Cam Newton or his handler wanted money? [Archive] - Page 2 - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

Brutus

12-01-2010, 09:55 PM

If Kanter wanted money, wouldn't he (and his family) have just taken the million bucks and gone pro? He was offered just that and didn't.

And to say you can't take money or you'll be denied NCAA eligibility is just plain wrong. You can take money. Almost every Division I athlete gets money from his school, in fact. (Remember, this is how John Selby is paying back the money he "owes" to the NCAA.)

So do many high schools. Kanter's father spent $20,000 on tutors and kept the rest in a bank account untouched. Why would he have known how much was permissable? Was there an NCAA person he could have contacted that would have helped him? (Hint: nope. Not one.)

Simply put, any argument that supports the idea that Kanter deserves to be ineligible while also supporting the idea that Selby deserves to play smacks of a double standard. You're either taking money (and thus, ineligible) or not taking money (and thus eligible).

Though, apparently, if your father pimps you out for $180,000 and you know nothing of it, it's okay. ;)

When did I say Selby deserves to play? Don't put words in my mouth. I just said they were slightly different scenarios, but I never said I agreed with the decision.

You're not allowed to accept money from anyone but the school for your tuition. That's well known and established. There's no gray area there. Whether it was for education or not, you can't take money unless it's approved by the NCAA.

Scrap Irony

12-01-2010, 10:04 PM

Brutus

12-01-2010, 10:11 PM

Slightly different, I agree:

Kanter's money was spent on his education or left in a bank account untouched. (Which is permissable, Brutus.)

Selby took money, knowing it was wrong, spent it on himself, lied about it, then got eligible. Same, oddly enough, with the Sidney family.

If we're talking shades of gray, who would you make eligible?

They both broke the rules. So why can't we just agree that neither can complain about a punishment? There is no set standard for punishment, only adherence to the rules. We may not like the application, but unfortunately since not all cases are the same, they won't all get the same result.

BTW... it is still impermissible for Kanter to receive any money. Whether in a bank account or by cash, it's a benefit you're not allowed to receive.

Scrap Irony

12-01-2010, 10:18 PM

BTW... it is still impermissible for Kanter to receive any money. Whether in a bank account or by cash, it's a benefit you're not allowed to receive.

No technically true. The Kanters were given the money by the Greek team for educational expenses. Had the Greek team given that money straight to a tutor, it would have been no problem.

That Kanter and family didn't know this is understandable. That the NCAA is insisting that Enes is ineligible is technically understandable, though certainly hard-hearted and obtuse. That the NCAA has allowed others eligibility after being given cash and knowingly cheating then denying Kanter's eligibilty rings of either stupidity, a purposeful bias against foreign players (and a closet bigotry), or schitzophrenic rules that need to be revised completely.

WVRed

12-01-2010, 10:23 PM

BTW... it is still impermissible for Kanter to receive any money. Whether in a bank account or by cash, it's a benefit you're not allowed to receive.

I don't disagree with this, but it proves my point earlier:

I understand Enes took money and im sure thats the first thing that would be pointed out, but so did the Newtons,

You can also add Renardo Sidney and Josh Selby to that list as well.

But why declare one player eligible(Newton), and force two more to sit out(Selby and Sidney), and declare another one permanently ineligible? (Kanter)

Brutus

12-01-2010, 10:27 PM

No technically true. The Kanters were given the money by the Greek team for educational expenses. Had the Greek team given that money straight to a tutor, it would have been no problem.

That Kanter and family didn't know this is understandable. That the NCAA is insisting that Enes is ineligible is technically understandable, though certainly hard-hearted and obtuse. That the NCAA has allowed others eligibility after being given cash and knowingly cheating then denying Kanter's eligibilty rings of either stupidity, a purposeful bias against foreign players (and a closet bigotry), or schitzophrenic rules that need to be revised completely.

This is absolutely untrue. Under no circumstances may any outside team reimburse a prospect for educational expenses.

Directly from an NCAA FAQ on educational expenses:

It is important to note that educational expenses (e.g., high-school or preparatory school tuition payments) may be considered a prohibited form of pay based on athletics skill, depending on the source from which the educational funds are received. For example, under current NCAA legislation, a prospective student-athlete may not receive educational expenses from his or her outside sports team or organization when those funds are based in any degree on the recipient's athletics ability. In addition, a prospect may not receive educational expenses from any individual whose relationship with the prospect developed as a result of the prospect's athletics participation or reputation.

The most common sources from which a prospect may receive educational expenses without jeopardizing his or her amateur status are described below:

* Parents, legal guardians and other family members may provide educational expenses for a prospect.

* High schools and preparatory schools may provide academic and athletically related scholarships to a prospect.

* A prospect may receive educational expenses from an established and continuing scholarship program designed to aid students in secondary schools, even if athletics participation is part of the basis (but not the major criterion) for receiving the award, provided the prospect remains free to select his or her own school, the school controls the aid and the prospect has no continuing obligation to the donor.

* An established friend or mentor who has a close and established relationship with a prospect that developed without regard to athletics participation or reputation and before the prospect achieved any notoriety as an athlete may provide educational expenses to the prospect if such expenses are similar in nature to other assistance provided by the individual to the prospect before the prospect achieved notoriety as an athlete.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Legislation+and+Governance/Eligibility+and+Recruiting/ed_expenses.html

A professional club or other sports organization absolutely may not reimburse a prospect. The very idea that a pro sports team would reimburse for educational expenses is related to the fact they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but because of his athletics skills.

It doesn't matter if it's for education. The NCAA does not allow it from a pro sports club.

Slyder

12-01-2010, 10:29 PM

Scrap Irony

12-01-2010, 10:44 PM

This is absolutely untrue. Under no circumstances may any outside team reimburse a prospect for educational expenses. Period.

A professional club or other sports organization absolutely may not reimburse a prospect. The very idea that a pro sports team would reimburse for educational expenses is related to the fact they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but because of his athletics skills.

It doesn't matter if it's for education. The NCAA does not allow it from a pro sports club.

You say to-may-to, I say toe-mah-to.

It's been allowed for every European and Australian player ruled eligible by the NCAA. (Except for those that they haven't, of course.)

Greek teams do this. Autralian teams do this. (AJ Ogilvy was one; Andrew Bogut was another.)

Heck, Brutus, major league baseball does this.

Obviously, it's not reimbursement, per se. Players don't touch the money. It's a "scholarship" from the professional team to specific player universities or through specific channels that pay for schooling.

Really, it's semantics. Had the Kanters done just what others had done (had the team pay for tutors rather than give it to the Kanters, who then gave it to tutors for expenses), it would have been fine.

Brutus

12-01-2010, 10:57 PM

You say to-may-to, I say toe-mah-to.

It's been allowed for every European and Australian player ruled eligible by the NCAA. (Except for those that they haven't, of course.)

Greek teams do this. Autralian teams do this. (AJ Ogilvy was one; Andrew Bogut was another.)

Heck, Brutus, major league baseball does this.

Obviously, it's not reimbursement, per se. Players don't touch the money. It's a "scholarship" from the professional team to specific player universities or through specific channels that pay for schooling.

Really, it's semantics. Had the Kanters done just what others had done (had the team pay for tutors rather than give it to the Kanters, who then gave it to tutors for expenses), it would have been fine.

Generally, the practice you are referring to is part of a professional contract for educational expenses to be reimbursed after a professional career is over with. But in the situations it's not, it's still not actually endorsed by the NCAA. As far as the NCAA is concerned, the actual rule (as was posted) is that you absolutely cannot accept any educational reimbursement (whether it passes through the player's hands or not is immaterial to the rule, if not the application) in exchange for your athletics skill. Professional clubs, by definition then, cannot pay for educational expenses for an athlete aspiring to become NCAA eligible.

Has there been exceptions? I'm sure there have. But that is the rule as it is read, written and almost always applied.

Scrap Irony

12-01-2010, 11:12 PM

That may be a rule, but it's certainly not applied. Or at least is only applied rarely, anyway. Any educational expense (test fee, class fee, book rental fee, tutor, et al) can and is paid for by teams, so that players can matriculate through "high school" classes without having to go to actual high schools (or their European and Australian cousins).

This allows players to focus on playing the game of basketball (which they do) and still get their credits that put them in an American university. In fact, the Florida-based AIG and another basketball "factory" does much of the same thing. Graduates of those programs have had spotty histories with NCAA compliance, but have generally been eligible as well.

Kanter's history is such that his family's only real sin was in trying to find their own tutors. This may cost their son a chance a year or two of college basketball.

By the rule of the law, Kanter is (and should be) undeniably ineligible. (So, too, should Selby, Sidney, and Newton.) By the spirit of the law, however, he should be given another shot.

Scrap Irony

12-01-2010, 11:20 PM

Generally, the practice you are referring to is part of a professional contract for educational expenses to be reimbursed after a professional career is over with. But in the situations it's not, it's still not actually endorsed by the NCAA. As far as the NCAA is concerned, the actual rule (as was posted) is that you absolutely cannot accept any educational reimbursement (whether it passes through the player's hands or not is immaterial to the rule, if not the application) in exchange for your athletics skill. Professional clubs, by definition then, cannot pay for educational expenses for an athlete aspiring to become NCAA eligible.

Has there been exceptions? I'm sure there have. But that is the rule as it is read, written and almost always applied.

If the NCAA doesn't endorse it, why do they allow the players to be eligible? Wouldn't that be the epitome of endorsement?

Chris Weinke, Drew Henson, and CJ Henry, among others, have been allowed eligibility after being professional in another sport. The professional teams have foot the bill for each of them.

In fact, it happens often enough to be less an exception and more the rule, at this point.

Brutus

12-01-2010, 11:50 PM

If the NCAA doesn't endorse it, why do they allow the players to be eligible? Wouldn't that be the epitome of endorsement?

Chris Weinke, Drew Henson, and CJ Henry, among others, have been allowed eligibility after being professional in another sport. The professional teams have foot the bill for each of them.

In fact, it happens often enough to be less an exception and more the rule, at this point.

First, the standard is regarding the sport you're competing in. Those players were eligible because they were never reimbursed expenses or payment in the sports they were eligible to play in. Had Drew Henson ever received a dime from an NFL team, he could not have played at Michigan. Had CJ Henry received money from an overseas basketball team, he could not have played at Kansas.

Second, the standard of receiving educational expenses from overseas clubs is one that is not approved by the NCAA when its' known. Does it slip through the cracks? Absolutely. The NCAA doesn't do a thorough investigation into those matters when passing players through the clearinghouse. But you can bet your bottom dollar when it's found out, players are ruled ineligible.

Guy-Marc Michel just got ruled ineligible simply for playing for free for a Pro-Am team. Of course, he technically was given a one-year suspension, but he only had one year remaining of eligibility since it was ruled his year in 2006 for a French university counted toward his five to play four.

My point though is not that guys haven't slipped through the cracks. But the NCAA does not endorse any professional club reimbursing any expenses. When it's happened, it's probably mostly because the NCAA didn't find out about it. After all, they don't have the man power to check out each kid coming from overseas with a fine tooth comb.

Scrap Irony

12-01-2010, 11:57 PM

Scrap Irony

12-02-2010, 12:03 AM

Guy-Marc Michel just got ruled ineligible simply for playing for free for a Pro-Am team. Of course, he technically was given a one-year suspension, but he only had one year remaining of eligibility since it was ruled his year in 2006 for a French university counted toward his five to play four.

Not true. Guy-Marc Michel was ruled ineligible for signing a contract to play with a professional team. (I don't agree with him being ineligible, too, BTW. It's another foreign guy who gets screwed while American players are getting away with murder.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 12:15 AM

Again, Brutus, that's only true sometimes. They knew of Bogut getting cash. They ruled him eligible. Same with Ogilvy. (That's why I picked them.) Any player out of France, most out of Germany, and all out of Greece have been given educational expenses in lieu of an actual education by basketball factories. It's considered akin to a private school education/ scholarship and a blind eye is turned to all of them.

All of them except those that aren't.

To subjectively pick one or two and say they were given too much or didn't go through the proper improper channels seems disengenious. (But that is the way the NCAA works, so it fits.)

I'm not sure where you're getting your info, and I can't speak for Bogut's situation, but Ogilvy was never known to have received anything. He came from the Australian Institution of Sport (AIS) which is essentially a reputable prep school in Australia that the NCAA has done an extensive background on. That school has been checked and double-checked, and has never found to have paid players. If it has, the NCAA doesn't know about it. Every single player has been cleared to come from that school. So if you have a link, I'd be happy to see it, but AIS is very much credible and Ogilvy played there.

Bogut I have no idea about. I saw him play but I just starting out covering things when he was around, so I don't know his situation.

Australian kids are pushed through because their setup is more closely like the U.S. So it's easier to make an apples to apples comparison when subjectively considering their situations.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 12:19 AM

Not true. Guy-Marc Michel was ruled ineligible for signing a contract to play with a professional team. (I don't agree with him being ineligible, too, BTW. It's another foreign guy who gets screwed while American players are getting away with murder.

Not true. He never was alleged to have had a contract. He played on a club team for five games which contained both amateurs and professionals. But because the NCAA considered it a professional club, he was ruled a professional.

Scrap Irony

12-02-2010, 12:34 AM

Brutus

12-02-2010, 12:37 AM

I mis-typed on the Michel situation-- I should have said he played with a professional club. (Which is also a semantic argument.)

As to Ogilvy and AIS, once again, I'll explain, as you don't seem to have grasped what I'm trying to say: AIS (and almost all foreign schools) are allowed to give cash for educational expenses not directly to the player, but for the player's use. Educational expenses include test fees, book rental fees, rental home/ apartment for the player (and, often, his family), food, a clothing allowance, some spending money, tutors, and many others.

Basically, if you can put it on a receipt, it's fine with professional clubs, basketball factories, and other non-American places. It's also fine with the NCAA.

Except when it's not.

The cash is not given to the player per se, but spent on the player. (Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.)

The Kanters were given the cash by the professional team (scuttlebutt from reporters around the situation is that the team knew the rule and purposefully screwed the family because they didn't want Kanter eligible to go to college, as that would bilk them out of millions) to spend on educational expenses.

I'm grasping what you're trying to say. But there's a big difference: AIS is its own school. It's not a professional club. I think you're the one not grasping that difference.

AIS is a prepatory school. The money it gives is for education at its own school. It's not a professional club paying for separate education. Just like prep schools in America are allowed to give out scholarships to players, so is AIS. That's how AIS is treated. Kanter was given educational expenses from a professional basketball club. That's a key difference. It's not semantics it's an educational institution versus a professional sports club.

OnBaseMachine

12-02-2010, 12:39 AM

jojo

12-02-2010, 12:56 AM

I loved this tweet from Joe Sheehan:

In the wake of Newton getting off, NCAA comes down with sanctions on a Sun Belt school in 3...2...1...

Also, on behalf of every USC alum, student and fan: screw you, NCAA, you hypocritical, cowardly, pathetic group of dishonest old men.

http://twitter.com/joe_sheehan

The NCAA is an absolutely joke. Here's to hoping Auburn gets crushed by South Carolina this weekend.

Reggie Bush and his family had extra benefits coming out of their ears. There was also the Mayo part of the investigation into USC's athletic department and for as bitter as USC fans want to bleat, both players were knowingly complicit. The devil is in the details and its tough to see how that's a good comp for the Rogers freakshow.

But ya hate on Cam and Auburn even though there have been no allegations of wrong doing against either he or Auburn.

Scrap Irony

12-02-2010, 01:01 AM

I'm grasping what you're trying to say. But there's a big difference: AIS is its own school. It's not a professional club. I think you're the one not grasping that difference.

AIS is a prepatory school. The money it gives is for education at its own school. It's not a professional club paying for separate education. Just like prep schools in America are allowed to give out scholarships to players, so is AIS. That's how AIS is treated. Kanter was given educational expenses from a professional basketball club. That's a key difference. It's not semantics it's an educational institution versus a professional sports club.

Sigh. Dude, I know what I'm talking about here. (This is why I brought up Ogilvy and Bogut specifically.)

Ogilvy (and family) were given a place to live in, with a food allowance, a clothing allowance, and other perks. Is that the same as a private education here in America? Perhaps, if you squint real hard.

The Ogilvy situation specifically is the way it's done in Australia with high-profile players. The situation in Europe is similar, as their definition of "room and board" is a bit more pliable than a dorm room and a plate at the mess hall.

The NCAA knew about it and okayed it. Same with Bogut. Same with almost every college prospect from Europe.

Ultimately, it is a silly argument, really, as all "scholarship" athletes are given stuff, whether it be America, Canada, Europe, or wherever. Private school athletes are often given spending money, for example, or per diem cash during tournaments, et al. They're allowed free swag public schools can't touch. I cannot stand the idea of private school scholarships to begin with, but that's another topic. Fact is, Kanter's situation is much closer to a private school athlete than it is to Selby's or Sidney's, but he's been ruled ineligible.

Scrap Irony

12-02-2010, 01:05 AM

Reggie Bush and his family had extra benefits coming out of their ears. There was also the Mayo part of the investigation into USC's athletic department and for as bitter as USC fans want to bleat, both players were knowingly complicit. The devil is in the details and its tough to see how that's a good comp for the Rogers freakshow.

