Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

[Brutus]

Here's what we know:

* Original report said Newton's father solicited money. Chizik said they were baseless claims, even though it turned out it was accurate.

* Same report that said Newton solicited money, a fact that is now established, said Cam had an emotional phone conversation with MSU recruiters that the "Money was too good to pass up." While that has not been proven, that the same report was correct about the solicitation, it would seem there's some credibility. We now know that Mississippi St., according to published reports, did report the incident to the NCAA in January at that time.

* Chizik later responded to the allegations of solicitation and Newton's academic record as "pure garbage." But again, he was absolutely wrong about the solicitation not occurring, as we now know it did occur.

* The NCAA has not cleared Auburn. They stopped short of saying that Cam didn't know, Auburn didn't know or no money changed hands. What they said in so many words was that they couldn't prove it. It was the 'not proven' type of an acquittal, rather than a full not guilty.

Chizik's defensive, abrasive characterizations of the topic really do nothing to change the circumstances and established facts of the case. He was outspoken against the mere suggestion that Cecil Newton solicited money, as that was labeled baseless, and it turns out he was dead wrong (or not being truthful, but that really isn't an important distinction).

The original report was never discredited--you know, the one that was on the money about the solicitation. That one also suggested that the Newtons did get paid.

Since no one, not even the NCAA, has been able to determine that didn't happen, we're far from having a definitive conclusion. All we know is that it hasn't been proven. Auburn as an institution deserves the benefit of the doubt for now, but the Newtons absolutely do not. They solicited money to go to Auburn, and the report that broke that story said they got it. I'd say that ignoring that, since it was never discredited, is getting out ahead of the facts to say somehow that it was proven otherwise. Nothing was proven, at all. The NCAA even said they just didn't have evidence to prove it.

[jojo]

As context for the bumped thread:

The NCAA's official position is that Cam did not receive special benefits of any kind and he had no knowledge of a failed attempt by his father to solicit a special benefit from an MSU booster during the recruitment of Cam at another institution. They quickly restored Cam's eligibility after Auburn requested them to do so.

The NCAA has neither accused Auburn nor Cam of wrongdoing and they are not investigating Auburn.

These are actual established facts. This is a matter of record.

To assert that the Newton's solicited money from Auburn is not only wildly speculative supposition, it is also counter to the ruling of the NCAA. In other words, someone arguing such a position has no factual leg on which to stand upon.

Chizik comes from a position of strength when he asserts claims that Auburn improperly recruited Cam are baseless and pure garbage and this position is one that is consistent with the stance of the NCAA. It's not a matter of Auburn deserving the benefit of the doubt but rather the utter lack of evidence supporting the speculation by those who make arguments to the contrary.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Is that right? I thought I had read that the NCAA was still investigating Auburn. Although who knows how actively.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

Is that right? I thought I had read that the NCAA was still investigating Auburn. Although who knows how actively.

They may still consider their probe into MSU's recruitment of Cam technically open, but even then, what avenue of investigation remains to be pursued?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

Is that right? I thought I had read that the NCAA was still investigating Auburn. Although who knows how actively.

They are. Don't mind the noise.

No one really believes that some former players would go on HBO and say they received money from boosters while at a university and the NCAA not look into it at least somewhat actively. That's not practical. And the Newton stuff is probably still going to be a subject of their interest if/when anything else surfaces.

The NCAA has asserted that the Newtons did solicit money and they absolutely did not assert that Auburn didn't know about it. They asserted they were not able to find evidence that Auburn knew about it. That was a key point made in how it was phrased by the NCAA in the report after Newton was reinstated, but it's an inconvenient point.

[jojo]

The statement that the NCAA asserted the Newtons solicited money and that the NCAA absolutely did not assert that Auburn didn't know about it is absolutely false. It is a statement incongruent with the facts.

Lets be perfectly factual here.... the NCAA ruled that Cecil Newton (there is NO plural) attempted to solicit special benefits from an MSU booster without Cam's knowledge and that there was NO EVIDENCE that Auburn University or Cam had anything to do with that.

The NCAA restored Cam's eligibility at Auburn which means the NCAA had no knowledge of the receipt of special benefits on the part of Cam.

This is not noise. It is the factual matter of record.

Here are the NCAA President, Mark Emmert's own words:

"I was not surprised by the volume or the vitriolic nature, but had we made a different decision, I do think it would have been worse," Emmert said. "There was no evidence that Auburn University had anything to do with that or the student-athlete had anything to do with that, and under the rules that exist today, he could play ball."

