Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

[BuckeyeRed27]

Originally Posted by jojo

Actually, no Cam didn't either.

Right and I find that as believable as turning down $180,000 to go to another school for free.

The proven act by Cam's father should have been enough to cost him a few games and the timing of the discovery is the only reason that didn't happen.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

Right and I find that as believable as turning down $180,000 to go to another school for free.

The proven act by Cam's father should have been enough to cost him a few games and the timing of the discovery is the only reason that didn't happen.

Cecil was never offered $180k by MSU. There was no special benefit to turn down. The NCAA did rule Cam ineligible at MSU. Had he went there, he would've likely sat at least several games if not forever at MSU.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Originally Posted by jojo

Cecil was never offered $180k by MSU. There was no special benefit to turn down. The NCAA did rule Cam ineligible at MSU. Had he went there, he would've likely sat at least several games if not forever at MSU.

So he was never offered money, but was still ruled ineligible? Who cares where he went to school?

If this would have been discovered in June instead of October he would have missed some games.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by jojo

Cecil was never offered $180k by MSU. There was no special benefit to turn down. The NCAA did rule Cam ineligible at MSU. Had he went there, he would've likely sat at least several games if not forever at MSU.

Why would he be ruled ineligible at Miss St if they didn't do anything? Seems to me that if he was ruled ineligible to play at MSU then he should have been ineligible at Auburn too. Can anyone explain why they're treating MSU and Auburn differently?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Why would he be ruled ineligible at Miss St if they didn't do anything? Seems to me that if he was ruled ineligible to play at MSU then he should have been ineligible at Auburn too. Can anyone explain why they're treating MSU and Auburn differently?

To clarify, Cam was declared in eligible by Auburn and then had his eligibility immediately reinstated upon request. In other words, the NCAA ruled that what happened between Cecil and an MSU booster did not impact Cam at Auburn. Had Cam went to MSU and MSU subsequebtly ruled him inelgible, it seems likely that Cam may not have been reinstated.

[Chip R]

The SEC: Not only do they play better football than everyone else, they cheat better than everyone else.

[Slyder]

Originally Posted by chip r

the sec: Not only do they play better football than everyone else, they cheat better than everyone else.

so
everyone
cheats!!!

:d

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Chip R

The SEC: Not only do they play better football than everyone else, they cheat better than everyone else.

Hey if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'

[jojo]

Some light is beginning to be shed onto the Cam issue as Auburn University releases material in response to Freedom of Information act requests by news agencies:

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...-investigation

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...|lateststories

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2011/...rylink=addthis

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/11/05/5908394.htm

[Slyder]

Originally Posted by jojo

Some light is beginning to be shed onto the Cam issue as Auburn University releases material in response to Freedom of Information act requests by news agencies:

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...-investigation

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...|lateststories

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2011/...rylink=addthis

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2011/11/05/5908394.htm

I still just cannot buy:
1 the fact that Cam knew "nothing" about his dads actions.
2 that MSU was the ONLY school that they would strong arm.
3 NCAA is that weak.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Slyder

I still just cannot buy:
1 the fact that Cam knew "nothing" about his dads actions.

Cam had virtually no interaction with Rogers and there was zero reason to think he knew about Rogers' brief attempt to get money from MSU based upon email, phone and text records.

Originally Posted by Slyder

2 that MSU was the ONLY school that they would strong arm.

Cam was recruited by multiple prominent division 1 football programs. Rogers apparently contacted a few of them. No other program indicated that Rogers asked for special benefits. If Rogers/Cecil had approached them about special benefits, what reason would they have for withholding that information from the NCAA? Tennessee was apparently one of the schools also recruiting Cam. They certainly would have informed the SEC. Auburn had no contact with Rogers.

Originally Posted by Slyder

3 NCAA is that weak.

Given NCAA bylaws and the facts as we now know them, the ruling was straightforward and actually obvious.

[Brutus]

Funny thing is, some people actually asserted (in this thread) that Cecil Newton never solicited money.

Auburn's 'records' suggest in fact he did solicit money.

That a father of a player could actively try to get paid for his son to go to a school isn't an NCAA violation is a sad commentary on this situation. That is the definition of pay-for-play.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Funny thing is, some people actually asserted (in this thread) that Cecil Newton never solicited money.

Some people in this thread were horribly wrong having actually gotten very little concerning the heart of this issue correct. Some who tried to carefully argue the facts as a matter of course essentially nailed it out of the park.

Auburn's 'records' suggest in fact he did solicit money.

Not from Auburn.

That a father of a player could actively try to get paid for his son to go to a school isn't an NCAA violation is a sad commentary on this situation. That is the definition of pay-for-play.

The definition of pay-for-play is actually getting paid to play. The NCAA's ruling was actually laudable in it's fairness to the student athlete given the established facts.

[Brutus]

I just hope anyone can bear their dishonesty with themselves when looking in the mirror if they try convincing themselves and others that Cecil "only" solicited money from one school. Anyone with a mere passing knowledge of supply and demand would try to leverage prospective bidders against one another if they truly want a better deal.

I think it's terribly laughable to suggest Cecil only tried to get money from one school. Yeah, right.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by jojo

The NCAA's ruling was actually laudable in it's fairness to the student athlete given the established facts.

I'll disagree with that one, jojo. I think it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for the families of athletes to ask for cash, and, if they do get caught, then deniability opens the question of another Newton-style ruling.

I realize the NCAA supposedly takes each investigation on a case-by-case basis, but I question the decision.

Of course, I have a major problem with the NCAA ruling committee anyway, so it may be a case of bias.