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

View Full Version : Cam Newton or his handler wanted money?

Pages : [1] 2

Cedric

11-04-2010, 06:50 PM

Blimpie

11-04-2010, 09:37 PM

I think it would be prudent to let this story play out prior to casting judgement.

To me, the most disturbing fact was that Newton's father had the final say on the choice of Auburn over Mississippi State.

This, despite the fact that Newton preferred MSU and had a great trust and working relationship with their head coach.

MWM

11-04-2010, 10:45 PM

Yeah, this is the type of story that's likely to go nowhere. It's doubtful any evidence of anything exists beyond what this guy is saying. Having said all that, I highly doubt this guy just made this story up out of thin air, even going as far as to contact the NCAA.

But I also think that before people line up with pitchforks they should realize that even if this is true, it's not likely an isolated incident and it could just as easily happen at our favorite school.

But this has the potential to be Reggie Bush II.

nmculbreth

11-04-2010, 11:56 PM

While I think it is far too soon to jump to conclusions, I think the timing of this story is pretty interesting. It sounds like an NCAA investigation has been going on for awhile but it's kind of curious that the story has just now become public, a little over a month before the Heisman ceremony.

I can't help but wonder if an allegation like this is going to cause some Heisman voters to waver a bit on Newton, particularly after the Reggie Bush fiasco.

KronoRed

11-05-2010, 12:12 AM

The story doesn't make any sense to me, when Newton parted ways with Florida nobody cared where he was going, one year at a JR college and all of a sudden he's asking for 200k?

Sounds like baloney.

Scrap Irony

11-05-2010, 07:11 AM

I realize big-time athletics is dirty), but $200,000 is a crapload of cash.

Sadly, I'd have believed $20,000 easily.

The timing, as others have mentioned, also make this a curious move.

Todd Gack

11-05-2010, 08:07 AM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5765214

If I wasn't so cynical about Auburn and the SEC I might not believe this story. But Auburn is dirty in so many ways. Most of their athletes honestly couldn't get into school at University of Phoenix.

While I believe the SEC is more 'dirty' than most other conferences, I think it's funny that people of other conferences make fun of the SEC for being so dirty when I'm pretty sure just about every major DI program has something like this going on.

Cedric

11-05-2010, 09:40 AM

Hoosier Red

11-05-2010, 09:48 AM

I realize big-time athletics is dirty), but $200,000 is a crapload of cash.

Sadly, I'd have believed $20,000 easily.

The timing, as others have mentioned, also make this a curious move.

I agree. If Auburn were throwing out $200,000 they'd have nabbed someone better than a JC quarterback. I realize Newton's been great, but there isn't a single person in the land that thought he'd be this good. College boosters don't pay $200,000 for maybe :)

If they had $200,000 to spend on a guy who might be great, they'd have been able to pay for more than defensive coordinator with a losing record at Iowa State to be their head coach.

WVRed

11-05-2010, 09:56 AM

The story doesn't make any sense to me, when Newton parted ways with Florida nobody cared where he was going, one year at a JR college and all of a sudden he's asking for 200k?

Sounds like baloney.

This sounds like the Anthony Davis story at Kentucky, except with UK offering that kind of money it would be more believable.

Seriously though, anyone want to picture Cam Newton replacing Tim Tebow in Florida right now?

MWM

11-05-2010, 09:57 AM

The story doesn't make any sense to me, when Newton parted ways with Florida nobody cared where he was going, one year at a JR college and all of a sudden he's asking for 200k?

Sounds like baloney.

Not that I think this story is perfectly legit, but it's not for the reason you list. Cam Newton won a national championship in his year at JC and was considered the top QB recruit in the country. Rivals had him as the #1 QB for both high school or JC and the only 5 star QB recruit. Cam Newton was a very sought after recruit. He's not catching people by surprise this year.

bucksfan2

11-05-2010, 10:20 AM

The more I think about this the more simple of an explanation comes to light. Cam Newton is an uber talented QB who is trying to choose a school to play football at. Cam Newton's father is bishop of several churches and one of his church has fallen into disrepair. Cam's father decides to pimp Cam out for a "donation" to repair his church. A donor donates $200K, they get Cam Newton, and the donor gets a tax write off, and Cam's fathers church gets saved.