But ya hate on Cam and Auburn even though there have been no allegations of wrong doing against either he or Auburn.

By NCAA rules, if a player, an agent, or a family member asks for money, the player is immediately ineligible.

It doesn't matter if the kid knows or not.

The NCAA and Auburn agree that Mr. Newton tried to do just that.

The NCAA choked on its own rule.

It's not hate on Auburn. It's hate on the NCAA. (As it should be.)

OnBaseMachine

12-02-2010, 01:10 AM

But ya hate on Cam and Auburn even though there have been no allegations of wrong doing against either he or Auburn.

Right. Auburn and Cam are completely innocent. And I can throw 110 mph.

jojo

12-02-2010, 01:31 AM

By NCAA rules, if a player, an agent, or a family member asks for money, the player is immediately ineligible.

It doesn't matter if the kid knows or not.

The NCAA and Auburn agree that Mr. Newton tried to do just that.

The NCAA choked on its own rule.

It's not hate on Auburn. It's hate on the NCAA. (As it should be.)

Hoping SC wins the SEC championship is hating on Auburn. The NCAA doesn't ultimately give a real rip.

If Cecil had actually received money or Cam had actually ended up committing to MSU, this probably would've had a different ending. Auburn's recruitment of Cam was by the book and Auburn shouldn't be penalized for the Starkville stink of the Rogers freakshow. That seems inherently fair.

In a statement regarding the Newton decision, Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs, said: "In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete's eligibility, we must consider the young person's responsibility. Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity.”

jojo

12-02-2010, 01:52 AM

It wasn't? The general consensus was that the father was asking for money. The NCAA found just that. I don't think anyone being intellectually honest believes Cam didn't know his father was asking for money. But proving it became, to this point, difficult.

The thing about this is that an opinion that was characterized as blindly biased, lacking credibility, intellectually dishonest, and derived from a lack of understanding concerning how the NCAA works was in fact dead on in its assessment.

An assertion that the NCAA wouldn't make a ruling and end it in a timely fashion, this certainly wouldn't end well for Auburn, and that this situation would get even worse would be an opinion representing the exact opposite scenario than the actual outcome.

Yes, they formally issued the allegation in written form. That was something I stated all along. Your contention was that they constantly dialog with the university and issue an advisement of how to proceed based on the facts. That couldn't have been further from the truth. Auburn was flying blind until the NCAA notified them of the specific findings. Otherwise, it was up to Auburn to be proactive.

You specifically stated the NCAA works with Auburn to tell them whether they should declare the player ineligible. That is not accurate.

Auburn wouldn't have declared Cam ineligible without the NCAA's input. My statement was that the NCAA absolutely advises an institution when they have reason to believe a player's eligibility would change and the fact that Cam was still playing indicated that the NCAA had not done that. Auburn wouldn't have declared Cam ineligible without the NCAA's input. It's that simple. Auburn has worked very closely with the NCAA and Slive since July. This week was not a big surprise and the assertion that their athletic department was flying blind just doesn't jive with how things went down.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 02:21 AM

Sigh. Dude, I know what I'm talking about here. (This is why I brought up Ogilvy and Bogut specifically.)

Ogilvy (and family) were given a place to live in, with a food allowance, a clothing allowance, and other perks. Is that the same as a private education here in America? Perhaps, if you squint real hard.

The Ogilvy situation specifically is the way it's done in Australia with high-profile players. The situation in Europe is similar, as their definition of "room and board" is a bit more pliable than a dorm room and a plate at the mess hall.

The NCAA knew about it and okayed it. Same with Bogut. Same with almost every college prospect from Europe.

Ultimately, it is a silly argument, really, as all "scholarship" athletes are given stuff, whether it be America, Canada, Europe, or wherever. Private school athletes are often given spending money, for example, or per diem cash during tournaments, et al. They're allowed free swag public schools can't touch. I cannot stand the idea of private school scholarships to begin with, but that's another topic. Fact is, Kanter's situation is much closer to a private school athlete than it is to Selby's or Sidney's, but he's been ruled ineligible.

Well I'm going to have to disagree because I know one of the coaches that recruited AIS and that's not how it's setup. Their kids live on campus. I am not going to be so naive to think there aren't perks. I know better. But it's a pretty fair prep school situation. Ogilvy's situation was within the rules. I've already posted the rule and it's there in black and white.

Either way, it's not against the rules for prep schools to cover expenses for educational-related reasons, and it's not against the rules to award athletic scholarships. It is absolutely against the rules for any professional basketball club to award a scholarship. That's cut and dry. You can say what you want about it, but a rule is a rule and Ogilvy's situation is not against the rules but Kanter's is. That's right there in black and white.

The argument shouldn't be that Kanter should be eligible. His situation is against the rules and that can't be denied. I can agree to the argument that these other kids should be given the same punishment or similar, but a large majority of international kids outside of Australia do not get ruled eligible for the same reason Kanter didn't. So it can't totally be passed off as selective enforcement.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 02:27 AM

The thing about this is that an opinion that was characterized as blindly biased, lacking credibility, intellectually dishonest, and derived from a lack of understanding concerning how the NCAA works was in fact dead on in its assessment.

An assertion that the NCAA wouldn't make a ruling and end it in a timely fashion, this certainly wouldn't end well for Auburn, and that this situation would get even worse would be an opinion representing the exact opposite scenario than the actual outcome.

Then your opinion is blindly biased, lacking credibility, intellectually dishonest and derives a lack of understanding in how the NCAA works because you were wrong about the process. Auburn didn't do anything until the NCAA sent a notice of their findings. They did not get the NCAA's input until it was in writing. That's not how it works and it was even reported how it went down.

Auburn turned their heads on the entire situation until the NCAA was forced to act. Since the NCAA finally beat Auburn to the punch (which was like racing a tortoise), Auburn had no choice but to declare him ineligible and request reinstatement. I guarantee you this was not done because they knew the result, their backs were now against the wall because the NCAA had to act now under growing pressure.

I'll admit I didn't think the NCAA would act, at this point. But it doesn't change the absolute fact that the NCAA does not share anything in advance with an institution. That belief is grossly mistaken.

Auburn wouldn't have declared Cam ineligible without the NCAA's input. My statement was that the NCAA absolutely advises an institution when they have reason to believe a player's eligibility would change and the fact that Cam was still playing indicated that the NCAA had not done that. Auburn wouldn't have declared Cam ineligible without the NCAA's input. It's that simple. Auburn has worked very closely with the NCAA and Slive since July. This week was not a big surprise and the assertion that their athletic department was flying blind just doesn't jive with how things went down.

And again, for the umpteenth time, they never advise. That comes directly from multiple people who work with them for a living. They don't advise any institutions on how to handles these specific cases.

jojo

12-02-2010, 02:44 AM

Brutus

12-02-2010, 05:37 AM

The NCAA advised Auburn that there was a potential issue with his eligibility on Monday. Nothing that happened this week was a surprise for Auburn. Cam was reinstated within less than a day and half of the NCAA advising Auburn of a potential violation and it's pretty clear that the NCAA, Slive's office and Auburn had a coordinated response for the media. You can argue semantics all that you want but I don't understand why its such an important point given the NCAA acted quickly, it didn't get worse for Auburn, and it actually ended well for Auburn.

They didn't 'advise' anything. They informed Auburn on Monday that a violation had occurred. Therefore, Auburn suspended him and requested reinstatement. There was no advising about it. There was no recourse as he technically lost his eligibility. If they had played him without doing so, they would have been in trouble. You're acting like Auburn did that voluntarily and the NCAA gave them a choice by 'suggesting' they do so. That's not even remotely the case.

The NCAA doesn't advise. They either report to the school on their findings (in this case) or they make a ruling on reinstatement or an appeal. There's really no in between.

jojo

12-02-2010, 08:36 AM

They didn't 'advise' anything. They informed Auburn on Monday that a violation had occurred. Therefore, Auburn suspended him and requested reinstatement. There was no advising about it. There was no recourse as he technically lost his eligibility. If they had played him without doing so, they would have been in trouble. You're acting like Auburn did that voluntarily and the NCAA gave them a choice by 'suggesting' they do so. That's not even remotely the case.

The NCAA doesn't advise. They either report to the school on their findings (in this case) or they make a ruling on reinstatement or an appeal. There's really no in between.

Brutus. I'm not acting like anything other than simply once again saying that the fact that auburn played Cam in the Georgia and Alabama games indicated that the NCAA had given Auburn no reason to act like Cam's eligibility status had changed. You can continue to be pedantically semantical about this very small point, but even this small point in the discussion still stands-the NCAA hadn't "communicated", "informed", "advised", "recommended", "told", "cautioned", "warned", "suggested", "recommended" etc anything concerning Cam's eligibility. As soon as the NCAA did, Auburn responded.

But really quibbling over verbs doesn't obfuscate the huge fluorescent orange elephant in the living room of this discussion- the narrative that was ahead of the facts was completely wrong.

Chip R

12-02-2010, 10:39 AM

MWM

12-02-2010, 10:44 AM

jojo

12-02-2010, 10:47 AM

Both Wilbon and Kornheiser called this a serioiusly agenda driven ruling by the NCAA on PTI yesterday, claiming that if they weren't in the national champinship picture, it would have been a different story altogether. Their point was, right now you have 2, and only 2, undefeated teams from major conferences making the national championship game decision an easy one. If you take Auburn out of the picture, then it's a mess like it is in a lot of other years.

Wilbon went even as far as to say if it were someone other than TCU sitting there are #3 it also would have been different. I'm not sure I buy that, but I don't doubt that the mess it would create for the BCS factored into the current ruling.

It's rare that the news media is ever in agreement across the board on an issue. This appears to be an exception as I've not heard one significnat media personality say it was the correct ruling.... a rare consensus.

It's called trying to save face after allowing the story to mostly be covered via news blogs.

Sea Ray

12-02-2010, 10:48 AM

This investigation is ongoing. Nothing really has happened that's new this week. Newton is eligible to play just like he has been every other week but that doesn't mean that he'll continue to be. No one has said the investigation is closed

Sea Ray

12-02-2010, 10:49 AM

It's rare that the news media is ever in agreement across the board on an issue. This appears to be an exception as I've not heard one significnat media personality say it was the correct ruling.... a rare consensus.

I wouldn't even call it a ruling. All the NCAA has said is that as of this week they do not have evidence to declare him ineligible

MWM

12-02-2010, 10:55 AM

It's called trying to save face after allowing the story to mostly be covered via news blogs.

Uh huh, jojo. Everyone is biased about this story but the Auburn faithful.

Roy Tucker

12-02-2010, 11:16 AM

IMHO, the NCAA is just covering their butt. I think they have a good handle on what happened, but not all the dots have been connected and they don't have legally-defensable-in-a-court-of-law type proof. And that is where this would end up if they jumped the gun.

This whole thing just doesn't pass the giggle test. If they let this pass, they now have a lot bigger problem with a precedent you drive a Mack truck through and you might as well declare all Div. 1 athletes pros and be done with it.

jojo

12-02-2010, 11:28 AM

This ruling tells me two things:

1. Auburn is much better at cheating than Mississipi State is.

2. This is a huge win for the SEC. Now they can pay parents to get their sons to come to their school and not face any penalties as long as the player didn't know that his parents received any money.

There were no special benefits actually agreed to, given or received in this case and there were no irregularities with the recruitment and eligibility of Cam with Auburn. These are huge details/distinctions.

Concerning some of the comps that have been thrown around in the media, its a night and day difference. Reggie Bush was ineligible the second he and his family accepted lifestyle changing benefits that were impossible for Bush not to be privy to and coupled with the Mayo situation it certainly looked like USC failed from an institutional control standpoint by looking the other way. Derrick Rose was ineligible the second he cheated on his standardized test (clearly he knew he was violating NCAA bylaws in an effort to actually be declared eligible) and the NCAA was reasonable to interpret Memphis' actions as willful ignorance.

jojo

12-02-2010, 11:30 AM

Uh huh, jojo. Everyone is biased about this story but the Auburn faithful.

Everyone that has been in front of the facts has been wrong. That's the point. No one seems able to choke out a mea culpa though or even to be willing to re-exam why the NCAA's handling of the situation was so dramatically different then the assumptions.

MWM

12-02-2010, 11:46 AM

Everyone that has been in front of the facts has been wrong. That's the point. No one seems able to choke out a mea culpa though or even to be willing to re-exam why the NCAA's handling of the situation was so dramatically different then the assumptions.

There's no mea culpa necessary. I think you're completely missing what everyone is trying to say in your obsession with "did Auburn do anything wrong." I will agree with you that there's no evidence at the present that Cam or Cecil solicited cash from Auburn. So anyone suggesting that Auburn paid Cam is in front of the facts.

But the NCAA has come out and said that Cecil Newton worked with Rogers to solicit cash for Cam's commitment to play football at MSU. That's no longer "in front of the facts". That is a fact. And THAT, jojo, is what everyone is appalled at. The media, Wilbon and Kornheiser included, are reacting based on the facts that we do know. They know Cecil tried to get money for Cam and the NCAA has said this isn't enough to declare him ineligible at this point. But somehow this belief, shared by pretty much everyone outside the Auburn fanbase, can only be explained by them trying to save face?

The problem is you're the only one looking at this with an eye solely on Auburn. It's entirely possible Auburn did absolutely nothing wrong here, that they knew nothing about what happened with MSU and that no such conversations took place between the Newtons or Auburn representatives. That doesn't change anything that's driving people's reactions to the ruling. Cecil Newton asked for money from MSU for his son to play football there. The NCAA knows this, and they know it NOW, yet they haven't ruled him ineligible. That has nothing to do with Auburn, so please stop accusing everyone else of being in front of the facts.

The relevant facts as it pertains to Cam Newton, are known at this point. At least enough are known for people to reasonably believe he should not be eligible to play college football. You're acting like the only way folks would believe this is if they have an axe to grind or face to save. This makes no sense. Dad asked for cash. End of story. Sucks for Auburn if they are in fact innocent, but that doesn't change anything.

jojo

12-02-2010, 12:05 PM

There's no mea culpa necessary. I think you're completely missing what everyone is trying to say in your obsession with "did Auburn do anything wrong." I will agree with you that there's no evidence at the present that Cam or Cecil solicited cash from Auburn. So anyone suggesting that Auburn paid Cam is in front of the facts.

But the NCAA has come out and said that Cecil Newton worked with Rogers to solicit cash for Cam's commitment to play football at MSU. That's no longer "in front of the facts". That is a fact. And THAT, jojo, is what everyone is appalled at. The media, Wilbon and Kornheiser included, are reacting based on the facts that we do know. They know Cecil tried to get money for Cam and the NCAA has said this isn't enough to declare him ineligible at this point. But somehow this belief, shared by pretty much everyone outside the Auburn fanbase, can only be explained by them trying to save face?

Please carefully reread everything I've contributed to this thread especially in its context because I'm certain you won't feel as strongly about the above characterization as you did when you typed it.

The problem is you're the only one looking at this with an eye solely on Auburn. It's entirely possible Auburn did absolutely nothing wrong here, that they knew nothing about what happened with MSU and that no such conversations took place between the Newtons or Auburn representatives. That doesn't change anything that's driving people's reactions to the ruling. Cecil Newton asked for money from MSU for his son to play football there. The NCAA knows this, and they know it NOW, yet they haven't ruled him ineligible. That has nothing to do with Auburn, so please stop accusing everyone else of being in front of the facts.

The relevant facts as it pertains to Cam Newton, are known at this point. At least enough are known for people to reasonably believe he should not be eligible to play college football. You're acting like the only way folks would believe this is if they have an axe to grind or face to save. This makes no sense. Dad asked for cash. End of story. Sucks for Auburn if they are in fact innocent, but that doesn't change anything.

The relevant facts as determined by the NCAA are these-while the actions of Cecil and Rogers violated Cam's amateur status at MSU, no special benefits were agreed to, granted or received and the scenario was conducted without the knowledge of the player and outside of the purview of the institution he committed to...

The NCAA's ruling on Cam's eligibility is consistent with their bylaws. To the extent that this situation fell within a grey area of their bylaws, it won't be grey for long.

BuckeyeRed27

12-02-2010, 01:46 PM

Up until this point the NCAA has said that if you or your family tries to solicit money you are done.

Now they are saying that even if you tried to solicit money unless we can prove that you actually recieved that money you can play.

That combined with the fact that the vast majority of people don't believe that Newton didn't get paid by Auburn is why there is a backlash against this ruling.

jojo

12-02-2010, 01:57 PM

That combined with the fact that the vast majority of people don't believe that Newton didn't get paid by Auburn is why there is a backlash against this ruling.

Given the cynicism that requires, why even be a fan of college football?

IslandRed

12-02-2010, 02:13 PM

The relevant facts as determined by the NCAA are these-while the actions of Cecil and Rogers violated Cam's amateur status at MSU, no special benefits were agreed to, granted or received and the scenario was conducted without the knowledge of the player and outside of the purview of the institution he committed to...

