ray]

A bigger one then USC and their shenanigans?

I think all of this has already cost Newton a Heisman shot, they won't want to take a chance of having to vacate the award again.

What shenanigans? The only violation I'm aware of was Reggie Bush getting perks from a booster and none of that was made public while he was at USC. It wasn't hanging over their heads like this cloud is over Auburn