Chip R

11-05-2010, 10:44 AM

Cedric

11-05-2010, 12:20 PM

Thank the lord that he didn't sell his jersey on ebay or something.

He would have already been kicked out of CFB.

Reds Freak

11-05-2010, 04:09 PM

Cedric

11-05-2010, 04:23 PM

I mentioned this in the thread awhile ago about agents paying college players...where is the harm in the above scenario?

Well you might as well scrap the whole sport then. How would schools without big pocketed boosters compete?

And isn't it sad that someone would pay straight cash just to say they basically own a player? It's all about ego, IMO.

KronoRed

11-05-2010, 04:24 PM

This sounds like the Anthony Davis story at Kentucky, except with UK offering that kind of money it would be more believable.

Seriously though, anyone want to picture Cam Newton replacing Tim Tebow in Florida right now?

When he was at Florida he couldn't pass Brantley on the depth chart, sounds like he needed an event to get him focused on the game.

jojo

11-05-2010, 06:54 PM

jojo

11-05-2010, 07:01 PM

Cam Newton publicly has said he wanted to go to Miss State but his dad decided he would go to Auburn.

Cam's Father needs money so his church will not be shut down for building code violations.

Cam was supposed to go to Miss. State.

Cam's Father tells him to go to Auburn and makes the decision and his church is suddenly rebuilt perfectly.

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this one out. If it smells bad and comes from the Auburn program it is probably bad.

Seriously. Pause and actually look at the facts..... 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.

Auburn, the SEC, and the NCAA new of the Rogers situation in July. If there was anything substantial to this situation, you can be guaranteed that Newton would have never seen a down in the NCAA this season.

A brain surgeon thinks twice and cuts once...and he makes sure he knows where his scalpel is pointing (i.e. the facts), before slicing.

BTW, kudos for MSU for ethically reporting Rogers as soon as he tried his BS.

kaldaniels

11-05-2010, 07:11 PM

No hard proof yet. But the dots are out there...will they be connected?

(I have no clue whether this is true or not)

Reds Freak

11-05-2010, 09:20 PM

Well you might as well scrap the whole sport then. How would schools without big pocketed boosters compete?

And isn't it sad that someone would pay straight cash just to say they basically own a player? It's all about ego, IMO.

Schools without big pocketed boosters don't compete now. Let's face it...9-10 schools every year have a realistic chance to play for a national title in football.

If some nut fan with a bunch of money wants to give a player loads of money so his dad can rebuild his church, I don't see who loses there...

WVRed

11-05-2010, 09:41 PM

When he was at Florida he couldn't pass Brantley on the depth chart, sounds like he needed an event to get him focused on the game.

From Wikipedia:

In 2007, as a freshman, Newton earned the spot over other freshman quarterback John Brantley as the back-up for star quarterback and eventual Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow. In 2008, During his sophomore season, Newton played in the season opener against Hawaii, then agreed to take a redshirt season. Cam Newton was arrested on Friday, November 21, 2008, on felony charges of burglary, larceny and obstruction of justice after allegedly purchasing a stolen laptop from a student at the University of Florida. He was subsequently temporarily suspended by the team after the laptop was in fact found to be in his possession. Newton was eventually welcomed back to the team. However, when Tebow declared he would return for his senior season, Newton and his father agreed it would be in his best interest to transfer.[2] All charges against Newton were dropped after he completed a court-approved pretrial diversion program. [3]

KronoRed

11-05-2010, 09:46 PM

Trust me, as a someone who follows the Gators, he agreed to take the Redshirt because he had fallen behind Brantley, it was common knowledge in 08.

WVRed

11-05-2010, 10:05 PM

Trust me, as a someone who follows the Gators, he agreed to take the Redshirt because he had fallen behind Brantley, it was common knowledge in 08.