Until yesterday, Cecil's actions were understood to make Cam ineligible PERIOD, not just at MSU. And until yesterday, it was understood that since Cecil Newton was undeniably involved in his son's recruiting and the decision-making process, putting his hand out counted the same as Cam putting his hand out. That is why people are reacting -- the NCAA issued a ruling at odds with what most everyone in the game believed the rules and precedents to be, and they don't think the change is for the better. I guess we can pass that off as "gray area" if we want, but a whole lot of people who don't have a dog in the Cam Newton fight were incredulous.

BuckeyeRed27

12-02-2010, 02:46 PM

Given the cynicism that requires, why even be a fan of college football?

I don't think it requires cynicism really. More like common sense.

We know for a fact that he had a plan in place to get paid $180,000 to play football at MSU. I don't think it's much of a reach to think that Auburn paid him too.

Or put another way jojo if I offer you $180,000 to do something and somebody else offers you nothing to do the exact same thing which offer are you going to take?

Roy Tucker

12-02-2010, 02:54 PM

Taken in a vacuum, the NCAA made a kind decision for Cam. The young man knew nothing about the financial deal his dad was proposing and neither did Auburn. How can they fault him for that? Is he supposed to be omniscient? Is his future sacrificed because he's not?

But its a very disturbing precedent and it just seems like the next domino falling. I don;'t know where the NCAA goes from here. As long as the young person has plausible deniability, what's to stop family from shopping the kid around?

jojo

12-02-2010, 03:06 PM

BuckeyeRed27

12-02-2010, 03:08 PM

There wasn't actually a $180K offer in place.

Starkville or Auburn? That's easy calculus.

Umm yes there was. The NCAA has said as much.

Sea Ray

12-02-2010, 03:10 PM

I don't think it requires cynicism really. More like common sense.

We know for a fact that he had a plan in place to get paid $180,000 to play football at MSU. I don't think it's much of a reach to think that Auburn paid him too.

Or put another way jojo if I offer you $180,000 to do something and somebody else offers you nothing to do the exact same thing which offer are you going to take?

We seem to know that Cam's father asked for $180K to play but we don't know that any school agreed to it. If no school is paying Cam Newton then I don't see that anyone has violated any rules.

However the only thing this ruling says is that Cam is eligible to play this weekend. That's all.

...But Lenin seems to have left the door open for future discipline. The NCAA would not say Wednesday that the case is closed, referring to its statement that notes reinstatement likely occurs "prior to the close of an investigation."

MWM

12-02-2010, 03:12 PM

To be fair, I've not seen any evidence that the MSU booster agreed to pay the Newtons. All we know is that they asked. I don't know that the deal was in place.

jojo

12-02-2010, 03:18 PM

Until yesterday, Cecil's actions were understood to make Cam ineligible PERIOD, not just at MSU. And until yesterday, it was understood that since Cecil Newton was undeniably involved in his son's recruiting and the decision-making process, putting his hand out counted the same as Cam putting his hand out. That is why people are reacting -- the NCAA issued a ruling at odds with what most everyone in the game believed the rules and precedents to be, and they don't think the change is for the better. I guess we can pass that off as "gray area" if we want, but a whole lot of people who don't have a dog in the Cam Newton fight were incredulous.

What are the comps for this scenario? A lot of people are incredulous, but a lot has been assumed too.

Hoosier Red

12-02-2010, 03:43 PM

If Kanter wanted money, wouldn't he (and his family) have just taken the million bucks and gone pro? He was offered just that and didn't.

And to say you can't take money or you'll be denied NCAA eligibility is just plain wrong. You can take money. Almost every Division I athlete gets money from his school, in fact. (Remember, this is how John Selby is paying back the money he "owes" to the NCAA.)

So do many high schools. Kanter's father spent $20,000 on tutors and kept the rest in a bank account untouched. Why would he have known how much was permissable? Was there an NCAA person he could have contacted that would have helped him? (Hint: nope. Not one.)

Simply put, any argument that supports the idea that Kanter deserves to be ineligible while also supporting the idea that Selby deserves to play smacks of a double standard. You're either taking money (and thus, ineligible) or not taking money (and thus eligible).

Though, apparently, if your father pimps you out for $180,000 and you know nothing of it, it's okay. ;)

Not necessarily, the exposure and training he would have received at UK was worth FAR more than $1,000,000. Even if the exact numbers don't bear it out, he still could have made the decision to play after he had accepted $33,000. That still wouldn't make him eligible.

Hoosier Red

12-02-2010, 03:51 PM

Both Wilbon and Kornheiser called this a serioiusly agenda driven ruling by the NCAA on PTI yesterday, claiming that if they weren't in the national champinship picture, it would have been a different story altogether. Their point was, right now you have 2, and only 2, undefeated teams from major conferences making the national championship game decision an easy one. If you take Auburn out of the picture, then it's a mess like it is in a lot of other years.

Wilbon went even as far as to say if it were someone other than TCU sitting there are #3 it also would have been different. I'm not sure I buy that, but I don't doubt that the mess it would create for the BCS factored into the current ruling.

It's rare that the news media is ever in agreement across the board on an issue. This appears to be an exception as I've not heard one significnat media personality say it was the correct ruling.... a rare consensus.

I'm not sure I buy this particular conspiracy theory. Though its member institutions are obviously in favor of the BCS(or at least the heavy hitters,) I don't think the NCAA as an entity in Indianapolis has a lot of love lost for the bowl system. You don't think the NCAA wouldn want to have control of the football National Championship(It has almost zero control now.) If the NCAA really were operating in its own best interests, it would have ruled Cam Newton ineligible.

MWM

12-02-2010, 04:08 PM

jojo

12-02-2010, 04:35 PM

Umm yes there was. The NCAA has said as much.

No they didn't. There was an inquiry about special benefits. There was no agreement in place to pay the $180K.

jojo

12-02-2010, 04:42 PM

jojo, I'm curious what you think everyone's agenda is here. I'm not talking about just us on Redszone, but everywhere. There seems to be wholesale belief that this was the wrong ruling and a horrible precendent. You seem to think everyone who thinks this has an agenda of some sort. Why is this so universally detested?

Why does there have to be an agenda? I haven't said everyone who disagrees with either me, or more importantly the NCAA has an agenda. Tigerdroppings clearly has an agenda. Thats a nutcase slice of the internet however.

I think a lot of the arguments that many who disagree with the ruling have made are based upon premises that aren't necessarily factually correct or beg some important questions and that has been the general MO of the way the story has been handled almost from the get go. Even the original report from ESPN/NYT contains inaccuracies that few bother to correct.

Agenda? I wouldn't argue that. I do think this is a very complicated issue though and the devil is always in the details. Unless someone has a vested interest, it's understandable that they might not have spent the effort to comb through the finer details. Unfortunately with this story, the finer details are extremely important.

Then of course, someone could understand the facts accurately and still have the opinion that the NCAA was wrong. I'd wholly disagree with the position though-and it's not because of a bias.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 05:00 PM

The relevant facts as determined by the NCAA are these-while the actions of Cecil and Rogers violated Cam's amateur status at MSU, no special benefits were agreed to, granted or received and the scenario was conducted without the knowledge of the player and outside of the purview of the institution he committed to...

It's funny that you keep falling back on others being ahead of the facts, yet the NCAA did not even determine what you just said. The NCAA, by their own admission, just said they don't have enough evidence to conclude these things, but they stopped short of saying there were no special benefits granted or received and that the player didn't know.

I think you are smart enough to know the difference between concluding those things didn't happen and not having enough evidence to prove they happened.

The NCAA's statement was kind of funny because they strongly hinted that the current ruling was more about not having enough to go on right now than clearing the Newtons of the allegations.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 05:05 PM

Some Cam Newton humor that most people will enjoy (clearly not everyone)...

http://i.imgur.com/RPwc2.jpg

jojo

12-02-2010, 07:06 PM

I think you are smart enough to know the difference between concluding those things didn't happen and not having enough evidence to prove they happened.

What I think is that there isn't room to split a hair between tomato and tomato and just because a bald man goes to the barber, it doesn't mean he had hair....

The assertion that special benefits were agreed to, granted and received in return for Cam's commitment simply can't be supported by the facts. Do you dispute this? If so, what is your evidence?

Cedric

12-02-2010, 07:58 PM

Brutus

12-02-2010, 08:23 PM

What I think is that there isn't room to split a hair between tomato and tomato and just because a bald man goes to the barber, it doesn't mean he had hair....

The assertion that special benefits were agreed to, granted and received in return for Cam's commitment simply can't be supported by the facts. Do you dispute this? If so, what is your evidence?

Have you never held an opinion on something that wasn't fully vetted through disclosure? More importantly, have you never held an opinion on something not yet fully supported by facts that turned out to be true?

It seems you're suggesting that just because we can't prove it, thereby it didn't happen. That is a rather narrow viewpoint. A lot of things in history weren't supported by facts for a long time, but later found out did indeed happen.

I don't always need to know everything about a situation to have an opinion that something happened. In the court of law, the burden of proof should be much stronger. And I don't have a problem with using that philosophy in punishing Auburn. But that doesn't mean the situation doesn't smell to high heavens and one doesn't have good reason for thinking so.

Frankly, it seems everyone in America believes there is more to this story than is necessarily supported by facts. Why? Because of common sense. People don't have their hand out, have discussions about it, then suddenly just drop the issue. That just defies common sense.

So yes, that might not yet be supported by facts, but it's supported by a rational line of thinking. And it most certainly doesn't have to be established to hold the opinion about it.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 08:25 PM

I still go back to utter amazement on this whole situation. A players parent is found to be asking for 180,000 dollars and said player is about to win the Heisman trophy and play for a MNC?

Are we really supposed to believe that poor Cam was just playing video games while his dad and others shopped him around? It just seems incredibly far fetched and naive of the NCAA.

I think they just make decisions based on what suits their best interests. They feel getting rid of this story now will make for a better end of the season here. I can't find any plausible reason why they would allow such a loophole to now exist. It's their fault when this whole things turns even more corrupt than it already is.

Get ready for some SERIOUS SEC action guys. You thought they cheated before. Now they have a major loophole to climb right through.

The funny things is, the story that was reported about all this, which turned out to be TRUE in the eyes of the NCAA, said Cam Newton DID know and even told a few people he couldn't go to Mississippi St. because the "money was too much."

Yet, we're supposed to believe that even though the NCAA believed the father solicited money, those parts of the story aren't supported.

We may not have proof of it, but it sure doesn't pass the smell test.

IslandRed

12-02-2010, 08:26 PM

What are the comps for this scenario? A lot of people are incredulous, but a lot has been assumed too.

I don't work as a college recruiter, so I can't quote chapter and verse. But I've heard and read commentary and articles from several different sources, all of whom (1) don't have a stake in the Newton situation and (2) have talked to numerous people within college athletics whose job requires knowing these rules (recruiters, compliance officers, etc.), and only a small minority thinks the NCAA did the right thing, given the acknowledgement of a clear violation. And it's not because they give a rip about Cam Newton. It's about the precedent it sets for future recruiting, because a deterrent with some teeth -- "if we catch you, Mr. Dad/Relative/Coach, soliciting money for the kid's services, you're putting your son's/relative's/player's college career at risk" -- has just been removed. Now, as long as the kid isn't stupid enough to get caught making the request himself, all these leeches only need fear being caught taking the money.

Now, I understand the reverse side of this, too. If it wasn't Cam's idea to ask for money -- and even if he knew about it, it's not like you get to tell Dad what to do -- and if Auburn hasn't done anything wrong (in truth, not just "so far as we know"), then it would seriously suck for Cam and Auburn to be punished and possibly knocked out of the championship picture because Cecil got the notion to ask Mississippi State for money several months ago.

At the same time, a sport that wishes to enforce amateurism can't just shrug when people in a position of influence over a top player get caught with their hands out.

So I don't know what a proper punishment would be, in all honesty.

jojo

12-02-2010, 09:24 PM

Have you never held an opinion on something that wasn't fully vetted through disclosure? More importantly, have you never held an opinion on something not yet fully supported by facts that turned out to be true?

It seems you're suggesting that just because we can't prove it, thereby it didn't happen. That is a rather narrow viewpoint. A lot of things in history weren't supported by facts for a long time, but later found out did indeed happen.

I don't always need to know everything about a situation to have an opinion that something happened. In the court of law, the burden of proof should be much stronger. And I don't have a problem with using that philosophy in punishing Auburn. But that doesn't mean the situation doesn't smell to high heavens and one doesn't have good reason for thinking so.

Frankly, it seems everyone in America believes there is more to this story than is necessarily supported by facts. Why? Because of common sense. People don't have their hand out, have discussions about it, then suddenly just drop the issue. That just defies common sense.

So yes, that might not yet be supported by facts, but it's supported by a rational line of thinking. And it most certainly doesn't have to be established to hold the opinion about it.

Brutus here's the problem with your opinion though....the NCAA looked very hard for evidence and came up largely empty ending at a place where Cecil and a booster talked about money at an institution that ultimately failed to recruit Cam. It's reasonable to suggest that continuing to act like there's a raging fire when the smoke is barely smoldering just leads to a cold camp site.

Give this thread a rest for a few weeks then reread it and ask where the intractable biases truly reside....

jojo

12-02-2010, 09:35 PM

Are we really supposed to believe that poor Cam was just playing video games while his dad and others shopped him around? It just seems incredibly far fetched and naive of the NCAA.

Why would Cam know? The bulk of this Rogers freakshow apparently occurred on the 27th and 28th of November with Rogers having no contact with the Newtons during Cam's official visit on the 28th and only significantly interacting with Cecil for a brief time at a gas station as Cecil was leaving Starkville. It's unlikely that Cam could even pick Rogers or Bell out of a line up.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 09:35 PM

Brutus here's the problem with your opinion though....the NCAA looked very hard for evidence and came up largely empty ending at a place where Cecil and a booster talked about money at an institution that ultimately failed to recruit Cam. It's reasonable to suggest that continuing to act like there's a raging fire when the smoke is barely smoldering just leads to a cold camp site.

Give this thread a rest for a few weeks then reread it and ask where the intractable biases truly reside....

I think most here don't believe for a second the NCAA "looked very hard for evidence." The average NCAA investigation lasts months if not years. And they came to this conclusion after a few weeks? They couldn't have looked very hard because they were trying to expedite the preliminary decision.

The other issue here is there IS ongoing FBI stuff with the Auburn program. Maybe not specifically about Newton, but the FBI is most certainly involved, apparently. So if you're the NCAA, it's easier to just figure if anything did occur, they'll let the FBI uncover it since the FBI actually has subpoena power.

Anyhow, it seems unlikely that others are being biased considering I personally don't care about Auburn one way or another. I neither like nor dislike them. So how am I biased? You're the only one on your side of the fence, and you're an Auburn fan. Perhaps you should re-examine the bias issue.

Cedric

12-02-2010, 09:47 PM

Why would Cam know? The bulk of this Rogers freakshow apparently occurred on the 27th and 28th of November with Rogers having no contact with the Newtons during Cam's official visit on the 28th and only significantly interacting with Cecil for a brief time at a gas station as Cecil was leaving Starkville. It's unlikely that Cam could even pick Rogers or Bell out of a line up.

Jojo, just wondering what you personally think about a father shopping a kid. Do you agree there should be further bylaws written to fix this loophole? Or do you see no loophole?

I'm just wondering outside of this specific situation what your opinions are.

Thanks.

jojo

12-02-2010, 10:02 PM

I think most here don't believe for a second the NCAA "looked very hard for evidence." The average NCAA investigation lasts months if not years. And they came to this conclusion after a few weeks? They couldn't have looked very hard because they were trying to expedite the preliminary decision.

Cam is guilty. The NCAA didn't conclude that. The NCAA didn't try hard enough. OK. In all fairness to the NCAA, they probably only read the revised wsbtv story.... :eek:

The other issue here is there IS ongoing FBI stuff with the Auburn program. Maybe not specifically about Newton, but the FBI is most certainly involved, apparently. So if you're the NCAA, it's easier to just figure if anything did occur, they'll let the FBI uncover it since the FBI actually has subpoena power.

Brutus, this simply isn't true. The FBI is not investigating Auburn. If this is an important premise in your argument, you need to reevaluate your conclusions.

jojo

12-02-2010, 10:12 PM

Jojo, just wondering what you personally think about a father shopping a kid. Do you agree there should be further bylaws written to fix this loophole? Or do you see no loophole?

I'm just wondering outside of this specific situation what your opinions are.

Thanks.

First I don't actually think this is the loophole that the media is making it out to be... If Cecil had actually received a benefit, the hammer would've hit hard. If Cam had went to MSU, I'm not sure how the ruling on his eligibility would've came down. I bet he would've been sitting a few games given that the NCAA concluded Cecil violated Cam's amateur status at MSU. Everyone is assuming that Cecil was soliciting benefits as a matter of course. This appears to be an isolated event between he and a booster at MSU and even then it didn't really mature much past initial conversations. There just aren't good comps for this situation.

Personally, I think Cecil wouldn't be welcome in my home. If it was established that Auburn actually did give Cam extra benefits for his commitment, I'd think an appropriate punishment would only just start at forfeiting (not vacating) the entire season.

