Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I think something dramatically needs to change for that Big If not to become a reality.

Right now Newton is an eligible player and Auburn has played him so far so there is really no reason not to play him going forward. When all is said and done I don't see a way this ends up well for Auburn. I have a feeling that Auburn will be forced to vacate all wins they had while Newton was playing QB.

Something dramatic would have to change for that scenario to unfold.

[WMR]

What statements made by Cam Sr. in regards to shady recruiting of his son have been incontrovertibly proven?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by jojo

What are the names of the two recruiters who Cam supposedly apologized to while saying Auburn paid more?

Coaches can't really come out and comment publicly on it, so any report has no choice but to name them as anonymous. But put it this way: if there weren't any teeth to the allegations, don't you think this would have been cleared up by the involved parties? In other words, I'd bet your bottom dollar that ESPN at least checked with the coaches off the record, or if this weren't the position of Mississippi State, they could have and would have extinguished it by now.

That's not how it works. Auburn has worked with the SEC. Why would the SEC/NCAA then turn around and punish Auburn for an impropriety committed via another program?

It absolutely is how it works. An NCAA spokesperson said in the Yahoo! story that it is the job of the school to declare a player ineligible initially. Then if they feel everything is cleared up, they can request reinstatement. Cooperation is not a badge of honor... it's an NCAA mandate. Auburn has to cooperate because if they don't, they'll get in trouble just for stonewalling the investigation. The NCAA has punished schools countless times in the past just for not declaring a player ineligible when they suspected it could have been the case. And again, this impropriety is not on Mississippi State here. The allegation is that the Newtons solicited money, didn't get it, and may have gotten it from Auburn.

No one is on record with verifiable links like suggested above. You can choose to call them facts, but they are not. The NCAA won't treat that allegation as fact. It's supposition to say, if verified, then Auburn is in trouble.



The facts at this point don't support your position. Maybe addition ones will. but they don't at this moment and there is a good likelihood that they may never...

When did I call them facts? I called it circumstantial evidence. You're putting words in my mouth. But if the allegations and the evidence is true, then the facts absolutely support my position. [/QUOTE]

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by jojo

That's not how it works. Auburn has worked with the SEC. Why would the SEC/NCAA then turn around and punish Auburn for an impropriety committed via another program?

Perhaps it's not how it "should" work but Brutus is right in that it is undeniably how it does work.
Derrick Rose was declared eligible by the NCAA, then later ruled ineligible. Memphis was forced to vacate all their wins in which he played.

The minute Cam Newton's father asked for money(if he asked for money), Cam Newton became ineligible essentially. The NCAA just hasn't found out yet that he was ineligible back then. Make sense to you? Me neither.

I suppose its better than the alternative which would be, "Gosh we'd really like to bust this school for playing a player who it turns out was paid $150K to play there, but the kid no longer goes to the school. Aw Shucks!"

[Cedric]

Per ESPN headline:

"Auburn athletic director Jay Jacobs said, "We're not commenting" when asked Friday afternoon about quarterback Cam Newton's status for Saturday's game again"

"When asked if that means there was a change in status the reply was again "no comment".

Auburn would throw away the games played with Newton already. So why wouldn't they just play Newton now? Possibly they are just sick of answering the same question over and over. Or they were told by the NCAA that something might not be right and they might be cautious.

If they were told there might be problems with his eligibility and they still played him? They could be facing MAJOR problems.

That's all conjecture based on the change in the AD's wording.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by WMR

What statements made by Cam Sr. in regards to shady recruiting of his son have been incontrovertibly proven?

No one is relying upon statements made by Cam Sr to form arguments are they?

[WMR]

Originally Posted by jojo

No one is relying upon statements made by Cam Sr to form arguments are they?

If he's on the proven record to have had his hand firmly stuck out in regards to Cam Jr.'s recruitment it makes the argument that Cam went somewhere that DIDN'T pay him much more tenuous.

I'm definitely pulling for Auburn in all of this and hope his commitment to Auburn was completely above board and within NCAA rules and regulations.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Coaches can't really come out and comment publicly on it, so any report has no choice but to name them as anonymous. But put it this way: if there weren't any teeth to the allegations, don't you think this would have been cleared up by the involved parties? In other words, I'd bet your bottom dollar that ESPN at least checked with the coaches off the record, or if this weren't the position of Mississippi State, they could have and would have extinguished it by now.

It's not unnamed coaches that have allegedly said Cam stated Auburn paid more during a phone call. It's unnamed "recruiters". Huge differences. It's easy to track down Rogers' story of two coaches in a specific hotel. Anonymous recruiters are a completely different story. Rogers' credibility will get tested when the coaches are interviewed. How does one check on anonymous recruiters, whatever they are?

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

The allegation is that the Newtons solicited money, didn't get it, and may have gotten it from Auburn.

Specifically, the allegation is that Rogers solicited money from MSU on Cam's behalf. The may, if etc, is supposition.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by jojo

It's not unnamed coaches that have allegedly said Cam stated Auburn paid more during a phone call. It's unnamed "recruiters". Huge differences. It's easy to track down Rogers' story of two coaches in a specific hotel. Anonymous recruiters are a completely different story. Rogers' credibility will get tested when the coaches are interviewed. How does one check on anonymous recruiters, whatever they are?