I don't doubt it, but think of Cam Newton running the show now instead of John Brantley. I think you could debate if Urban Meyer or Gus Malzahn would get the most use out of Cam.

At least you guys have Jeff Driskell coming in. :)

bucksfan2

11-09-2010, 09:50 AM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/11/09/auburn.cam.newton.cheated.florida.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

NEW YORK (AP) -- Foxsports.com is reporting that Auburn quarterback Cameron Newton had three instances of academic cheating while attending Florida and faced potential expulsion from the university.

Newton was arrested for the theft of a laptop from a Florida student's dorm room in November 2008. The website reported late Monday night that Newton again violated the university's honor code by putting his name on another student's paper and turning it in.

Newton then turned in a second paper to the instructor, but it was later found to have been purchased off the Internet.

His father, Cecil Newton Sr., declined comment to Foxsports.com.

"I wasn't there," the elder Newton said. "I cannot confirm or deny. At a time like this, I'm taking a defensive posture."

The NCAA is reviewing the recruitment of Newton.

This really has little to do with the current investigation of Cam Newton, but............. Cam Newton had some serious character issues before his rise at Auburn. And this story here doesn't really bode well for his character.

Cedric

11-09-2010, 10:44 AM

RiverRat13

11-09-2010, 11:35 AM

So Urban Meyer is now the Secret Police of the SEC?

jojo

11-09-2010, 11:47 AM

Does anyone really think Auburn cared or cares now? That school is honestly embarrassing to good SEC institutions like Florida and Vandy. They are the one's who should be insulted by the rest of their league.

Yes. And again, one wonders why you're grinding this axe.

Boston Red

11-09-2010, 11:54 AM

Does anyone really think Auburn cared or cares now? That school is honestly embarrassing to good SEC institutions like Florida and Vandy.

Florida doesn't exactly come out of this looking like a quality institution. How many times does a football player have to cheat there to get tossed out?

Cedric

11-09-2010, 12:07 PM

Florida doesn't exactly come out of this looking like a quality institution. How many times does a football player have to cheat there to get tossed out?

That is true. I can't believe how that just gets swept under the rug anywhere. Marcus Hall at TOSU was declared ineligible all year because of one case of suspected plagiarism on a paper.

jojo

11-09-2010, 01:08 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/11/09/auburn.cam.newton.cheated.florida.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

This really has little to do with the current investigation of Cam Newton, but............. Cam Newton had some serious character issues before his rise at Auburn. And this story here doesn't really bode well for his character.

To be fair to Newton he has worked hard during the last two years to atone for his freshman year.

Is he a saint? Who knows really except those who truly know him? But when evaluating his character, i'd suggest the further one goes into his history, the less it speaks to his character now.

Student athletes actually attend class and do their own homework at Auburn BTW.

Also Newton doesn't drive an Escalade either. He putts around campus on a used moped which has got to be a surreal sight...

Brutus

11-09-2010, 03:41 PM

To be fair to Newton he has worked hard during the last two years to atone for his freshman year.

Is he a saint? Who knows really except those who truly know him? But when evaluating his character, i'd suggest the further one goes into his history, the less it speaks to his character now.

Student athletes actually attend class and do their own homework at Auburn BTW.

Also Newton doesn't drive an Escalade either. He putts around campus on a used moped which has got to be a surreal sight...

I'd suggest that it's very doubtful, if Newton is guilty of the allegations, his character has changed much since then. Maturation can and does happen, but from 18 to 20? Very doubtful.

As far as attending class and doing homework at Auburn, none of us have absolutely any way of knowing that. My experience covering college athletics, however, tells me that there are kids not attending class and having work done for them at every major university. So to say it doesn't happen at Auburn would likely be very, very inaccurate.

I do think the kid deserves the benefit of the doubt, but these new allegations don't shed a very good light on him. And what's worse is that Auburn has done everything to rip apart the report except for actually deny that those things happened.

bucksfan2

11-09-2010, 03:51 PM

To be fair to Newton he has worked hard during the last two years to atone for his freshman year.