Brutus

12-02-2010, 10:25 PM

Cam is guilty. The NCAA didn't conclude that. The NCAA didn't try hard enough. OK. In all fairness to the NCAA, they probably only read the revised wsbtv story.... :eek:

Brutus, this simply isn't true. The FBI is not investigating Auburn. If this is an important premise in your argument, you need to reevaluate your conclusions.

They're not investigating Auburn but they're investigating several individuals close to or with affiliations of Auburn. It could wind up having the same result.

But it has nothing to do with my argument that if you believe someone is willing to solicit money in exchange for their son's services, and then they just easily dropped the whole issue, then you have a much different view of human nature than most.

BTW, the NCAA has more or less hinted that the investigation isn't necessarily over with. But of course, given the tenor of the conversation, that will mean Auburn could not have done any wrong because we haven't heard about anything else.

MWM

12-03-2010, 12:33 AM

This appears to be an isolated event between he and a booster at MSU and even then it didn't really mature much past initial conversations.

I think you're getting ahead of the facts here.

Why would Cam know? That can't be a serious statement. If so, it's definitely in the top 10 most ridiculous things I've ever read on RedsZone.

MWM

12-03-2010, 12:34 AM

I don't normally do this kind of thing, but you asked me to go read your comments throughout this thread, so I did. I got through the first 6 pages before I got tired. It seems like you weren't that opposed to getting ahead of the facts early on.

this is pretty much a non-story.

There is no connection between Rogers and the Newtons. There is no connection between Rogers and Auburn. Rogers actually approached someone on the periphery of MSU athletics-he's basically got little access to anything in this situation. The NCAA is not investigating Auburn's recruitment of Newton. Rogers has a history of misrepresenting his connections to players. These are the facts as of today.

I think it's absolutely true that Rogers tried to get MSU to agree to pay money. That said, I don't think Rogers was acting at the behest of the Newtons. It seems most likely that Rogers was probably hoping to go to them with cash to try to sway them to his camp given what is known about how Rogers has operated in the past and the lack of ties between Rogers, the Newtons and Auburn.

If Rogers was actually trusted by Newton Sr to solicit money from MSU and their relationship truly went as far back as Florida, would it make sense for Rogers to have no involvement in Cam's recruitment at other schools? How would Rogers know he was getting the best deal possible from MSU? We keep hearing supposition about highest bidders etc, well this would have to be the weirdest auction ever. Yet, there are no facts yet to suggest Rogers was interacting on Cam's behalf with other schools. Does it seem likely that the Newtons recruited contacts within the programs of every school that recruited Cam? We have no evidence to support that notion.

It's looking increasingly like Rogers is a virus in the MSU program and MSU isn't completely healthy.

jojo

12-03-2010, 08:09 AM

I think you're getting ahead of the facts here.

Why would Cam know? That can't be a serious statement. If so, it's definitely in the top 10 most ridiculous things I've ever read on RedsZone.

I think what i've said stops exactly at the facts. It's also where the NCAA stopped.

jojo

12-03-2010, 08:14 AM

Sea Ray

12-03-2010, 09:36 AM

The funny things is, the story that was reported about all this, which turned out to be TRUE in the eyes of the NCAA, said Cam Newton DID know and even told a few people he couldn't go to Mississippi St. because the "money was too much."

Yet, we're supposed to believe that even though the NCAA believed the father solicited money, those parts of the story aren't supported.

We may not have proof of it, but it sure doesn't pass the smell test.

It's all "he said, she said" until they see that money changed hands thus the ruling...

MWM

12-03-2010, 10:02 AM

With all due respect, MWM.....where were any of those comments gotcha moments?

That wasn't my intent... not my style. You asked me to go read through your comments in the thread as you were suggesting I was misrepresenting your opinions. I read through the first handful of pages and I was surprised to find that in the beginning you said this was a non-story. Then you pretty definitively declared that there was no connection between Rogers and the Newtons. You seemed to be drawing conclusions ahead of the facts, something you've been very vocal about others doing.

Even so, the one thing I can't believe you're holding onto is any notion that Cam didn't know what was going on. That just seems so far outside the realm of possibility I can't believe you'd even bring it up.

jojo

12-03-2010, 10:47 AM

That wasn't my intent... not my style. You asked me to go read through your comments in the thread as you were suggesting I was misrepresenting your opinions.

I'd suggest you're still not characterizing my treatment of this issue accurately.

I read through the first handful of pages and I was surprised to find that in the beginning you said this was a non-story.

The NCAA has basically ruled that it's a non story. There aren't many rulings by the NCAA that are more innocuous than how this one came down.

My comment was in response to the notion that where there is smoke there is fire. Well, Smokey has moved on....

Then you pretty definitively declared that there was no connection between Rogers and the Newtons. You seemed to be drawing conclusions ahead of the facts, something you've been very vocal about others doing.

When it became clear with new facts that there was a connection between Rogers and Cecil, I modified my position. That's not being ahead of the facts. But you already know know this:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2296464&postcount=94

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86623&highlight=jojo&page=14

Even so, the one thing I can't believe you're holding onto is any notion that Cam didn't know what was going on. That just seems so far outside the realm of possibility I can't believe you'd even bring it up.

You've been pretty much off the mark on this story all along.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2296351&postcount=88

I'm not sure why you'd still be so certain about things that rely essentially completely upon supposition.

BTW, I haven't brought up what Cam knew, the NCAA ruled he didn't know.

MWM

12-03-2010, 12:15 PM

The NCAA has basically ruled that it's a non story.

Not really, they ruled insufficent evidence *at this time* based on a petition for Cam to be ruled eligible to play. It's not the final chapter.

When it became clear with new facts that there was a connection between Rogers and Cecil, I modified my position. That's not being ahead of the facts.

Actually, if that's not being ahead of the facts, I guess I don't understand what it means. You proclaimed without any disclaimers that there was no connection between Rogers and the Newtons. You drew a conclusion about the lack of relationship when evidence was still being gathered. How is that not being ahead of the facts?

You've been pretty much off the mark on this story all along.

That's the same conclusion reached by pretty much everyone in America without an Auburn diploma on their wall. I don't think it was off the mark, the NCAA was off the mark and I have a feeling this is far from over.

I'm not sure why you'd still be so certain about things that rely essentially completely upon supposition.

You mean like Rogers and the Newtons having no connection?

The much larger supposition is that Cam didn't know what his own father was doing behind closed doors. Believing Cam knew what was going on is called common sense. Believing he was in the dark is complete and total naivety.

BTW, I haven't brought up what Cam knew, the NCAA ruled he didn't know.

Well, not really. But you knew that. They ruled they don't have sufficient evidence to prove what he knew at this point, a difference you seem to not understand, or refuse to acknowledge.

But yes, you did bring up Cam and even stated that he didn't have any knowledge of the money talks.

Several things are becoming clearer with time. First, Cam had no knowledge of talks concerning money.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2298343&postcount=170

jojo

12-03-2010, 01:48 PM

Not really, they ruled insufficent evidence *at this time* based on a petition for Cam to be ruled eligible to play. It's not the final chapter.

The NCAA would not have ruled like they did if they even had a hint of something that contradicted their decision. The NCAA is not investigating Cam or Auburn. They've made a ruling concerning the impact of the Rogers' business on Cam's amateur status. The NCAA has further ruled that despite the violation, Cam is eligible at Auburn. Though their investigation of Rogers has not been officially closed, its tough to see the fertile direction continued investigation could pursue.

Actually, if that's not being ahead of the facts, I guess I don't understand what it means.

When it became clear with new facts that there was a connection between Rogers and Cecil, I modified my position. This is a bad thing?

That's the same conclusion reached by pretty much everyone in America without an Auburn diploma on their wall. I don't think it was off the mark, the NCAA was off the mark and I have a feeling this is far from over.

But that belief is built upon supposition. BTW, I don't have an Auburn diploma so my position does not suffer from such a bias even if it were true that Auburn grads were incapable of having unbiased opinions.

The much larger supposition is that Cam didn't know what his own father was doing behind closed doors. Believing Cam knew what was going on is called common sense. Believing he was in the dark is complete and total naivety.

At least you agree that the assertion that Cam knew what his father was doing behind close doors is supposition. Really though. It's common sense that sons know everything that their fathers do behind closed doors? I challenge that statement on the face of it...

Well, not really. But you knew that. They ruled they don't have sufficient evidence to prove what he knew at this point, a difference you seem to not understand, or refuse to acknowledge.

There was not evidence to support the assertion that Cam knew. That's really the peg you're hanging your hat on when asserting that Cam knew?

kaldaniels

12-03-2010, 04:37 PM

This thread reminds me of the Office showdown last night between Michael and Oscar. :D

Chip R

12-03-2010, 04:52 PM

This thread reminds me of the Office showdown last night between Michael and Oscar. :D

:lol:

MWM

12-03-2010, 09:26 PM

When it became clear with new facts that there was a connection between Rogers and Cecil, I modified my position. This is a bad thing?

It's not. It's a good thing. I never said it was a bad thing, but nice attempt to deflect from the reason I brought it up. You made a supposition (no relationship between Rogers and Newtons) that was ahead of the facts. When the facts came that could not be disputed, you modified your conclusion.

That's exactly what others are doing in this thread and you're accusing them of being ahead of the facts. When new facts materialize, I'm sure others would modify their conclusions. Again, you were willing to draw conclusions based on supposition and are now objecting when others do the same. The difference is that you're not in agreement with their conclusions.

It's common sense that sons know everything that their fathers do behind closed doors? I challenge that statement on the face of it...

jojo, you know as well as I that this is a textbook strawman. The sentence with a question mark, the one you're opposing, was never uttered by anyone. I know I never said it and I don't think anyone else did either.

Sons don't know *everything fathers do behind closed doors*, so we shouldn't use our rational faculties in this case to assume Cam knew? You're comparing THIS to knowing *everything* which you know is completely irrational. It's not like we're questioning whether or not Cam knew if his dad was buying a new TV or something. This wasn't just anything, but the most important thing in his life.

His dad working behind Cam's back without his knowledge and risking everything his son had worked for is not something many fathers are going to do on their own. Think about what this could have cost his son? And you think he'd do that without his son's knowing?

There was not evidence to support the assertion that Cam knew. That's really the peg you're hanging your hat on when asserting that Cam knew?

I'm perfectly comfortable hanging my hat on that peg. It's the peg of common sense. Sometimes employing rational thought is all it takes when it's something this obvious.

I mean, honestly, what kind of evidence could there be to prove someone had knowledge of something? You're hanging your hat on a peg that would suggest a son would have no knowledge of his own father would be asking for a couple hundred thousand dollars for HIS signature on a letter of intent. That's the position that requires supposition and massive leaps of faith, IMO.

This is really a pointless exercise, to be honest. I've gotta believe this has become sport for you as opposed to you really believing what you're putting forth.

jojo

12-04-2010, 08:29 AM

It's not. It's a good thing. I never said it was a bad thing, but nice attempt to deflect from the reason I brought it up. You made a supposition (no relationship between Rogers and Newtons) that was ahead of the facts. When the facts came that could not be disputed, you modified your conclusion.

There is a big difference between these scenarios:
1) Maintaining there was no link between two people and modifying that statement when new facts are uncovered and,

2) Having an opinion that is inconsistent with the known facts and the NCAA rulings on the situation because "final chapter has yet to be written".

That's exactly what others are doing in this thread and you're accusing them of being ahead of the facts.

There is a difference between concluding something based upon available facts and supposing a fact to be true when forming a conclusion. The latter approach tends to be very intractable to new facts....

When new facts materialize, I'm sure others would modify their conclusions.

I'll just let this comment dangle...

Again, you were willing to draw conclusions based on supposition and are now objecting when others do the same. The difference is that you're not in agreement with their conclusions.

My contribution to this thread can't be fairly characterized as drawing conclusions based upon supposition.

The difference is that after investigating these issues, the NCAA also doesn't agree with their conclusions.

jojo, you know as well as I that this is a textbook strawman. The sentence with a question mark, the one you're opposing, was never uttered by anyone. I know I never said it and I don't think anyone else did either.

It's not a strawman. It's a logical extension of your previous argument.

Sons don't know *everything fathers do behind closed doors*, so we shouldn't use our rational faculties in this case to assume Cam knew? You're comparing THIS to knowing *everything* which you know is completely irrational. It's not like we're questioning whether or not Cam knew if his dad was buying a new TV or something. This wasn't just anything, but the most important thing in his life.

His dad working behind Cam's back without his knowledge and risking everything his son had worked for is not something many fathers are going to do on their own. Think about what this could have cost his son? And you think he'd do that without his son's knowing?

His Father is a preacher. Why would the default position be that he'd tell his son about an unethical behavior that would make him look like a hypocrite and would be expected to damage the father-son relationship in a typical family situation and likely cause his wife to lose a great deal of respect for Cecil as well?

It's odd you'd argue that a father wouldn't tell his son about a new tv but with certainty would tell his son about a major transgression.

Cam is on record as praising Cecil as his role model for how a man should be and for the role Cecil played in helping him mature after the Florida stuff.

Considering the door is purposefully closed for a reason when "doing something behind closed doors", wouldn't that be the kind of information one would tend to continue to try and hide?

If I were Cam, i'd want to punch Cecil in the nose right about now...

I'm perfectly comfortable hanging my hat on that peg. It's the peg of common sense. Sometimes employing rational thought is all it takes when it's something this obvious.

You just eloquently argued that its irrational to assume a father would tell his son everything but then also argued that it's irrational to expect that Cecil wouldn't have told Cam THIS. There's a disconnect here... You can't have it both ways.

I mean, honestly, what kind of evidence could there be to prove someone had knowledge of something? You're hanging your hat on a peg that would suggest a son would have no knowledge of his own father would be asking for a couple hundred thousand dollars for HIS signature on a letter of intent. That's the position that requires supposition and massive leaps of faith, IMO.

We probably won't ever really know but there isn't any available evidence that Cam knew. And we know this-it would have been a central question in the NCAA's investigation. In the absence of contradictory evidence, they gave Cam the benefit of the doubt.

I have no insight into the Newton family dynamics but I sure as heck wouldn't tell my son. It would kill me to see the disappointment in my wife's eyes.

This is really a pointless exercise, to be honest. I've gotta believe this has become sport for you as opposed to you really believing what you're putting forth.

Guess intellectually dishonest can be added to the list of insults...

MWM

12-04-2010, 11:03 AM

Well, if you think that's an insult, then that's your prerogative. But yes, intellectual dishonesty is no doubt very present in this thread from you. I'm moving on as this is pointless. It's like looking at a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle of the Eiffel Tower, but a few pieces are missing. Only you're sitting there telling everyone else that it's supposition to assume the puzzle is really the Eiffel Tower. It's one thing if one person is telling you you're crazy, it's something entirely different when everyone is doing so. You can believe you're the objective one if you want.

Sea Ray

12-04-2010, 11:45 AM

I'm moving on as this is pointless.

I think that's wise until more facts come to the surface and when they do, we'll see who judged this situation more clearly. This will sort itself out

jojo

12-04-2010, 11:47 AM

Brutus

12-09-2010, 05:55 PM

Cam speaks...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5903485

What stands out to me is this part of the article:

He said telling Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen, who had been an assistant at Florida when Newton went there two years prior, he would be going to Auburn was difficult and emotional. But Newton said he didn't tell Mullen or anybody else at Mississippi State that money was the reason he decided on Auburn, as ESPN reported on Nov. 9. He told Fowler: "I'm not here to talk about any reports."

"I called Coach Mullen," Newton said. "I told him what I had on my heart at the time. I talked to him and his wife. We had an excellent conversation. They wished me the best and I wished them the best."

He described the conversation as "emotional" but added: "I wouldn't have been able to go to sleep at night without me being able to say I called Coach Mullen."

So I guess this is another thing that shows the original reports were right about. The "phone call" that was made to "recruiters" was in fact actually made to the MSU coaches and not someone not affiliated with the university, as jojo tried to argue in post #105 of this thread.

It seems this report was 100% spot on the money. Cam is denying the comment about what he told the coaches, but he's got no choice at this point. Obviously he can't come out and admit it was true.

So we know the father did solicit money. We know all the original parties were telling the truth about the conversations. And we now know an emotional phone call did occur, just as the report suggested. It seems the reports were right on the money.

When the FBI investigation into individuals that have been tied to Auburn is complete, I imagine more things will come out. Hard to say how much will be about Cam, but something tells me we'll be discussing this again in a year or so.

Cedric

12-09-2010, 06:54 PM

Cam speaks...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5903485

What stands out to me is this part of the article:

So I guess this is another thing that shows the original reports were right about. The "phone call" that was made to "recruiters" was in fact actually made to the MSU coaches and not someone not affiliated with the university, as jojo tried to argue in post #105 of this thread.

It seems this report was 100% spot on the money. Cam is denying the comment about what he told the coaches, but he's got no choice at this point. Obviously he can't come out and admit it was true.

So we know the father did solicit money. We know all the original parties were telling the truth about the conversations. And we now know an emotional phone call did occur, just as the report suggested. It seems the reports were right on the money.