Some one can try to argue a statement that there is no evidence to support an allegation is not a declaration of innocence (thought a reasonable person might certainly wonder why such a fine hair would be so loudly split) but they can not possibly suggest such a statement supports the argument that Auburn paid Cam...

[Brutus]

It's pretty simple.

The NCAA didn't say that Cam or Auburn didn't know about it. They said there wasn't evidence that they did.

That's it. That's as simple as it needs to be. It was the equivalent of a grand jury not having evidence to indict someone. It doesn't mean the prosecutors believe the suspect is cleared of wrongdoing, there simply wasn't evidence to pursue further.

There's still a lot of reason to suspect Auburn knew about the solicitation and that the Newtons were paid (not necessarily by Auburn, but at least by boosters). After all, the report that broke this whole story turned out to be 100% accurate about the solicitation and that story had Newton fessing up to receiving a lot of money.

Is it possible the report was only right about half the story? I suppose it's possible. But that seems like cherrypicking what someone wants to believe in a report.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

It's pretty simple.

The NCAA didn't say that Cam or Auburn didn't know about it. They said there wasn't evidence that they did.

That's it. That's as simple as it needs to be. It was the equivalent of a grand jury not having evidence to indict someone. It doesn't mean the prosecutors believe the suspect is cleared of wrongdoing, there simply wasn't evidence to pursue further.

There's still a lot of reason to suspect Auburn knew about the solicitation and that the Newtons were paid (not necessarily by Auburn, but at least by boosters). After all, the report that broke this whole story turned out to be 100% accurate about the solicitation and that story had Newton fessing up to receiving a lot of money.

It’s factually incorrect to assert that the reports which broke the Cam story indicated Newton “fessed up” to receiving money. That simply is NOT true. Both the ESPN and the NY Times stories from Nov 4th reported that Bond indicated Cecil solicited a special benefit through Rogers. Neither story suggested that Cam admitted to receiving any special benefit. Again, neither story reported that Cam admitted to receiving any special benefit. Any argument that hinges upon such an assertion has to be rejected out of hand.

As an aside, the original reports weren’t actually 100% accurate as they implied Bond named Rogers, when in fact Bond and his attorney are both on record as indicating Bond not only didn’t name Rogers, Rogers never actually approached Bond with solicitations for money in return for Cam’s commitment.

What about this notion that Cam admitted to receiving money in return for his commitment? A full week after ESPN and the NY Times broke the story about MSU’s recruitment of Cam, it was reported that an unnamed, uncorroborated source indicated that Cam called an unnamed MSU recruiter to express regret that he chose Auburn over MSU because “the money was too much”. So what are the established facts regarding this issue since the above argument also hinges upon accepting this uncorroborated statement as fact?

MSU head coach Dan Mullen indicated that he and his assistants are the only persons on the bulldog staff who are registered with the NCAA as recruiters. So if Cam had “fessed up” to receiving special benefits to an MSU recruiter, it would have been an MSU coach that he was talking too. Such individuals were obligated to report such a conversation to the NCAA. Was such a conversation in fact reported? SEC spokesman Charles Bloom indicated that there was no mention of conversations between MSU staffers and the Newtons concerning the solicitation of extra benefits in the reports that MSU filed with the SEC concerning the recruitment of Cam Newton. This was independently corroborated with the SEC office by a reporter for the AJC (Barnhart). The SEC indicated that MSU could offer no incriminating evidence concerning other institutions. This is eventually echoed by Rogers, Bond and Bell as well. Each are on record indicating they have no knowledge of details concerning Auburn’s recruiting effort.

The NCAA would have been all over this particular issue given the scope of their investigation. What did they have to say about it? We know that the NCAA concluded that there was no evidence that Cam received a special benefit and no evidence that he knew of Cecil’s conversation with Rogers. On one hand there is the statement of an unnamed, uncorroborated source. On the other hand, there is the NCAA’s investigation and their conclusion that there was no credible reason to believe Cam received a benefit or knew of any attempt to solicit such a benefit and their ruling that he was eligible to play for Auburn. Established fact indicates the assertion that Cam confessed to an MSU recruiter that “he was offered too much money to turn down” simply can’t be considered a credible assertion. Any conclusions that flow from an assertion that Cam made such an admission must be considered specious.

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Is it possible the report was only right about half the story? I suppose it's possible. But that seems like cherrypicking what someone wants to believe in a report.