Is he a saint? Who knows really except those who truly know him? But when evaluating his character, i'd suggest the further one goes into his history, the less it speaks to his character now.

Student athletes actually attend class and do their own homework at Auburn BTW.

Also Newton doesn't drive an Escalade either. He putts around campus on a used moped which has got to be a surreal sight...

There is a lot of smoke around this kid. With Newton's colorful past he has lost the benefit of doubt concerning issues surrounding him. It would have been nice to see him stay squeaky clean after he left Florida but unfortunately for him that did not happen. Now whether or he, or his father, actually did receive money for his collegiate decision in unknown right now. But where there is smoke, there is fire.

jojo

11-09-2010, 04:00 PM

There is a lot of smoke around this kid. With Newton's colorful past he has lost the benefit of doubt concerning issues surrounding him. It would have been nice to see him stay squeaky clean after he left Florida but unfortunately for him that did not happen. Now whether or he, or his father, actually did receive money for his collegiate decision in unknown right now. But where there is smoke, there is fire.

As of today, he has been squeaky clean since leaving Florida and that's the point.

KronoRed

11-09-2010, 04:14 PM

So Urban Meyer is now the Secret Police of the SEC?

What did Meyer have to do with this coming out? that's right, not a thing, except in the paranoid minds of some Alabama radio heads.

If any other school in the SEC might have an ax to grind with Newton, look to the coach of Mississippi State.

WMR

11-09-2010, 04:17 PM

bucksfan2

11-09-2010, 04:29 PM

As of today, he has been squeaky clean since leaving Florida and that's the point.

Well.......... with the exception of his name being brought up about being paid to go to Auburn.

KronoRed

11-09-2010, 04:36 PM

Florida saves their sabotaging efforts for college basketball anyway.

http://lastperson.suncircle.org/Smileys/default/dunno.gif

jojo

11-09-2010, 04:42 PM

What did Meyer have to do with this coming out? that's right, not a thing, except in the paranoid minds of some Alabama radio heads.

If any other school in the SEC might have an ax to grind with Newton, look to the coach of Mississippi State.

It seems to me that Mississippi State handled their business pretty much the way one would hope they would've.

ESPN really had to go with the story they wrote too. Newton is a Heisman candidate playing for a team that has a chance to play in the championship game. Their story seemed pretty fair and factual with everything attributed to transparent source.

After that, a great deal of the commentary has simply been supposition and we shouldn't confuse the smoke of supposition with the presence of fire.

jojo

11-09-2010, 04:44 PM

Well.......... with the exception of his name being brought up about being paid to go to Auburn.

At this point it appears he had zero control over that (i.e. there has yet to be an intimate link established between Newton and Rogers) so it really shouldn't be used as a condemnation of his character.

WMR

11-09-2010, 04:54 PM

http://lastperson.suncircle.org/Smileys/default/dunno.gif

Pitino Jr. and Eric Bledsoe's transcript.

bucksfan2

11-09-2010, 05:02 PM

At this point it appears he had zero control over that (i.e. there has yet to be an intimate link established between Newton and Rogers) so it really shouldn't be used as a condemnation of his character.

But a the same time why are these issues coming out about Newton? And why right now? I get it that he is the front runner for the Heisman but there have been Heisman candidates in the past who haven't had these types of reports surface. You never saw negative, NCAA illegal type reports surfacing against Tebow, Bradford, Stafford, McCoy, Suh, etc.

Im not saying that Newton is guilty of anything. I am just saying that I believe there is some truth to the reports that have surfaced against Newton. Especially when you considered his checkered past. Is it fair? Well not exactly but that is life.

KronoRed

11-09-2010, 05:24 PM

Pitino Jr. and Eric Bledsoe's transcript.

Oh, more Malarkey ;)

jojo

11-09-2010, 07:10 PM

But a the same time why are these issues coming out about Newton? And why right now? I get it that he is the front runner for the Heisman but there have been Heisman candidates in the past who haven't had these types of reports surface. You never saw negative, NCAA illegal type reports surfacing against Tebow, Bradford, Stafford, McCoy, Suh, etc.