When the FBI investigation into individuals that have been tied to Auburn is complete, I imagine more things will come out. Hard to say how much will be about Cam, but something tells me we'll be discussing this again in a year or so.

It would take a HUGE leap of faith to believe that Cam Newton had zero idea his dad was shopping him. That's really the bottom line.

Really, who that isn't biased is going to believe in someone that was arrested at Florida, stole papers and also committed blatant plagiarism?

jojo

12-09-2010, 07:24 PM

So I guess this is another thing that shows the original reports were right about. The "phone call" that was made to "recruiters" was in fact actually made to the MSU coaches and not someone not affiliated with the university, as jojo tried to argue in post #105 of this thread.

It seems this report was 100% spot on the money. Cam is denying the comment about what he told the coaches, but he's got no choice at this point. Obviously he can't come out and admit it was true.

The report said that Cam called a recruiter and apologized for not committing to MSU because, "the money was too good". The original reports couldn't be further from the truth.Then consider that MSU's reports to the NCAA contained no statements that money was alluded to by Cam to any MSU officials and its mystifying that it could be argued that the original reports were spot on... Seriously. The quote above basically refutes assertions that Cam admitted knowledge. If the original reports were spot on, Cam would not be eligible to play. It's that simple.

So we know the father did solicit money. We know all the original parties were telling the truth about the conversations. And we now know an emotional phone call did occur, just as the report suggested. It seems the reports were right on the money.

What we know is that Cam did not discuss money with anyone involved in his recruitment and the NCAA has ruled to that effect on this issue after investigating Cam's recruitment. That's a central issue in the NCAA ruling that you're conveniently ignoring.

When the FBI investigation into individuals that have been tied to Auburn is complete, I imagine more things will come out. Hard to say how much will be about Cam, but something tells me we'll be discussing this again in a year or so.

The Newtons financials and those of Cecil's church have been went through with a fine toothed comb. Stoops indicated no solicitation was made to Oklahoma. All of the players in the Rogers freakshow to a man are on record as saying they have no knowledge of Cam's recruitment by other institutions. Cecil has apparently cooperated fully with the NCAA and they apparently believe his interactions with them during their investigation were in good faith. They don't generally except a single level of evidence so it's likely they have corroborated anything that Cecil has told them if it was at all possible. McGregor has not been tied to Auburn recruiting in any fashion despite the FBI having miles of taped conversations from him.

I have a feeling there won't be an audience for discussing such supposition in a year or so.

Brutus

12-09-2010, 07:44 PM

The report said that Cam called a recruiter and apologized for not committing to MSU because, "the money was too good". The original reports couldn't be further from the truth.Then consider that MSU's reports to the NCAA contained no statements that money was alluded to by Cam to any MSU officials and its mystifying that it could be argued that the original reports were spot on... Seriously. The quote above basically refutes assertions that Cam admitted knowledge. If the original reports were spot on, Cam would not be eligible to play. It's that simple.

"Recruiter" was "coach." I said that then and you tried debating that point. You were the only one that tried to suggest that was somehow code for rogue booster. Recruiter was a literal description of the people recruiting Cam--i.e. the Mississippi State coaching staff.

The only reason Cam is not eligible is because the father took the fall and covered up that his son knew about it. That's it. That's the only reason. The NCAA couldn't conclusively prove the knowledge, so they opted on the side of caution.

What we know is that Cam did not discuss money with anyone involved in his recruitment and the NCAA has ruled to that effect on this issue after investigating Cam's recruitment. That's a central issue in the NCAA ruling that you're conveniently ignoring.

No, we don't know that. The NCAA did not rule that either. They ruled that they didn't "have sufficient evidence at this time." Does that sound like a ringing endorsement? Does that sound like a statement that proves his innocence? The NCAA stopped way short of clearing Cameron on the matter. That seems to be what you're ignoring.

The Newtons financials and those of Cecil's church have been went through with a fine toothed comb. Stoops indicated no solicitation was made to Oklahoma. All of the players in the Rogers freakshow to a man are on record as saying they have no knowledge of Cam's recruitment by other institutions. Cecil has apparently cooperated fully with the NCAA and they apparently believe his interactions with them during their investigation were in good faith. They don't generally except a single level of evidence so it's likely they have corroborated anything that Cecil has told them if it was at all possible. McGregor has not been tied to Auburn recruiting in any fashion despite the FBI having miles of taped conversations from him.

I have a feeling there won't be an audience for discussing such supposition in a year or so.

You really think they handed over their financials? The lawyer's presence suggested the opposite... that they not self-incriminate. I guarantee you that no attorney advised they hand over financials. The NCAA is not an organization that has subpoena powers. If you think those documents were handed over, I don't know what to tell you.

The extent of his "cooperation" was telling the NCAA that he solicited money but covered for Cam saying he knew nothing about it. That was it. That was the extent of the cooperation. The onus was on the NCAA to prove the case, and they were struggling with any ability to prove it, so they decided to make a temporary ruling and wait on the FBI. And yes, the FBI is investigating other matters. I've heard this now from several people I trust that have connections in athletics.

Funny thing about this: not a single thing thus far that has been reported about Newton has been disproven. Nothing. Not a single aspect of the report has been disproven, proven to be wrong, mistaken, exaggerated or what have you. Several things, though, have actually been proven.

What does that tell you?

jojo

12-10-2010, 06:19 AM

"Recruiter" was "coach." I said that then and you tried debating that point. You were the only one that tried to suggest that was somehow code for rogue booster. Recruiter was a literal description of the people recruiting Cam--i.e. the Mississippi State coaching staff.

Then you have to accept that Cam never told a recruiter that the "money was too good" in an emotional phone call. You can't have it both ways.

The only reason Cam is not eligible is because the father took the fall and covered up that his son knew about it. That's it. That's the only reason. The NCAA couldn't conclusively prove the knowledge, so they opted on the side of caution.

Clearly your opinion is consistent with your opinion.

No, we don't know that. The NCAA did not rule that either. They ruled that they didn't "have sufficient evidence at this time." Does that sound like a ringing endorsement? Does that sound like a statement that proves his innocence? The NCAA stopped way short of clearing Cameron on the matter. That seems to be what you're ignoring.

The NCAA ruled him eligible without condition. As endorsements from the NCAA go, that's about the highest they offer. If the NCAA had any evidence to contradict that decision, the NCAA wouldn't have ruled as they did.

One can't argue on one hand that the NCAA is dogmatic and deliberate as part of an argument for why this wouldn't end well for Auburn and then also argue that the NCAA had reason to suspect guilt but decided not to pursue the evidence.

You really think they handed over their financials? The lawyer's presence suggested the opposite... that they not self-incriminate. I guarantee you that no attorney advised they hand over financials. The NCAA is not an organization that has subpoena powers. If you think those documents were handed over, I don't know what to tell you.

ESPN and the AP have widely reported that he had turned over those records to Auburn's compliance office and that Cecil cooperated fully with the NCAA during their investigation. It would appear that the NCAA agreed with Auburn's assessment of the financial info.

The extent of his "cooperation" was telling the NCAA that he solicited money but covered for Cam saying he knew nothing about it. That was it. That was the extent of the cooperation. The onus was on the NCAA to prove the case, and they were struggling with any ability to prove it, so they decided to make a temporary ruling and wait on the FBI. And yes, the FBI is investigating other matters. I've heard this now from several people I trust that have connections in athletics.

Brutus this is all pure supposition.

Funny thing about this:

The funny thing is that the very first point in the argument has been proven untrustworthy-i.e Cam didn't call a recruiter and admit he was paid to commit to Auburn.

What does the NCAA ruling tell me? Well after investigating, the NCAA's position is that the assertion that special benefits were agreed to, granted and received in return for Cam's commitment simply can't be supported by the facts.

BuckeyeRed27

12-10-2010, 12:52 PM

I listened to the Cam interview twice last night. He's guilty.

"I'm not here to talk about any reports." Cam Newton

"I'm not here to talk about the past." Mark McGwire

A whole bunch of evasive nonanswers to some very fair questions. Innocent people don't evade questions. They clear the air. They give specific examples. Guility people hide behind "that's a personal thing" and "I'm not here to talk about any reports".

The fact is nothing that has been said about Cam so far has been proven to be false. Now there are still some elements that haven't been proven yet, but that's a matter of when not if.

Brutus

12-10-2010, 04:12 PM

Then you have to accept that Cam never told a recruiter that the "money was too good" in an emotional phone call. You can't have it both ways.

You really think that the report had all of this correct -- the discussions with the father, the solicitation of money, even the fact an emotional phone call took place, yet don't believe the part about "the money" being too good? Who's the one that can't have it both ways? At this juncture, the fact all the other aspects of the story checked out, it's much easier to believe that he did make a confession than did not.

The NCAA ruled him eligible without condition. As endorsements from the NCAA go, that's about the highest they offer. If the NCAA had any evidence to contradict that decision, the NCAA wouldn't have ruled as they did.

One can't argue on one hand that the NCAA is dogmatic and deliberate as part of an argument for why this wouldn't end well for Auburn and then also argue that the NCAA had reason to suspect guilt but decided not to pursue the evidence.

The NCAA ruled him INELIGIBLE and then reinstated him without condition. There's a big, big difference there. Plus, they said he was eligible going forward. They also said the investigation was not over. I don't know why you're ignoring that aspect. As I said from the beginning, the NCAA would have dragged this out into a full investigation if it had not been for Auburn coming around. They did exactly as I said a university needed to do - found their athlete ineligible and handed it over to the NCAA, requesting reinstatement. If they had not finally done that, the NCAA would have kept on deliberating.

ESPN and the AP have widely reported that he had turned over those records to Auburn's compliance office and that Cecil cooperated fully with the NCAA during their investigation. It would appear that the NCAA agreed with Auburn's assessment of the financial info.

Link? I've seen what I believe to be all the AP/ESPN wire reports and I have not seen this anywhere in the reports.

Brutus this is all pure supposition.

You also called it supposition that:

* Cecil knew the MSU boosters
* Cecil had any conversations about money
* That the phone call was made to the MSU coaches

Among other things. It seems your best defense about anything in this case has been to call it supposition when you don't want to admit to the reality that it could be true.

The funny thing is that the very first point in the argument has been proven untrustworthy-i.e Cam didn't call a recruiter and admit he was paid to commit to Auburn.

What does the NCAA ruling tell me? Well after investigating, the NCAA's position is that the assertion that special benefits were agreed to, granted and received in return for Cam's commitment simply can't be supported by the facts.

He did call a recruiter in an emotional phone call, just as the report suggested he did. Another fact the original report was right on the money about. It was right on the money about the solicitation too.

So A) father solicits money, B) Cam chooses Auburn and makes emotional phone call to MSU coaches, then C) you totally disregard the logical third part of the story he confesses to money being too good.

Why? Because it doesn't fit within your image of Auburn possibly doing no wrong. Nevermind that the money could have been from boosters or anyone shady that is a fan of athletics. And nevermind that it's almost preposterous to not believe that would happen considering it happens every day at every major university.

But given everything this report was right about, it's kind of silly to pick one aspect of the story to continue believing wasn't actually true.

jojo

12-10-2010, 07:48 PM

You really think that the report had all of this correct -- the discussions with the father, the solicitation of money, even the fact an emotional phone call took place, yet don't believe the part about "the money" being too good? Who's the one that can't have it both ways? At this juncture, the fact all the other aspects of the story checked out, it's much easier to believe that he did make a confession than did not.

You seem to have argued in a previous post that the phone call in question was to Mullen. If the story about Cam admitting he went to Auburn because the money was too good was actually true, why didn't MSU inform the NCAA? It just doesn't make sense that Cam told Mullen or anyone on his staff that the "money was too much" given how the NCAA ruled. This would have been a central part of the investigation and Mullen wouldve been obligated to report such a conversation. Its a matter of record that he didnt.

The NCAA ruled him INELIGIBLE and then reinstated him without condition. There's a big, big difference there. Plus, they said he was eligible going forward.

Wrong. Auburn declared Cam ineligible and petitioned for Cam's reinstatement. The NCAA obliged by promptly ruling him eligible at Auburn without condition.

They also said the investigation was not over. I don't know why you're ignoring that aspect.

The NCAA has already ruled on the principle points of their investigation. They are not investigating Auburn's recruitment of Cam. There has not been a letter of inquiry sent to Auburn. With the exception of trying to better define Rogers' proper label, what fertile avenue is left for the NCAA to pursue regarding this issue?

As I said from the beginning, the NCAA would have dragged this out into a full investigation if it had not been for Auburn coming around. They did exactly as I said a university needed to do - found their athlete ineligible and handed it over to the NCAA, requesting reinstatement. If they had not finally done that, the NCAA would have kept on deliberating.

The NCAA determined Cam's amateur status was violated during MSU's recruitment and they advised Auburn of this. They weren't then suspending deliberation waiting to see how Auburn would respond. They made their finding. Auburn declared Cma ineligible and the NCAA reinstated him without condition. This all happened within about 36 hours and the NCAA, SEC, and Auburn essentially coordinated their announcements which is very consistent with how the three organizations have worked together throughout this process. The NCAA ruling and its timing was the exact opposite of what you argued it would be. I'm not really sure what you're arguing at this point or frankly, why.

Link? I've seen what I believe to be all the AP/ESPN wire reports and I have not seen this anywhere in the reports.

Look harder.

You also called it supposition that:

* Cecil knew the MSU boosters
* Cecil had any conversations about money
* That the phone call was made to the MSU coaches

First, please reread this thread carefully. What I called supposition was concluding that the NCAA wouldn't make a ruling and end it in a timely fashion, this certainly wouldn't end well for Auburn, and that this situation would get even worse. Those conclusions were so far ahead of the facts that it's not surprising they were wrong. It's pure supposition that Auburn paid Cam. Frankly there is more reason to believe Auburn didn't than there is to believe Auburn did based upon what we know today.

Second, "the" phone call wasn't made to MSU coaches. The devil is in the details. Mullen would've been obligated to report such a phone call. He'd have no reason not to report it. Such a phone call was not reported to the NCAA. This is a matter of record.

Among other things. It seems your best defense about anything in this case has been to call it supposition when you don't want to admit to the reality that it could be true.

The NCAA has ruled and it wasn't consistent with your version.

He did call a recruiter in an emotional phone call, just as the report suggested he did. Another fact the original report was right on the money about. It was right on the money about the solicitation too.

So A) father solicits money, B) Cam chooses Auburn and makes emotional phone call to MSU coaches, then C) you totally disregard the logical third part of the story he confesses to money being too good.

No member of the MSU staff reported taking part in the conversation you're claiming happened. You've got to explain why that is so if you're going to keep making the argument that you're making. BTW, C does not logically follow and it's refuted by facts.

Why? Because it doesn't fit within your image of Auburn possibly doing no wrong. Nevermind that the money could have been from boosters or anyone shady that is a fan of athletics. And nevermind that it's almost preposterous to not believe that would happen considering it happens every day at every major university.

But given everything this report was right about, it's kind of silly to pick one aspect of the story to continue believing wasn't actually true.

Surely you can address my argument and make your point without calling me intellectually dishonest and biased? If not, please just shoot me PM and I can put you on ignore.

But really, the NCAA has ruled. Why don't you put this thread down for a few weeks?

Brutus

12-10-2010, 08:14 PM

You seem to have argued in a previous post that the phone call in question was to Mullen. If the story about Cam admitting he went to Auburn because the money was too good was actually true, why didn't MSU inform the NCAA? It just doesn't make sense that Cam told Mullen or anyone on his staff that the "money was too much" given how the NCAA ruled. This would have been a central part of the investigation and Mullen wouldve been obligated to report such a conversation. Its a matter of record that he didnt.

They did. They informed both the NCAA and SEC back in January. That's why the SEC knew about the case. But it was Mississippi State's word against Cam's.

Wrong. Auburn declared Cam ineligible and petitioned for Cam's reinstatement. The NCAA obliged by promptly ruling him eligible at Auburn without condition.

How is that wrong? He was ruled ineligible and had to be "reinstated." You can't reinstate someone that isn't eligible. The NCAA concluded a violation DID occur. They have said this in their public report. He WAS considered ineligible because he DID commit a violation. But because the NCAA could not find "sufficient evidence" that Auburn or Cam knew about the violation, he was reinstated without condition. You're arguing semantics but bottom line: a violation did occur in the eyes of the NCAA and he was ineligible to compete. But no punishment was made and he was reinstated because of grounds of sufficient evidence.

Auburn is already aware of the situation. The NCAA continues to investigate until a final ruling is made on the matter. The NCAA spokesperson said this in an interview last week. The reinstatement of an athlete does not mean the case is closed.

[quoteThe NCAA determined Cam's amateur status was violated during MSU's recruitment and they advised Auburn of this. They weren't then suspending deliberation waiting to see how Auburn would respond. They made their finding. Auburn declared Cma ineligible and the NCAA reinstated him without condition. This all happened within about 36 hours and the NCAA, SEC, and Auburn essentially coordinated their announcements which is very consistent with how the three organizations have worked together throughout this process. The NCAA ruling and its timing was the exact opposite of what you argued it would be. I'm not really sure what you're arguing at this point or frankly, why.