Specifically, the allegation is that Rogers solicited money from MSU on Cam's behalf. The may, if etc, is supposition.

Just because the recruiters are anonymous in the public realm doesn't mean they're anonymous to the people corroborating the claims. You and I don't know their identities, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and won't be interviewed. Further, there's nothing stating that the recruiters aren't coaches. In fact, the way the story read, I believe it was the coaches they're referring to. After all, it was those same people that Newton placed the call to say he was committing to Auburn. That to me suggests it was someone on staff.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Just because the recruiters are anonymous in the public realm doesn't mean they're anonymous to the people corroborating the claims. You and I don't know their identities, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and won't be interviewed. Further, there's nothing stating that the recruiters aren't coaches. In fact, the way the story read, I believe it was the coaches they're referring to. After all, it was those same people that Newton placed the call to say he was committing to Auburn. That to me suggests it was someone on staff.

It's a leap to say the anonymous recruiters were coaches. Where in the story is that suggested? If they were coaches why weren't they named so that the SEC can further their investigation into Cam's recruitment? In stead an anonymous source leaked hearsay about "recruiters".

What I think we know for certain is that MSU continued recruiting Cam for at least a month after Rogers allegedly solicited money. In fact, they did not report these allegations until January after it was clear he was not committing to Starkville. MSU was not forthcoming in their initial report either. The SEC requested further information from MSU and it took them an unprecedented 7 months to provide something akin to answers to straightforward questions. Again at that time they did not fully disclose everything if recent developments are to be believed. Finally Dan Mullen is apparently engaging in a pretty unprecedented attack concerning a player. This is extremely troubling behavior at a time when facts are desperately needed as in a worst case scenario this could impact a national championship. It's strange behavior from an institution if the goal was to behave as ethically as possible.

Right now the focus is upon Rogers and MSU but MSU has not been forthcoming. Why haven't they?

The SEC commissioner Mike Slive essentially characterizes MSU's behavior as nonresponsive.

Here's Slive's comments from earlier today:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...ewton_cas.html

There are important questions concerning MSU's recruitment of Cam, MSU's reporting of the allegations, and their compliance with SEC procedures put in place to deal with these very issues.

Here's where the SEC stands right now:

Originally Posted by Slive

Even given his long experience in college athletics, Slive said this case appears to be unprecedented in how it is playing out. Allegations have been made about a player's recruitment to a school where he didn't sign, but no direct accusations have surfaced publicly against the school where the player did sign.

This story isn't about Auburn largely because MSU is screaming fowl while stonewalling. It may become about Auburn. It very well may not. One wonders what's going on in Starkville.

[MWM]

jojo, seems like your entire hope is based on Rogers soliciting MSU without the knowledge of the Newtons. That may turn out to be true, but it sure doesn't seem like the likeliest of scenarios.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but is also seems like you feel OK if looks like MSU did something shady but not Auburn. None of that really matters, IMO. The only thing that really matters is whether or not the Newtons solicited money for Cam's commitment, regardless if they were successful or not. If that happened, Auburn is in trouble for either playing an ineligible player or because they won't have him at QB.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by MWM

jojo, seems like your entire hope is based on Rogers soliciting MSU without the knowledge of the Newtons. That may turn out to be true, but it sure doesn't seem like the likeliest of scenarios.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but is also seems like you feel OK if looks like MSU did something shady but not Auburn. None of that really matters, IMO. The only thing that really matters is whether or not the Newtons solicited money for Cam's commitment, whether they were successful or not. If that happened, Auburn is in trouble for either playing an ineligible player or because they won't have him at QB.

I think its possible that Cecil Newton entertained the notion of money from MSU (see the post that responded to an earlier question you asked).

It is very important to me that Auburn acts in a moral, ethical manner.

Ultimately if Auburn's recruitment of Cam broke no rules, Auburn should have nothing to apologize for and I would be fine with that regardless of how the NCAA reacts to MSU's recruitment of Cam.

Right now, there hasn't been anything credible to suggest Auburn acted poorly.

[Brutus]

Cecil Newton admits to having discussions with the Mississippi State boosters about being paid to go there (though he's denying Cam's knowledge of the situation and that any money changed hands)...

Newton Admits Money Talks

[Hoosier Red]

If that's the case, then as far as I understand the rules Newton would be ineligible even if he never took any money, had any knowledge of the money discussions, or actively sought money himself.

If his father solicited money to play for a school, he'd be ineligible.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

If that's the case, then as far as I understand the rules Newton would be ineligible even if he never took any money, had any knowledge of the money discussions, or actively sought money himself.

If his father solicited money to play for a school, he'd be ineligible.

This is actually the beginning of this story getting marginalized.

MSU is about to back away from the edge.

My guess is the two coaches in the hotel won't remember Cecil asking for money shifting focus on Rogers and credibility as two mythical recruiters turn to fog. It'll turn out to be Rogers approaching Cecil and this is going to become about agents and college sports. The Rogers/Cecil interaction will be a muddy mess and the muddy mess that is the NCAA "rule" on this won't get evoked because, well it'll be too messy.