Im not saying that Newton is guilty of anything. I am just saying that I believe there is some truth to the reports that have surfaced against Newton. Especially when you considered his checkered past. Is it fair? Well not exactly but that is life.

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.

Newton's freshman year is old news.

Boston Red

11-10-2010, 12:03 AM

Latest update on SportsCenter is looking a lot worse for Newton (if the new allegations are true, of course). They are saying Newton wanted to go to Miss. State but his dad forced him to go to Auburn because "the money was too good".

Brutus

11-10-2010, 12:42 AM

jojo

11-10-2010, 12:48 AM

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/11/video_watch_listen_to_emotiona.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5783876

Cedric

11-10-2010, 12:51 AM

ESPN now has that story up:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5786315

The "kid" has smoke around every inch of his body at this point. It's pretty obvious something seriously shady is going on here. And considering it's Auburn and the SEC I'm inclined to believe it's 100% dirty.

jojo

11-10-2010, 01:00 AM

Cedric

11-10-2010, 01:04 AM

Maurice Clarett is wondering if smoke=fire given his alleged academic "benefits"....

I was wondering when you would come up with that. Didn't Clarett get taken off the field by Geiger? Didn't Ohio State do everything right in handling the eligibility of Clarett? I don't remember Andy Geiger or Coach standing up and ridiculing everyone. I remember them taking Maurice off the field.

You are reaching and desperate now. But that makes sense at this point.

jojo

11-10-2010, 01:09 AM

I was wondering when you would come up with that. Didn't Clarett get taken off the field by Geiger? Didn't Ohio State do everything right in handling the eligibility of Clarett? I don't remember Andy Geiger or Coach standing up and ridiculing everyone. I remember them taking Maurice off the field.

You are reaching and desperate now. But that makes sense at this point.

Does posturing after being caught pass as ethics? Don't look now, Santonio Holmes just caught one over the middle (pile-o-cash while playing college ball)....

Institutional control indeed.... :p:

Personally, I prefer to consider all of the facts before passing judgment and I'm sure OSU fans would reject the absolute smoke=fire standard above being applied to their program just as I'm bristling at the obvious hyperbole in many of your comments concerning Auburn.

One wonders if much of the hyperbole has something to do with Florida and LSU though....

jojo

11-10-2010, 02:09 AM

Most of their athletes honestly couldn't get into school at University of Phoenix.

Here's how the NCAA views the program:

APR
OSU AU Div 1
2003-04 893 986 926
2004-05 955 976 929
2005-06 934 949 931
2006-07 984 910 934
2007-08 995 964 939
2008-09 991 915 934
2009-10 975 935 944
Grad rate 63% 63% 67%

RiverRat13

11-10-2010, 09:19 AM

Does posturing after being caught pass as ethics? Don't look now, Santonio Holmes just caught one over the middle (pile-o-cash while playing college ball)....

Institutional control indeed.... :p:

Huh? Missed where Santonio Holmes took money. I did see where he turned down money from an agent.

Chip R

11-10-2010, 10:14 AM

One wonders if much of the hyperbole has something to do with Florida and LSU though....

Could be. It seems like SEC teams would rather take their brethern down than see them win. That might be part of why the rivalries are so good down there.

However, as good as the SEC has been on the field in comparison to the Big T(welv)en, they have been even more superior in terms of cheating. About the only things you hear are Rich Rod scheduling practices when there should be none and Illinois every few years.

Hoosier Red

11-10-2010, 11:59 AM

1000 rep points to anyone who calls into the Hot Stove League tonight and asks if the rumor is true that Miss. State couldn't pay the $ for Newton because they're still paying off Brantley's training table bill.

Sea Ray

11-10-2010, 12:20 PM

Sea Ray

11-10-2010, 12:24 PM

The "kid" has smoke around every inch of his body at this point. It's pretty obvious something seriously shady is going on here. And considering it's Auburn and the SEC I'm inclined to believe it's 100% dirty.