You know, I give up. I'd adivse you brush up on NCAA policy, because it doesn't go down as you're suggesting. Everyone in this thread familiar with how they operate has told you that and you are refusing to acknowledge it. I know literally 3 people that do this for a living. They work with the NCAA on a daily basis and I'm sitting here occupying my time debating this with someone that has their mind made up about how things work, because it's most convenient a narrative.

Look harder.

How about providing a link? That's your customary response. So I'm asking you provide a link.

First, please reread this thread carefully. What I called supposition was concluding that the NCAA wouldn't make a ruling and end it in a timely fashion, this certainly wouldn't end well for Auburn, and that this situation would get even worse. Those conclusions were so far ahead of the facts that it's not surprising they were wrong. It's pure supposition that Auburn paid Cam. Frankly there is more reason to believe Auburn didn't than there is to believe Auburn did based upon what we know today.

Second, "the" phone call wasn't made to MSU coaches. The devil is in the details. Mullen would've been obligated to report such a phone call. He'd have no reason not to report it. Such a phone call was not reported to the NCAA. This is a matter of record.

That's funny since Cam just admitted the emotional phone call in the report DID occcur to the MSU coaches.

No member of the MSU staff reported taking part in the conversation you're claiming happened. You've got to explain why that is so if you're going to keep making the argument that you're making. BTW, C does not logically follow and it's refuted by facts.

Sure they didn't. So why were they the ones to report this matter in the first place if they didn't have something to report?

What was refuted? There have been NO FACTS refuting any of this. Only stubborn denial.

Surely you can address my argument and make your point without calling me intellectually dishonest and biased? If not, please just shoot me PM and I can put you on ignore.

But really, the NCAA has ruled. Why don't you put this thread down for a few weeks?

Oh come now. You're clever with your words and liberally, often in a subtle manner, have engaged with people in similar fashion many times in the past. Stop playing the "take it to PM" game every time someone calls you out on something they don't believe to be true. It's just a diversion.

Heck, in post #320 of this thread, your insinuated myself and others were biased. In post #281 of this thread you said, "The thing about this is that an opinion that was characterized as blindly biased, lacking credibility, intellectually dishonest, and derived from a lack of understanding concerning how the NCAA works was in fact dead on in its assessment."

So really, let's drop the whole personal attack card since you've been equally implicit in the comments regarding bias and intellectual dishonesty. You've been a willing participant in that sort of meta commentary.

I believe you're biased about this. That's not really an attack, just a synopsis on your position. It's tangent to this discussion. If that really strikes you as a personal attack, then just ignore me or stop responding. I don't feel it's PM worthy or any sort of attack. Has nothing to do with you personally, just your stance on this. There's really nothing to take private.

If you want to ignore me because I think you're biased on this issue, do so. But telling someone you're going to ignore them publicly is doing just what you are criticizing.

Like I said: it's not personal, but your feelings seem to be clouding your judgment.

jojo

12-10-2010, 09:05 PM

They did. They informed both the NCAA and SEC back in January. That's why the SEC knew about the case. But it was Mississippi State's word against Cam's.

They absolutely did not report that Cam made statements to a member of the MSU staff that would indicate Auburn paid him for his commitment.

How is that wrong? He was ruled ineligible and had to be "reinstated." You can't reinstate someone that isn't eligible. The NCAA concluded a violation DID occur. They have said this in their public report. He WAS considered ineligible because he DID commit a violation. But because the NCAA could not find "sufficient evidence" that Auburn or Cam knew about the violation, he was reinstated without condition. You're arguing semantics but bottom line: a violation did occur in the eyes of the NCAA and he was ineligible to compete. But no punishment was made and he was reinstated because of grounds of sufficient evidence.

It's not semantics to correct the erroneous statement that the NCAA declared Cam ineligible. You've lectured others on procedure.

Auburn is already aware of the situation. The NCAA continues to investigate until a final ruling is made on the matter. The NCAA spokesperson said this in an interview last week. The reinstatement of an athlete does not mean the case is closed.

The NCAA is not investigating Auburn or it's recruitment of Cam. No one said the investigation of MSU's recruitment of Cam is officially closed. But again, what fertile avenue of investigation is left for the NCAA regarding their investigation of MSU's recruitment of Cam?

You know, I give up. I'd adivse you brush up on NCAA policy, because it doesn't go down as you're suggesting. Everyone in this thread familiar with how they operate has told you that and you are refusing to acknowledge it. I know literally 3 people that do this for a living. They work with the NCAA on a daily basis and I'm sitting here occupying my time debating this with someone that has their mind made up about how things work, because it's most convenient a narrative.

Stop it. Where has my "convenient narrative" in the above quote deviated from how the NCAA, the SEC, and Auburn have interacted and conducted their business during this story? Skip the platitudes and point out specifics.

How about providing a link? That's your customary response. So I'm asking you provide a link.

Frankly Brutus YOU need to do some homework regarding your premises.

That's funny since Cam just admitted the emotional phone call in the report DID occcur to the MSU coaches.

Clearly Brutus the content of the phone call is what is being discussed.

Sure they didn't. So why were they the ones to report this matter in the first place if they didn't have something to report?

What was refuted? There have been NO FACTS refuting any of this. Only stubborn denial.

Brutus, MSU did not report a conversation with Cam where he admitted being paid for his commitment. Again, this is clearly the point that is being discussed and it's a matter of record.

Oh come now. You're clever with your words and liberally, often in a subtle manner, have engaged with people in similar fashion many times in the past. Stop playing the "take it to PM" game every time someone calls you out on something they don't believe to be true. It's just a diversion.

Heck, in post #320 of this thread, your insinuated myself and others were biased. In post #281 of this thread you said, "The thing about this is that an opinion that was characterized as blindly biased, lacking credibility, intellectually dishonest, and derived from a lack of understanding concerning how the NCAA works was in fact dead on in its assessment."

So really, let's drop the whole personal attack card since you've been equally implicit in the comments regarding bias and intellectual dishonesty. You've been a willing participant in that sort of meta commentary.

I believe you're biased about this. That's not really an attack, just a synopsis on your position. It's tangent to this discussion. If that really strikes you as a personal attack, then just ignore me or stop responding. I don't feel it's PM worthy or any sort of attack. Has nothing to do with you personally, just your stance on this. There's really nothing to take private.

If you want to ignore me because I think you're biased on this issue, do so. But telling someone you're going to ignore them publicly is doing just what you are criticizing.

Like I said: it's not personal, but your feelings seem to be clouding your judgment.

And ignore.....

BuckeyeRed27

12-10-2010, 10:26 PM

Jojo I have a question. In your mind given what we know do you think it is possible that Cam Newton took money to play football at Auburn? Simple yes or no.

jojo

12-11-2010, 08:22 AM

Jojo I have a question. In your mind given what we know do you think it is possible that Cam Newton took money to play football at Auburn? Simple yes or no.

Of course it's possible. It's possible that Ohio State paid Herron or Pryor. Anything is possible. Given what happened during MSU's recruitment of Cam I think its legitimate for someone to wonder (note that wonder is not the same thing as argue/conclude) if Cam's recruitment at other institutions may have been problematic. That said, nothing about the Auburn and OU efforts suggest there were improprieties.

Do I think Auburn paid him? No. Do I think the default position should be that they paid him? No. Do I think there should be evidence before that position (Auburn paid him) is argued. Yes. Is there evidence to suggest Auburn paid Cam? No. Does this make me biased or intellectually dishonest and thus incapable of actually rationally thinking or discussing the issue? No.

Cedric

12-11-2010, 09:27 AM

ESPN headline says "Cam Newton not disappointed in father."

Why in the world would he be disappointed? His dad just made a truckload of money, he still wins the Heisman, and now there are no repercussions at all.

He is a clever, street smart/criminal. He is extremely PROUD of his dad for pulling this off. You can tell that by the glowing look in his eye when he explains how great his dad is.

Everything is roses for Cam Newton at this point.

Razor Shines

12-11-2010, 03:48 PM

What's funny is reading the title when this all started; would any of us have believed that if even half of the thread title were proven to be true Cam would still be allowed to play?

YouTube - Seinfeld "Not Bloody Likely" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu5ZjfQje9o)

OnBaseMachine

12-11-2010, 09:14 PM

Newton's Heisman is gonna look nice in his Dad's new $180K trophy case.

http://twitter.com/SklarBrothers

LOL

Brutus

12-11-2010, 09:56 PM

He forgot to thank the Auburn boosters :D

"My parents do a lot behind the scenes that go unnoticed."

Talk about your freudian slip of the century.

MWM

12-11-2010, 11:27 PM

Roy Tucker

12-12-2010, 01:01 AM

traderumor

12-12-2010, 07:06 PM

This is the first time I've ever been truly disappointed at the Heisman winner. He embodies all that is wrong with collegiate sports. He got over on everyone, we all know it, but no smoking gun means he got away with it.The law of sowing and reaping tends to work these things out over time. The character flaws of all involved did not go anywhere. The truth will come out eventually. When Auburn starts vacating championships and awards years later, the guilty will get the backlash they deserve.

MWM

12-12-2010, 08:35 PM

Slyder

12-12-2010, 08:35 PM

The law of sowing and reaping tends to work these things out over time. The character flaws of all involved did not go anywhere. The truth will come out eventually. When Auburn starts vacating championships and awards years later, the guilty will get the backlash they deserve.

No those left behind will reap what others sowed. Ask USC.

RedFanAlways1966

12-13-2010, 08:42 AM

For those that are coming from the angle of "guilty until proven innocent", what should the NCAA have done in awarding the Heisman this year?

Chip R

12-13-2010, 11:22 AM

For those that are coming from the angle of "guilty until proven innocent", what should the NCAA have done in awarding the Heisman this year?

Nothing. The only thing the NCAA has to do with the Heisman is supply the pool of players to choose from. It's not their award. Even if there were video of Cam Newton being handed money by the president of Auburn University there's nothing they can do short of declaring him ineligible. Then it's up to the media to decide whether Newton should get the award or not.

traderumor

12-14-2010, 07:15 PM

That may be true, but I highly doubt Reggie Bush really cares all that much about the backlash. Certainly his character is tarnished, but guys like Bush and Newton are generally people who don't really value this much.Everyone has to put their head on the pillow at night. People also generally care about what others think of them. The moral imperative is a stronger force than a lot of folks think. It is always on the radar, even if folks are doing all they can to suppress it. Finally, there is the day of reckoning.

jojo

12-15-2010, 05:32 PM

Everyone has to put their head on the pillow at night. People also generally care about what others think of them. The moral imperative is a stronger force than a lot of folks think. It is always on the radar, even if folks are doing all they can to suppress it. Finally, there is the day of reckoning.

What is the pox on Cam's soul that that is pulling him helplessly into the swirling vortex of a blackhole of pillowless insomnia?

NCAA president Mark Emmert probably wonders too based upon this quote (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5921518):

"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."

The day of reckoning depends upon the devil that is in the details....

Brutus

12-15-2010, 09:45 PM

I'm still amazed at the mistaking of the phrase "no evidence" being conflated with the concept of being exonerated.

The NCAA ruling simply wasn't an acquittal. It was simply an acknowledgment that there was not enough evidence right now to conclude anything more concrete regarding his current eligibility.

WMR

12-17-2010, 04:24 PM

http://i54.tinypic.com/2uqdt10.jpg

jojo

12-17-2010, 06:08 PM

What’s the No. 1 thing Cam Newton would do with his $200 appearance fee from the David Letterman Show?

Donate it to Wrights Mill Road Elementary School, the place at which he’s been volunteering since the summer. (http://www2.oanow.com/sports/2010/dec/15/newton-donates-letterman-appearance-fee-wrights-mi-ar-1227861/?referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fl.php%3Fu %3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Foanow.com%2Far%2F1227861%2F&h=e8b0e&site=oanow.com&type=R&plugin=R&social=false&pos=1%2F3&signature&api_key=348943062153&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.oanow.com%2Fnews%2F2010 %2Fdec%2F10%2F4%2Ftrooper-taylors-son-sues-school-system-over-hairst-ar-1208412%2F&cb=2&shorturl=http%3A%2F%2Foanow.com%2Far%2F1227861%2F)

http://www2.oanow.com/mgmedia/image/294/0/190870/cam-newton-david-letterman/

MWM

12-17-2010, 06:40 PM

Well, I guess we were all wrong about Cam. What a humanitarian! Donating an entire $200 without any publicity attached to it. What's next, the Nobel Prize?

jojo

12-17-2010, 06:47 PM

Funny thing about perspective.... I read that and thought wow, he donated his time almost from the the time he arrived on campus-well before he was "famous"-and time is the most precious thing any of us have...

Publicity attached? The Opelika-Auburn News isn't exactly nationally circulated...

Brutus

12-17-2010, 11:23 PM

Well, I guess we were all wrong about Cam. What a humanitarian! Donating an entire $200 without any publicity attached to it. What's next, the Nobel Prize?

I guess the family attorney and PR people have been doing a good job with him. Public image fix 101 right there.

I'm all for humanitarian gestures. But man is that transparent.

MWM

12-17-2010, 11:41 PM

I guess the family attorney and PR people have been doing a good job with him. Public image fix 101 right there.

I'm all for humanitarian gestures. But man is that transparent.

You must be mistaken. There's absolutely no evidence that this was nothing other than pure altruism from the very pure St. Newton. That should be the default hypothesis.

jojo

12-18-2010, 12:13 AM

You must be mistaken. There's absolutely no evidence that this was nothing other than pure altruism from the very pure St. Newton. That should be the default hypothesis.

He began volunteering at Wright's Mill before he even took a snap in an Auburn uni. The default should always be that facts are important and continually ignoring them is a tell.

Brutus

12-18-2010, 01:54 AM

You must be mistaken. There's absolutely no evidence that this was nothing other than pure altruism from the very pure St. Newton. That should be the default hypothesis.

What's hilarious about this, not that he donated $200 to a charity, but that he wasn't even allowed to keep it by NCAA rules, yet some would use this to suggest it's a humanitarian gesture. How can it be humanitarian to donate something he wasn't allowed to keep?

gonelong

12-18-2010, 10:07 AM

That's not a bad place for $200 to go no matter how it gets there. Donating your time is many times more important in many cases, than donating your money.

GL

OnBaseMachine

12-18-2010, 10:48 PM

$200 is pocket change when you're making $180,000 a year.

traderumor

12-19-2010, 10:35 PM

What is the pox on Cam's soul that that is pulling him helplessly into the swirling vortex of a blackhole of pillowless insomnia?

NCAA president Mark Emmert probably wonders too based upon this quote (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5921518):

The day of reckoning depends upon the devil that is in the details....I wouldn't hitch my wagon to that horse, but that's just me.

Cedric

12-21-2010, 05:27 PM

It doesn't just happen at Auburn guys.. That whole league is a joke.

Alabama is completely renovating a field and locker room of a Florida High school.. And of course they are recruiting two kids from that school this year.

It's kinda funny how blatant they act down there. It's only going to get worse now that they know the NCAA will not do anything to them.

RedFanAlways1966

12-22-2010, 08:34 AM

It doesn't just happen at Auburn guys.. That whole league is a joke.

Note: I am not at all an SEC fan.

It just doesn't happen in the SEC guys... it happens in a lot of places. I will not say it happens at every school, but you'd have to be very naive to think it does not happen at most DI schools. How much it happens and how much money/benefits might differ from school to school or conference to conference.

I am a huge Buckeyes fan. Does it happen there? Of course it does. Do I have proof? No, but I also believe man landed on the moon (despite having no real proof). Maurice Clarett had a rental car when his trouble started (but no job). OK.

Feel free to lash out at the SEC. I believe it is true. But lets not pretend it does not happen in other conferences/schools. How much and how bad? Got me, but I'd guess most large conferences have lots of it going on at their respective schools. I like to think that coaches try to prevent it, but it is too much for them to control (boosters, corporations, etc).

Cedric

12-22-2010, 08:55 AM

Note: I am not at all an SEC fan.

It just doesn't happen in the SEC guys... it happens in a lot of places. I will not say it happens at every school, but you'd have to be very naive to think it does not happen at most DI schools. How much it happens and how much money/benefits might differ from school to school or conference to conference.

I am a huge Buckeyes fan. Does it happen there? Of course it does. Do I have proof? No, but I also believe man landed on the moon (despite having no real proof). Maurice Clarett had a rental car when his trouble started (but no job). OK.

Feel free to lash out at the SEC. I believe it is true. But lets not pretend it does not happen in other conferences/schools. How much and how bad? Got me, but I'd guess most large conferences have lots of it going on at their respective schools. I like to think that coaches try to prevent it, but it is too much for them to control (boosters, corporations, etc).

Of course it happens in other conferences on some level. I'm more speaking of the survival of the fittest atmosphere in the South. It's a pro league down there and if you don't cheat you really can't compete, IMO.

westofyou

12-22-2010, 09:55 AM

OSU spends more money on their football program (35 millions a year) then any other school in America.