Again it’s factually incorrect to assert that either the ESPN or the NY Times stories reported Cam had admitted to receiving special benefits. Any argument that hinges upon such an assertion has to be rejected out of hand. Given what MSU actually reported and the NCAA's conclusions following their investigation, assertions that Cam admitted to receiving special benefits to MSU staffers have to be met with great skepticism. The NCAA ruled that there is no evidence that Cam either received special benefits or that he knew of Cecil's conversations with Rogers.

Cherry picking what someone wants to believe? In the words of Queen Gertrude, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[Brutus]

The NCAA V.P. of Enforcement recently confirmed what has been suspected by most all along: that the Cam Newton/Auburn stuff is still being investigated:

"You'll know when we're finished," Roe Lach told Chizik, according to several coaches who were at the meeting. "And we're not finished."

Inquiry of Auburn Isn't Over, Exchange Reveals

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

The NCAA V.P. of Enforcement recently confirmed what has been suspected by most all along: that the Cam Newton/Auburn stuff is still being investigated:



Inquiry of Auburn Isn't Over, Exchange Reveals

The inquiry isn't over like the civil war still isn't over for some..... Nothing to see here.

[Slyder]

Originally Posted by jojo

The inquiry isn't over like the civil war still isn't over for some..... Nothing to see here.

And then you have to look at how long the NCAA investigated USC and Reggie Bush before they dropped the biggest hammer they could find on them. I would say if I am Auburn enjoy that trophy while its there... it may not always be there to remember.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Slyder

And then you have to look at how long the NCAA investigated USC and Reggie Bush before they dropped the biggest hammer they could find on them. I would say if I am Auburn enjoy that trophy while its there... it may not always be there to remember.

The USC "comp" isn't a comp at all, really from any aspect. About the time Bush was leaving, it was reported that his family received copious amounts of special benefits through association with an agent. USC asked the PAC-10 to investigate and in the interim that sports agent sued the Bush's for failure to repay those benefits and he also agreed to cooperate fully with the NCAA. Furthermore, the NCAA decided to roll the Mayo mess into the bundle as well. Between letting Lake's lawyers do their work for them and conflating the Mayo investigation too, it's not too surprising that their investigation took a while.

But the USC "comp" is an even poorer comp for another very, very important reason. The NCAA actually had something to investigate in the USC business. There really isn't any fertile line of inquiry being pursued by the NCAA concerning Cam and Auburn.

If the USC scenario was an investigation, the Cam scenario is a cold case file stuffed in a cardboard box in a warehouse.

[Brutus]

More fuel to the fire that Auburn's deal isn't over. As posted last week before the prune and jump to the new servers, the NCAA said in front of SEC coaches that the investigation of Auburn was not finished, in response to a question by frustrated Gene Chizik asking why they had not publicly declared it to be complete.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...or_enforc.html

Today, USA Today's Danny Sheridan was on with Paul Finebaum on 94.5, Birmingham, and said that he's hearing the NCAA believes they've tracked down the "bag man" that paid the Newtons and they're trying to get him to come forward.

This would obviously not be surprising news if it comes to fruition, as I think the prevailing wisdom was that the original report that broke all this news suggested Newton confessed to Mississippi State that the "money was too good to pass up." It doesn't stand to reason that the report would have been credible enough to get all the information correct but be wrong on the quasi-confession.

A recap of the interview I found here: http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/7...ridan-finebaum

The site lists a replay of the show between 6-9 PM tonight here: http://www.al.com/wjox/

One thing to note about this, for those that understand how the NCAA enforcement process works... Auburn has not stopped being investigated even after Newton was reinstated. The investigation continues until the NCAA notifies the institution it's over with. That has not happened so the Newton stuff is still at-large.

[jojo]

That Sheridan talking to Finebaum about Auburn on a "Roll Tide" radio show broadcast out of Birmingham during a Bama pep rally (errrrrrr…..SEC media day 1) led to “revelations” about Auburn cheating isn’t a shock to people who understand SEC football. It would've been disappointing to Finebaum's fanbase if it were otherwise.

This was not a game changing announcement. A smoking gun was not revealed. No new evidence was talked about. For context, here are some words from Sheridan’s mouth, “It may turn out to be nothing”, “I have no idea if it is true”, “I have no idea what it means, “I don’t know if the NCAA has any new evidence”.

Basically the cliff notes are that Sheridan claimed an NCAA source with intimate knowledge of the investigation and who he has a two and a half decade relationship with said the NCAA is investigating the possibility that Cecil received money through a third party who had nothing to do with Auburn. Sheridan said that the NCAA has an idea of who such a third party individual could be and they are hoping/waiting such an individual will come forward and provide details of a payment. If such an individual doesn't volunteer information, the investigation would officially close within 3 to 6 months.