They'll need more than sources from disgruntled schools who lost out on the Newton sweepstakes to prove anything. I want to see a papertrail of money changing hands before I believe anything happened. I also haven't seen many SEC schools guilty of major violations in the recent past.

RiverRat13

11-10-2010, 12:34 PM

I want to see a papertrail of money changing hands before I believe anything happened.

If it did happen (still a big if in my mind), there won't be a paper trail. His father's church would be an easy way to hide the money as any payment could be explained away as a donation. If the payment was in cash, it could be explained by an increase by parishioner tithes/offerings.

All of that said, I find it hard to believe that a school would flat out give a kid that kind of money.

Chip R

11-10-2010, 12:45 PM

Sea Ray

11-10-2010, 12:47 PM

If it did happen (still a big if in my mind), there won't be a paper trail. His father's church would be an easy way to hide the money as any payment could be explained away as a donation. If the payment was in cash, it could be explained by an increase by parishioner tithes/offerings.

All of that said, I find it hard to believe that a school would flat out give a kid that kind of money.

If that church showed a 6 figure increase in donations then that's good enough for me. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for

jojo

11-10-2010, 02:20 PM

bucksfan2

11-10-2010, 02:45 PM

The NCAA will have the final facts. Right now in my view ESPN is trying to fill voids between actual additional facts. The original story is good reporting and there is no way ESPN couldn't go with it. But seriously, a major link on their NCAA FB page last Saturday was that Newton received a warm response from fans at Auburn's homecoming game? Seriously? Does it really matter that Cam might have had a checkered academic record in Florida given the laptop etc? Not really-it's kind of like knowing the name of Tiger's G/F. It doesn't really add anything tangible. Truthfully it just makes Florida look a little sleazy because if true, someone had to leak the info.

It very may well just be filler on ESPN's part. But I do find it somewhat ironic that day in day out negative stories are coming out about Newton.

In Stewart Mandle's column today he made mention of why this academic cheating may be a bigger deal than once thought. He said that Newton and his father said he left Florida because he had fallen on the depth chart, not that he was on the verge of getting kicked out. Make no mistake about it, if you are caught cheating at the college level you are gone. As long as you are a "student athlete" (which is another topic all together) you get caught cheating you should be kicked out of school. IMO it shows the Newton's willingness to bend the truth/lie in order to benefit their son.

Citing unnamed sources in a blog entry really isn't a high bar either-its filler.

I'm confident in this though, I'll have to see it to believe it concerning the assertion that Auburn did anything wrong in this issue. That's not because I like seeing the eagle circle above Jordan-Hare stadium either. Auburn, the NCAA, and the SEC apparently knew of the Rogers allegation in January. I just don't buy that Auburn's compliance officer would've overlooked anything improper on Auburn's part given the amount of time between then and the start of the season and apparetnly they've been through Cam's finances, his father's finances and those of his father's church.

Tangible links between the Newtons and Rogers might emerge but he is no friend of the Auburn program.

Auburn isn't Florida, Alabama, or LSU. They are a nice SEC program but hardly a top tier program. I believe that they would be willing to bend the rules in order to get a guy like Newton. As it appears now Auburn isn't in trouble but the case has yet to be closed. I do wonder if the SEC, or the media for that matter, new the depth of accusations against Newton in Jan. There are new allegations coming out every day.

Jack Burton

11-10-2010, 03:18 PM

At this point it pretty much obvious that $ money got him to Auburn.

Sea Ray

11-10-2010, 03:42 PM

At this point it pretty much obvious that $ money got him to Auburn.

Nothing's obvious at this point. All we have are unnamed sources

Caveat Emperor

11-10-2010, 03:46 PM

At this point it pretty much obvious that $ money got him to Auburn.

What, you're telling me people cheat to get recruits at the highest levels of college football?

RiverRat13

11-10-2010, 03:49 PM

If that church showed a 6 figure increase in donations then that's good enough for me. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for

In theory there still wouldn't be a paper trail to have a six-figure increase. A good percentage of an offering plate is cash. If a booster gave cash to Newton's dad, I guess he could spread out the money over a period of time to help the church while keeping some of the money for himself.