MWM

12-22-2010, 10:57 AM

Hoosier Red

12-22-2010, 12:41 PM

I don't know about all that other stuff, but the one area I do have a problem with the SEC and recruiting is their abuse of the oversigning practice. This creates a significant advantage for the schools who actually participate in it.

I thought they had capped that to like 5 per team. Really, expecting 5 players to either transfer or leave for the NFL per year is not out of line in my opinion.
I think its admirable that Jim Tressel(IIRC) doesn't engage in this behavior, but the reality is that Ohio State can account for players leaving early by poaching other schools "verbal committments."

While SEC schools also do this, I'm not sure stopping at the number of scholarships available would fix any of the abuses.

The whole concept of "oversigning" is one that is fine so long as a coach is upfront and honest with the player being recruited and upfront and honest with the player who's still on the roster. If a guy is a 3rd string Offensive Lineman as a sophomore, and there's a class of players which will probably push the player further down the depth chart, I don't think there's anything wrong with a coach being square with the kid and saying, "Look it's your choice, but you're not going to see playing time unless you dramatically improve. If you transferred this year, you'd still have two years to make your mark on a program."

The problem of course is that coaches are rarely honest, they hope that 5 guys will make the decision by themselves and the numbers will sort themselves out. And of course they usually get away with it because 5 guys(or more) will probably make the decision on their own, and the numbers probably will work out, and if the numbers don't work out than its a player being screwed and not the coach.

jojo

12-22-2010, 01:00 PM

I thought they had capped that to like 5 per team. Really, expecting 5 players to either transfer or leave for the NFL per year is not out of line in my opinion.
I think its admirable that Jim Tressel(IIRC) doesn't engage in this behavior, but the reality is that Ohio State can account for players leaving early by poaching other schools "verbal committments."

While SEC schools also do this, I'm not sure stopping at the number of scholarships available would fix any of the abuses.

The whole concept of "oversigning" is one that is fine so long as a coach is upfront and honest with the player being recruited and upfront and honest with the player who's still on the roster. If a guy is a 3rd string Offensive Lineman as a sophomore, and there's a class of players which will probably push the player further down the depth chart, I don't think there's anything wrong with a coach being square with the kid and saying, "Look it's your choice, but you're not going to see playing time unless you dramatically improve. If you transferred this year, you'd still have two years to make your mark on a program."

The problem of course is that coaches are rarely honest, they hope that 5 guys will make the decision by themselves and the numbers will sort themselves out. And of course they usually get away with it because 5 guys(or more) will probably make the decision on their own, and the numbers probably will work out, and if the numbers don't work out than its a player being screwed and not the coach.

There can be 85 total on the roster and the max any SEC team can sign per year is 28.

I think it's an open question concerning whether over signing gives a conference the significant advantage that has been argued in this thread. For instance, the Big East has consistently over signed significantly more than the the Big Ten during 2002-2010 yet the Big East isn't really dominating the Big Ten is it? Teams like Texas and OSU tend to over sign less than other schools and they don't really seem to suffer.

To me it's more an ethical issue concerning the fair treatment of student athletes.

gonelong

12-22-2010, 01:28 PM

I think it's an open question concerning whether over signing gives a conference the significant advantage that has been argued in this thread.

Say 1/2 the teams can get top talent, that is 6x5=30 players a year the top 1/2 of the SEC gets that many other leagues do not pursue. Thats 120 players on SEC rosters over 4 years (and you have Redshirts, etc.).

That is a huge difference, and most decidedly significant. Especially when you consider they are replacing guys that have often been injured and aren't 100%. These guys are still on the rosters in other conferences.

To me it's more an ethical issue concerning the fair treatment of student athletes.

Frankly, I wouldn't have much of an issue with it if the players retained the financial backing to complete their degree and the rules were at least similar from conference to conference.

GL

Brutus

01-14-2011, 04:49 AM

Cam Newton filed for free agency today after announcing he will not pick up his option on the 4-year, $180,000 deal with Auburn.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6019964

RedsBaron

01-14-2011, 07:54 AM

Cam Newton filed for free agency today after announcing he will not pick up his option on the 4-year, $180,000 deal with Auburn.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6019964
In a few months some NFL team is going to make Newton very rich. Whether or not he ultimately is a successful NFL QB is another question.

RedFanAlways1966

01-14-2011, 08:10 AM

Cam Newton filed for free agency today after announcing he will not pick up his option on the 4-year, $180,000 deal with Auburn.

I'll keep it going (just havin' fun people!)...

* Perhaps the Newton family church can now afford those real pearly gates at the church entrance instead of those imitation ones that the measly $180K bought?
* Good to see Daddy Newton can once again attend his son's games.
* Hopefully Daddy Newton will not try to be his agent... the 1st attempt did not work so well.
* Good to see Cam will not have to worry about academics to stay eligible to play... oh wait, he went to Auburn.
* I wonder if Cam will continue what he started in college... 3 NFL teams in 3 years?
* I hope the team that drafts him has locks on their laptop computers in their training facility.

And finally...
* Auburn would like to present the "2010 Rudi Johnson award to Cam Newton". Thanks for stopping by for a few months to get a college education.

BuckeyeRed27

01-14-2011, 01:11 PM

So will he be Michael Vick, Vince Young, or Akili Smith? Not enough information on Tebow yet to make that comparison.

Slyder

01-14-2011, 01:39 PM

I think Culpepper might be a better comparision and we saw what he was without Moss.

MWM

01-14-2011, 02:13 PM

I think Young is a good comp. They were almost identical in their games. Newton is such a good athlete you can never count him out. So much of his game is running and there's yet to be a runner of his style that's been able to translate that into consistent NFL success.

Vick is much different than the others because his running style is much more like a running back, with quick cuts and acceleration. Guys like Vince Young and Newton, are much more open field runners and you just don't get in the open field much as an NFL QB. His outlook is all about whether or not he can be a good passer in the pocket. He didn't show a whole lot either way on that. That offense didn't require him to make the types of passes you have to make to be a good NFL QB. I think he'll be a project for whoever drafts him, and I wouldn't want to be the fan of a team who spends a high pick on him. I also think there are real character issues with this guy beneath the surface of his big smile he puts on for the cameras.

nmculbreth

01-14-2011, 02:24 PM

So will he be Michael Vick, Vince Young, or Akili Smith? Not enough information on Tebow yet to make that comparison.

I don't think any of the above are a particularly fair comparison.

He's certainly not going to be like Michael Vick. He isn't nearly as explosive of an athlete as Vick and he's got about six inches and forty pounds on Vick. While Vick can make plays with his feet, I see Newton being more of a guy who uses his athletic ability to avoid pressure and keep plays alive.

Similarly I don't see him being Vince Young. They're about the same height but Cam is significantly heavier and IMHO has a better arm / throwing mechanics. They did come from a similar college offense so I could see Newton going through a similar learning curve (struggles) but I think Cam is a better pro prospect than Young was.

Physically speaking he reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger. Whether or not he's able to become anywhere near as good of a QB remains to be seen but I think the physical tools are there to be a successful QB at some point in the future. The real question is how well he'll transition to the pro-style offense and whether or not he's got the ability to read coverage and react to complex defenses. He's certainly a bit of a project but I think he has the potential to be a good pro QB.

jojo

01-14-2011, 02:27 PM

I don't think any of the above are a particularly fair comparison.

He's certainly not going to be like Michael Vick. He isn't nearly as explosive of an athlete as Vick and he's got about six inches and forty inches on Vick. While Vick can make plays with his feet, I see Newton being more of a guy who uses his athletic ability to avoid pressure and keep plays alive.

Similarly I don't see him being Vince Young. They're about the same height but Cam is significantly heavier and IMHO has a better arm / throwing mechanics. They did come from a similar college offense so I could see Newton going through a similar learning curve (struggles) but I think Cam is a better pro prospect than Young was.

Physically speaking he reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger. Whether or not he's able to become anywhere near as good of a QB remains to be seen but I think the physical tools are there to be a successful QB at some point in the future. The real question is how well he'll transition to the pro-style offense and whether or not he's got the ability to read coverage and react to complex defenses. He's certainly a bit of a project but I think he has the potential to be a good pro QB.

This is pretty much spot on IMHO. He could've used another 14 starts in that regard.

RedsBaron

01-14-2011, 02:41 PM

This is pretty much spot on IMHO. He could've used another 14 starts in that regard.

That's an issue that would concern me. Akili Smith, Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf--there have been quite a few college QBs with limited playing experience who washed out as pro QBs.

BuckeyeRed27

01-14-2011, 03:16 PM

nmculbreth

01-14-2011, 03:54 PM

Just for comparison sake:

Newton 2010: 2854 Passing Yards 66% Completion 30-7 1473 Rush Yards 20TD

V. Young 2005: 3036 Passing Yards 65% Completion 26-10 1050 Rush Yards 12 TD

J. Russell 2006: 3129 Passing Yards 67% Completion 28-8 142 Rush Yards 1 TD

A. Smith 1998: 3763 Passing Yards 58% Completion 30-7 184 Rush Yards 4 TD

Roethlisberger 2003: 4486 Passing Yards 69% Completion 37-10 111 Rush Yards 3 TD

I'm not sure how these stats are particularly relevant to the discussion about what type of NFL quarterback that Cam Newton will be. The fact that Auburn and Texas ran a similar offense and Young and Newton ended up with similar numbers doesn't mean that they have identical skill sets. Conversely the fact that Auburn and Miami ran very different offenses doesn't mean that Roethlisberger and Newton don't have similar skill sets.

BuckeyeRed27

01-14-2011, 04:35 PM

I'm not sure how these stats are particularly relevant to the discussion about what type of NFL quarterback that Cam Newton will be. The fact that Auburn and Texas ran a similar offense and Young and Newton ended up with similar numbers doesn't mean that they have identical skill sets. Conversely the fact that Auburn and Miami ran very different offenses doesn't mean that Roethlisberger and Newton don't have similar skill sets.

I guess in some ways that was my point. There are differences there, but in many ways those stats are very similar and all of those QBs have or had different levels of NFL success.

I guess what sticks out to me most is how many more yards Newton ran for. Now that is obviously based around his offense, but a big knock on Vince Young has been his adjustment from a run first to a pass first QB. Vick had the same knock too early on before his "troubles". That is where I don't like the Roethlisberger comparison because he never had to overcome that.

Brutus

01-14-2011, 07:01 PM

I guess in some ways that was my point. There are differences there, but in many ways those stats are very similar and all of those QBs have or had different levels of NFL success.

I guess what sticks out to me most is how many more yards Newton ran for. Now that is obviously based around his offense, but a big knock on Vince Young has been his adjustment from a run first to a pass first QB. Vick had the same knock too early on before his "troubles". That is where I don't like the Roethlisberger comparison because he never had to overcome that.

I do actually think Newton is a better passing QB than many of the names mentioned. I think Culpepper is the most apt NFL comparison, though Newton is a better runner than Daunte was.

I don't know if Newton will ever be a star in the NFL, but I think he'll fare better than Young, Russell, Akili, etc.

jojo

01-14-2011, 07:30 PM

I guess in some ways that was my point. There are differences there, but in many ways those stats are very similar and all of those QBs have or had different levels of NFL success.

I guess what sticks out to me most is how many more yards Newton ran for. Now that is obviously based around his offense, but a big knock on Vince Young has been his adjustment from a run first to a pass first QB. Vick had the same knock too early on before his "troubles". That is where I don't like the Roethlisberger comparison because he never had to overcome that.

Newton really hasn't been a run first QB though and he has been very effective in the pocket. He had one of his poorer games against Oregon which might be coloring perspectives. I can't remember him missing that long ball like he did with Adams all season for instance.

jojo

06-16-2011, 01:46 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6665301

"We knew we had done nothing wrong during the recruiting process," Chizik wrote in "All In: What it Takes to Be the Best."

"If we'd had any level of concern regarding Cameron's eligibility, we would not have put him on the field and risked forfeiting games for playing an ineligible player," he wrote.

"My complaint comes when some individuals in the media engage in irresponsible journalism that destroys someone's reputation," the coach wrote. "It takes a long time to repair a reputation, and sometimes that damage is impossible to recover from. [COLOR="Red"]In this case there were a lot of assumptions being made and criticisms being spun out of those assumptions;"[[/SIZE]

Brutus

06-16-2011, 02:01 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6665301

LOL What on earth would a coach say? Isn't quoting this like quoting a denial from Bernie Madoff when he was being investigated?

You taking his word for it is as big an assumption as there is. This strong rhetoric just seems like a hardline defensive approach.

The fact is, money WAS solicited, something that the original report indicated. Since that report was given credibility, the rest is pretty safe to believe. It didn't yield anything to this point with the NCAA, but it's far from assumption. But I guess Chizik saying so makes it so? It should be pointed out, Chizik also once called the allegations of the solicitation "pure garbage." So he's already lost some credibility on the subject.

jojo

06-16-2011, 03:37 PM

My complaint comes when some individuals in the media engage in irresponsible journalism....

That's actually one of the fairest, most accurate characterizations of the media's handling of the investigation into MSU's recruitment into Cam and the arguments some have made that Auburn actually cheated despite zero evidence to support such a huge leap and the fact that the NCAA ruled that Cam was eligible to play at Auburn (essentially ruling that there was no reason to argue that Auburn's recruitment broke any rules).

In this case there were a lot of assumptions being made and criticisms being spun out of those assumptions

Again, that's actually one of the fairest, most accurate characterizations of the media's handling of the investigation into MSU's recruitment into Cam and the arguments some have made that Auburn actually cheated despite zero evidence to support such a huge leap and the fact that the NCAA ruled that Cam was eligible to play at Auburn (essentially ruling that there was no reason to argue that Auburn's recruitment broke any rules). In other words...those who so cavalierly sprinted ahead of the facts ended up being very wrong in their conclusions.

Sea Ray

06-16-2011, 03:56 PM

That's actually one of the fairest, most accurate characterizations of the media's handling of the investigation into MSU's recruitment into Cam and the arguments some have made that Auburn actually cheated despite zero evidence to support such a huge leap and the fact that the NCAA ruled that Cam was eligible to play at Auburn (essentially ruling that there was no reason to argue that Auburn's recruitment broke any rules).

Again, that's actually one of the fairest, most accurate characterizations of the media's handling of the investigation into MSU's recruitment into Cam and the arguments some have made that Auburn actually cheated despite zero evidence to support such a huge leap and the fact that the NCAA ruled that Cam was eligible to play at Auburn (essentially ruling that there was no reason to argue that Auburn's recruitment broke any rules). In other words...those who so cavalierly sprinted ahead of the facts ended up being very wrong in their conclusions.

You can say that again...:laugh:

Brutus

06-16-2011, 04:07 PM

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

06-16-2011, 09:36 PM

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

06-16-2011, 09:45 PM

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

jojo

06-16-2011, 09:50 PM

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

06-16-2011, 09:51 PM

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

06-16-2011, 10:33 PM

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 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5921518):

"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

06-16-2011, 11:23 PM

jojo

06-22-2011, 06:07 PM

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.

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

07-13-2011, 11:58 PM

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 (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/ncaas-investigation-of-auburn-isnt-over-yet.xml)

jojo

07-14-2011, 12:08 AM

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 (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/ncaas-investigation-of-auburn-isnt-over-yet.xml)

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

Slyder

07-14-2011, 12:38 AM

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

07-14-2011, 08:29 AM

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

07-20-2011, 04:33 PM

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/2011/07/ncaa_vice_president_for_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/2011/7/20/2285291/cam-newton-danny-sheridan-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

07-20-2011, 09:28 PM

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.

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

07-20-2011, 10:32 PM

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.

jojo

07-21-2011, 09:02 PM

Game-changing or not, if the NCAA thinks its' located the person that paid the Newtons, that's a big deal.

Well of course, if the NCAA proved a star player received special benefits, it would be a big deal…. If a large meteor hit Jordan-Hare stadium, it would be a big deal too.

There’s lots of ifs and little fact. Sheridan’s segment on Finebaum’s show had the feel of Tigerdroppings if it were broadcast on the radio.

Sheridan has already begun to backtrack as he’s said today that “bagman” was an inappropriate term and now his source has been clarified as a person or persons who know a person or persons inside the NCAA. We no longer even have a clue about the supposed orders of magnitude between the enforcement committee and the oddsmaker…. That’s right; this story is predicated upon the NCAA channeling information through an oddsmaker…

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.

Sheridan’s interview essentially posed this “new insight”: 1) The NCAA is investigating the possibility that Cecil was paid, 2) if an individual with explicit proof that Cecil was paid materializes and agrees to cooperate with the NCAA, Auburn would be in trouble, 3) If something like that doesn’t materialize within the next several months, the investigation would be over. This is new??????? This is even insightful? If what Sheridan implied were actually true (i.e. the NCAA has a bagman identified and not only knows how much was paid but explicitly knows how the payment was distributed amongst family members and Cecil's church), why hasn't Auburn received a LOI?

The context of the "SEC media day one" which was held in the heart of Bama country is this- Auburn was catapulted into the national championship game in large part because the Tigers overcame a 24 point deficit to beat Bama in the Iron Bowl (on national tv no less) ultimately winning (or in the eyes of many Bama fans, stealing) the championship season many Bama fans feel was rightfully ordained to Bama. A significant portion of the Bama fanbase can’t stomach that Auburn won a championship let alone Bama’s rightful championship especially given the way Auburn beat them in Tuscaloosa.