Here’s a direct quote from Sheridan:

"They're trying to get a third person, allegedly the bag man, to step forward, and if he steps forward, it'll be a bad situation. But I don't know that he will step forward. I don't know if they have any evidence. I don't want you to misquote me."

This would obviously not be surprising news if it comes to fruition, as I think the prevailing wisdom was that the original report that broke all this news suggested Newton confessed to Mississippi State that the "money was too good to pass up." It doesn't stand to reason that the report would have been credible enough to get all the information correct but be wrong on the quasi-confession.

This assertion has been demonstrated to be factually inaccurate several times now. It’s past the point of being puzzling why such an assertion would still be repeated.

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

One thing to note about this, for those that understand how the NCAA enforcement process works... Auburn has not stopped being investigated even after Newton was reinstated. The investigation continues until the NCAA notifies the institution it's over with. That has not happened so the Newton stuff is still at-large.

For those that understand how the NCAA enforcement process works, it would be very unusual if a member of the NCAA enforcement effort announced intimate details of an investigation to an individual of the media. It would be shocking if this member of the media largely made their living by setting betting lines for NCAA football games.

Frankly, this is the noteworthy aspect of Sheridan’s appearance on the “Roll tide Radio show”. A man with known ties to gambling claims an intimate relationship with an NCAA higher up who according to the comments may be responsible for compliance. This would be extremely newsworthy if it were true.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by jojo

That Sheridan talking to Finebaum about Auburn on a "Roll Tide" radio show broadcast out of Birmingham during a Bama pep rally (errrrrrr…..SEC media day 1) led to “revelations” about Auburn cheating isn’t a shock to people who understand SEC football. It would've been disappointing to Finebaum's fanbase if it were otherwise.

I don't see what the setting has anything to do with Danny Sheridan. That it was on a pro-Alabama radio station is immaterial to whether Sheridan's information is correct.

This was not a game changing announcement. A smoking gun was not revealed. No new evidence was talked about. For context, here are some words from Sheridan’s mouth, “It may turn out to be nothing”, “I have no idea if it is true”, “I have no idea what it means, “I don’t know if the NCAA has any new evidence”.

Basically the cliff notes are that Sheridan claimed an NCAA source with intimate knowledge of the investigation and who he has a two and a half decade relationship with said the NCAA is investigating the possibility that Cecil received money through a third party who had nothing to do with Auburn. Sheridan said that the NCAA has an idea of who such a third party individual could be and they are hoping/waiting such an individual will come forward and provide details of a payment. If such an individual doesn't volunteer information, the investigation would officially close within 3 to 6 months.

Here’s a direct quote from Sheridan:

"They're trying to get a third person, allegedly the bag man, to step forward, and if he steps forward, it'll be a bad situation. But I don't know that he will step forward. I don't know if they have any evidence. I don't want you to misquote me."

Game-changing or not, if the NCAA thinks its' located the person that paid the Newtons, that's a big deal. Sheridan made a lot of qualifiers because that's what reasonable people do when reporting such information... they try to qualify that it's not a slam-dunk.

Also, while he said Auburn didn't initiate it, it didn't say one way or another whether Auburn knew. If they knew or had reason to know, all bets are off. They'll be just about as guilty as if they did it themselves.

This assertion has been demonstrated to be factually inaccurate several times now. It’s past the point of being puzzling why such an assertion would still be repeated.

LOL are you serious with this? How was it shown to be factually inaccurate? Show me a link that disproves it. Seriously... you can't (and won't) because there is absolutely nothing that disproves it.

I don't know what on earth makes you think it was disproved. If anything, the facts continue to be supportive of the likelihood it DID happen. Again, it requires a giant leap of faith to conclude that the original story was only half-right.

For those that understand how the NCAA enforcement process works, it would be very unusual if a member of the NCAA enforcement effort announced intimate details of an investigation to an individual of the media. It would be shocking if this member of the media largely made their living by setting betting lines for NCAA football games.

Frankly, this is the noteworthy aspect of Sheridan’s appearance on the “Roll tide Radio show”. A man with known ties to gambling claims an intimate relationship with an NCAA higher up who according to the comments may be responsible for compliance. This would be extremely newsworthy if it were true.

Very unusual that someone would speak off-the-record to someone they've known, allegedly, for over 20 years? That's not unusual at all.

And contrary to your belief, just because the NCAA won't speak on the record about an investigation doesn't mean they wouldn't want a renegade program to endure bad press if they're trying to pin them for serious alleged violations.