Why did Sheridan make lots of qualifiers? Sheridan made lots of qualifiers so that he and Finebaum could have a titillating conversation that pandered to the Bama fringe that drives Finebaum’s ratings. Sheridan spoke in sweeping generalities which make it virtually impossible for his story to be wrong. Five dollars and a fortune teller will buy one more specifics than a close examination of Sheridan’s comments reveals.

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.

Simply reread this thread carefully for content to see where the assertion in question has been shown to be factually wrong.

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.

Either the NCAA has a consistent policy that it doesn't comment upon ongoing investigations or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways especially when you’re arguing that when the NCAA does comment upon an investigation, they’d do so to an odds maker.

Contrary to your belief, if what Sheridan originally implied on the Finebaum show about his “source” had a shred of truth, it would be an absolutely huge issue thank frankly would be bigger then the Cam story.

Brutus

07-21-2011, 09:51 PM

Well of course, if the NCAA proved a star player received special benefits, it would be a big deal…. If a large meteor hit Jordan-Hare stadium, it would be a big deal too.

There’s lots of ifs and little fact. Sheridan’s segment on Finebaum’s show had the feel of Tigerdroppings if it were broadcast on the radio.

Sheridan has already begun to backtrack as he’s said today that “bagman” was an inappropriate term and now his source has been clarified as a person or persons who know a person or persons inside the NCAA. We no longer even have a clue about the supposed orders of magnitude between the enforcement committee and the oddsmaker…. That’s right; this story is predicated upon the NCAA channeling information through an oddsmaker…

Sheridan’s interview essentially posed this “new insight”: 1) The NCAA is investigating the possibility that Cecil was paid, 2) if an individual with explicit proof that Cecil was paid materializes and agrees to cooperate with the NCAA, Auburn would be in trouble, 3) If something like that doesn’t materialize within the next several months, the investigation would be over. This is new??????? This is even insightful? If what Sheridan implied were actually true (i.e. the NCAA has a bagman identified and not only knows how much was paid but explicitly knows how the payment was distributed amongst family members and Cecil's church), why hasn't Auburn received a LOI?

The context of the "SEC media day one" which was held in the heart of Bama country is this- Auburn was catapulted into the national championship game in large part because the Tigers overcame a 24 point deficit to beat Bama in the Iron Bowl (on national tv no less) ultimately winning (or in the eyes of many Bama fans, stealing) the championship season many Bama fans feel was rightfully ordained to Bama. A significant portion of the Bama fanbase can’t stomach that Auburn won a championship let alone Bama’s rightful championship especially given the way Auburn beat them in Tuscaloosa.

Why did Sheridan make lots of qualifiers? Sheridan made lots of qualifiers so that he and Finebaum could have a titillating conversation that pandered to the Bama fringe that drives Finebaum’s ratings. Sheridan spoke in sweeping generalities which make it virtually impossible for his story to be wrong. Five dollars and a fortune teller will buy one more specifics than a close examination of Sheridan’s comments reveals.

Simply reread this thread carefully for content to see where the assertion in question has been shown to be factually wrong.

Either the NCAA has a consistent policy that it doesn't comment upon ongoing investigations or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways especially when you’re arguing that when the NCAA does comment upon an investigation, they’d do so to an odds maker.

Contrary to your belief, if what Sheridan originally implied on the Finebaum show about his “source” had a shred of truth, it would be an absolutely huge issue thank frankly would be bigger then the Cam story.

There's really nothing to look through. I know 100% that absolutely nothing has proven the reported conversation with the Mississippi State coaching staff to be inaccurate. It's just a fairy tale said by someone who is hoping so much for all this to blow over.

You yourself said this was over when the NCAA reinstated Newton. That has shown to be absolutely inaccurate, by the NCAA's own admission.

This isn't over. Far from it. It never was over with.

jojo

07-21-2011, 10:55 PM

There's really nothing to look through. I know 100% that absolutely nothing has proven the reported conversation with the Mississippi State coaching staff to be inaccurate. It's just a fairy tale said by someone who is hoping so much for all this to blow over.

First, I have continually laid out an argument for my position using fact-based premises that everyone can easily check (especially since many of my posts provide the links). So please quit making personal attacks on my ability to objectively discuss this issue.

For the benefit of others who might be interested in this (and I’m guessing fewer and fewer people actually are)-Mullen clearly indicated only members of his coaching staff are registered as recruiters. MSU did not report to the NCAA that Cam made the statement that some keep claiming he made. If the assertion that Cam called a member of MSU’s staff and stated he “went to Auburn because the money was too good” were correct, it would be a puzzling omission on MSU’s part given this would have been a central point in the NCAA’s investigation and such an omission would be a clear violation. It is a virtual certainty that the NCAA would have specifically asked about such a call when interviewing any member of the MSU staff. Furthermore, the claim that keeps getting repeated as essentially fact (i.e. Cam confessed in phone call to MSU coaching staff) wasn’t even part of the original articles that broke the story (despite it being argued as such repeatedly by some). This inaccuracy has been pointed out clearly multiple times in this very thread so I apologize in advance for junking up the thread by rehashing it yet again.

You yourself said this was over when the NCAA reinstated Newton. That has shown to be absolutely inaccurate, by the NCAA's own admission.
This isn't over. Far from it. It never was over with.

Since the NCAA cleared Cam to play, some have argued that this is only just beginning. What I have actually said (posed) in response to that position is a very legitimate question-“what fertile lines of inquiry are left to investigate?” In other words, the NCAA may technically have an investigation open but its unlikely, given the scope of the investigation last fall, that there is remaining meat to allow it to go anywhere other than toward closure.

Some, like Finebaum, are invested in turning every bird chirp into a whistling Sasquatch like Finebaum did in his version of “Finding Bigfoot” yesterday but investigations need new facts in order to meaningfully progress. The reality is that short of a hypothetical boogie man having an epiphany of conscience and showing up on Julie Roe Lach’s doorstep posturing in full contrition, this will end fairly shortly.

jojo

08-26-2011, 06:24 PM

Says ouch.... fresh off the revelation that months of FBI wiretaps of McGregor (http://www.myfoxal.com/story/15286037/no-trace-of-cam-newton-scam-on-bingo-tapes)made during the "Bingo" scandal had no reference to Auburn or Cam, the legion of bitter Bama fans on sand mountain consumed by their pining for the death penalty for Auburn suffered yet another significant disappointment as their latest adopted savior was emasculated by the NCAA today (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/august/ncaa+statement+on+danny+sheridan+comments):

Danny Sheridan continues to make vague, unsubstantiated claims without backing them up with proof. Contrary to his claims of having an inside source with details on the Auburn investigation, the NCAA has not provided information to Sheridan or anyone else. As a matter of due diligence, the NCAA spoke with Sheridan this week to determine if he had any facts pertaining to the investigation. Sheridan, however, did not provide any information to the enforcement staff and certainly did not provide a name. Instead, he unsuccessfully attempted to gather information for his own use.

How often does the NCAA issue such a strongly worded response to a fringe personality such as today's that basically served to discredit Sheridan? One likewise has to assume the NCAA has lost its patience with the roughly 100,000 emailed allegations its received to date concerning Auburn from Sand Mountaineers as well....

The NCAA reinstated Cam's eligibility at Auburn last fall with Mark Emmert explaining the decision by saying, "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." The gauge has not moved a single micrometer concerning new info/evidence since.

Unless a dramatic change or revelation occurs fairly soon, this "investigation" has all of the signs of being emaciated by starvation as one has to wonder what fertile lines of inquiry are left for the NCAA?

jojo

09-11-2011, 12:00 PM

Why would the NCAA make an unprecedented statement about an individual concerning potential compliance issues? It's because Sheridan is the poster boy (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/825871-auburn-football-2011-could-danny-sheridan-be-only-a-small-piece-of-the-puzzle)for the baseless innuendo and speculation that has largely been put forth by parties with ulterior motives....

In the mid-90s, Sheridan claimed to have similar sources in the NCAA. At that time he commented that there was simply not a shred of evidence against Alabama. Alabama was found to have committed, and attempted a cover up, dozens of infractions. The program was crippled with NCAA sanctions.

Alabama's football program has forfeited/vacated 29 games due to NCAA sanctions since the 90's (that's 29 to Auburn's 0). But to listen to Finebaum, his lackeys he parades on his show to fuel innuendo (Sheridan, Brando etc), and the bammers from sand mountain he lets call in, you'd think the NCAA is gunning intensely with several investigations into Auburn's football program and Auburn is the dirtiest program in the history of college sports and they are about to have a hammer dropped on them that will cripple their program for the foreseeable future.

None of it is true of course as the crickets chirp on concerning actual facts that rise to a newsworthy level since the NCAA's decision last fall. The Cam issue is about all but dead and what we're left with is bickering between the Hatfields and McCoys that no one else cares about outside of Alabama and some neighboring SEC fanbases. Yet its kept alive because it drives some ratings and allows specific others to use the innuendo as a recruitment ploy.

nmculbreth

09-11-2011, 06:57 PM

Cam has looked pretty good this afternoon for the Panthers...

jojo

10-12-2011, 05:16 PM

This really comes as no surprise to anyone who has followed this story closely from it's start but the NCAA has concluded it's investigation into Cam and found no evidence of wrong doing by Auburn.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/10/ncaa_says_auburn_finds_no_majo.html

The NCAA did not find any major rules violations in Auburn's signing of quarterback Cam Newton and has concluded its investigation.

The NCAA enforcement staff also concluded its investigation into charges by four former players on HBO who accused the school of providing extra benefits. Again, it found no wrongdoing.

The NCAA issued this statement (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/october/ncaa+statement+on+auburn+football+investigation) which like the Sheridan statement seems to chastise those who raced ahead of the facts:

After conducting more than 80 interviews, the NCAA has concluded its investigation into Auburn University. The NCAA enforcement staff is committed to a fair and thorough investigative process. As such, any allegations of major rules violations must meet a burden of proof, which is a higher standard than rampant public speculation online and in the media. The allegations must be based on credible and persuasive information and includes a good-faith belief that the Committee on Infractions could make a finding. As with any case, should the enforcement staff become aware of additional credible information, it will review the information to determine whether further investigation is warranted.

jojo

10-12-2011, 05:40 PM

Here is the letter from Jackie Thurnes (http://t.co/iEznKt34), Associate Director of Enforcement for the NCAA to Jay Jacobs the AD at Auburn that lets Gene Chizik know the investigation is over.

Somewhere Danny Sheridan is no doubt claiming this vindicates him....

jojo

10-14-2011, 05:04 PM

Given the language the NCAA has used (both in response to Sheridan and in their announcement of the conclusion to their investigation of Cam) and the timing of the announcement (smack dab in the middle of Finebaum's show and right before one of Auburn's biggest recruiting weekends of the fall), it seems clear that the NCAA has taken a position that Auburn has conducted itself well both in the way it runs its program and when working with the NCAA during this issue over the course of the last year.

Brutus

10-14-2011, 05:14 PM

It's clear by the wording the NCAA thinks something was up, but couldn't prove it. This also shows that the investigation never did end, despite some very resolved assertions by some to the contrary.

jojo

10-14-2011, 06:04 PM

It's clear by the wording the NCAA thinks something was up, but couldn't prove it. This also shows that the investigation never did end, despite some very resolved assertions by some to the contrary.

If you're insinuating that I'm such a resolved person, it's clear that I continually asked what fertile avenue was left to investigate and indicated given a lack of one, this would end soon and as it did. As it turned out, there was not any fertile avenues left, it ended soon, and it ended with the NCAA confirming the allegations could not be substantiated.

This is particularly damning language for those that maintain the NCAA thought there was truth to the allegations but just couldn't prove it:

As such, any allegations of major rules violations must meet a burden of proof, which is a higher standard than rampant public speculation online and in the media. The allegations must be based on credible and persuasive information and includes a good-faith belief that the Committee on Infractions could make a finding.

The NCAA itself is stating forcefully that those who got ahead of the facts were very wrong. They found no credible or persuasive information and couldn't in good faith continue pursuing this issue.

Repeat: The NCAA stated it found no credible or persuasive information to sustain the allegations and it could not in good faith continue. In other words, the NCAA-by it's own statement-couldn't indicate more clearly that it in fact did not believe something was up at Auburn.

Also, for those who still cling to the notion that the NCAA thought Auburn was guilty but just couldn't prove it, the following language is also a huge hurdle tripping up that position:

Regarding Mr. Newton, the enforcement staff and the university conducted over 50 interviews regarding an alleged pay-for-play scenario. Additionally, an extensive number of documents including, but not limited to, bank records, personal IRS tax documents, telephone records and email messages, were obtained and reviewed as part of that inquiry.

Can it really be reasonably argued that the NCAA didn't have enough information at it's disposal to make a definitive ruling on this issue? If it can't, then the notion that the NCAA thought Auburn was guilty but gave up, just isn't compelling. Seriously, if the NCAA actually had subpoena power, what more would they have gathered in order to reach a determination on this issue? The fact is that Auburn and the NCAA worked diligently on this issue and the NCAA's investigation was not hampered by a lack of access.

Furthermore, if the NCAA actually thought something was up at Auburn, why did they end their inquiry? They had no compelling reason to end things after only 13 months, unless they actually were satisfied that nothing was up at Auburn.

Given the facts and the recent statements by the NCAA, the position that the NCAA thought something was up at Auburn but ended its investigation prematurely because it just couldn't prove it has to be rejected out of hand as incongruent with what is known about this situation.

BuckeyeRed27

10-14-2011, 06:13 PM

It's clear by the wording the NCAA thinks something was up, but couldn't prove it. This also shows that the investigation never did end, despite some very resolved assertions by some to the contrary.

Yep. Nobody would talk. It's still unbelievable to me that the stuff that they did prove wasn't enough to rule him ineligible, but whatever.

jojo

10-14-2011, 06:15 PM

Yep. Nobody would talk. It's still unbelievable to me that the stuff that they did prove wasn't enough to rule him ineligible, but whatever.

Auburn didn't do any "stuff".

BuckeyeRed27

10-14-2011, 06:24 PM

Auburn didn't do any "stuff".

Possibly. Cam did though.

jojo

10-14-2011, 06:47 PM

Possibly. Cam did though.

Actually, no Cam didn't either.

BuckeyeRed27

10-14-2011, 06:51 PM

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

10-14-2011, 07:00 PM

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

10-14-2011, 07:04 PM

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

10-19-2011, 11:47 AM

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

10-19-2011, 01:42 PM

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

10-19-2011, 08:25 PM

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

Slyder

10-19-2011, 09:19 PM

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

so
everyone
cheats!!!

:d

Sea Ray

10-19-2011, 10:28 PM

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

11-05-2011, 08:01 AM

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/article/20111104/NEWS/111104032/Auburn-releases-documents-Newton-investigation

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20111105/SPORTS0402/111050306/NCAA-probe-Documents-show-how-why-Auburn-QB-Cam-Newton-remained-eligible?odyssey=mod|lateststories

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2011/11/04/1805959/auburn-releases-documents-regarding.html?storylink=addthis

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

Slyder

11-05-2011, 11:22 AM

jojo

11-05-2011, 11:30 AM

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.

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.

3 NCAA is that weak.

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

Brutus

11-05-2011, 06:53 PM

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

11-05-2011, 07:54 PM

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

11-05-2011, 09:08 PM

Scrap Irony

11-05-2011, 09:21 PM

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.

jojo

11-05-2011, 09:32 PM

You might want to read up on that because that position is not correct.

From the AP report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/sports/ncaafootball/auburn-releases-documents.html

This states very clearly the documents did indeed indicate Cecil had solicited money. Clearly the position that was held earlier in this discussion that he never solicited money was, thereby, off the mark.

Again not from Auburn. I've clearly stated multiple times in this thread that Cecil and Rogers attempted to solicit money from MSU. I'm very comfortable with my contribution to this thread being in the archives.

Again some 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.

The NCAA completely cleared Auburn and Cam after an extensive investigation that exhausted all fertile avenues of inquiry.

jojo

11-05-2011, 09:38 PM

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.

The NCAA is supposed to be working on making a repeat of this scenario impossible.

jojo

11-06-2011, 01:14 PM

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.

First, given it has been established that MSU did not offer to pay Rogers, there could be no leverage.

Seriously though, here's the problem with the above position. At some point, the accumulation of facts trumps blind supposition and this issue has been thoroughly vetted. When a position remains intractable to new facts, the position has no foundation.

The NCAA conducted a lengthy investigation into Cam's recruitment. The NCAA, an institution with the reputation of getting the guy they gun for, gathered all of the facts that it felt it needed to fully investigate this issue and the NCAA cleared Auburn of wrongdoing. Why? They found no credible or persuasive evidence to substantiate such allegations and couldn't in good faith continue pursuing the issue. That's extremely striking language coming from the NCAA. Adjectives like dishonesty fail miserably when describing those that disagree with the position in the quote above....in fact the use of such adjectives is divorced from the facts.