That said, it would be highly unlikely. I'm guessing it didn't happen.

Sea Ray

11-10-2010, 03:52 PM

Jack Burton

11-10-2010, 04:05 PM

What, you're telling me people cheat to get recruits at the highest levels of college football?

Lol.

Also, lol at Newton writing his name on a different students paper without that students knowledge. Sure fooled 'em on that one.

Boston Red

11-10-2010, 04:09 PM

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2503/makemoneywithauburn.gif

KronoRed

11-10-2010, 04:37 PM

Truthfully it just makes Florida look a little sleazy because if true, someone had to leak the info.

It was almost 2 years ago, this little weird 'blame Urban' vibe from all the Auburn sites is just off the wall.

A short list of others who would benefit from getting this information out..

The AD at Georgia, who used to be the assistant AD at Florida, gee who is Auburn playing this week?
The heqad coach at Mississippi St.
The WR coach at LSU, had an acrimonious departure from Florida (he quit via post it note), wouldn't mind dragging everyone into some mud.
The kid who had his paper stolen by Newton.

jojo

11-10-2010, 04:40 PM

jojo

11-10-2010, 04:41 PM

It was almost 2 years ago, this little weird 'blame Urban' vibe from all the Auburn sites is just off the wall.

A short list of others who would benefit from getting this information out..

The AD at Georgia, who used to be the assistant AD at Florida, gee who is Auburn playing this week?
The heqad coach at Mississippi St.
The WR coach at LSU, had an acrimonious departure from Florida (he quit via post it note), wouldn't mind dragging everyone into some mud.
The kid who had his paper stolen by Newton.

I agree completely. Florida didn't have to be the source.

Hoosier Red

11-10-2010, 05:10 PM

In theory there still wouldn't be a paper trail to have a six-figure increase. A good percentage of an offering plate is cash. If a booster gave cash to Newton's dad, I guess he could spread out the money over a period of time to help the church while keeping some of the money for himself.

That said, it would be highly unlikely. I'm guessing it didn't happen.

This post is intended to neither prove or disprove the guilt of Cam Newton in this case.

One of the few good points Alan Cutler ever made when he was on the radio, "If you want to pay a recruit, just do everything in cash." It's not like whoever decided to pay Newton couldn't take the cash out of his(their) bank accounts. If you have enough money to spend $200K to get a 20 year old to play for your team for two years, you have enough to take $200k out of the bank without them asking any questions. Plus of course he(they) could spread it out over any period of time.

I think the interesting conversation is not whether he did it or not, as that will likely be proven or disproven or forgotten over time. The question is if he did it, can the NCAA prove it?
If he didn't do it, this is a huge shame because my guess is there's no way to prove he didn't do it.

bucksfan2

11-10-2010, 05:36 PM

This post is intended to neither prove or disprove the guilt of Cam Newton in this case.

One of the few good points Alan Cutler ever made when he was on the radio, "If you want to pay a recruit, just do everything in cash." It's not like whoever decided to pay Newton couldn't take the cash out of his(their) bank accounts. If you have enough money to spend $200K to get a 20 year old to play for your team for two years, you have enough to take $200k out of the bank without them asking any questions. Plus of course he(they) could spread it out over any period of time.

I think the interesting conversation is not whether he did it or not, as that will likely be proven or disproven or forgotten over time. The question is if he did it, can the NCAA prove it?
If he didn't do it, this is a huge shame because my guess is there's no way to prove he didn't do it.

Whenever you withdraw a large amount of cash (I believe its around 10K, the bank flags that transaction. But I agree with you about paying someone in cash, there is less of a money trail, especially if you are a person who can afford that amount of money. But then you have the issue of a guy like Cam Newton depositing 200K in cash in a bank account. How do you do that? You aren't going to keep that amount of cash lying around your college apartment are you?

The thing with money is it always leaves a trail. Follow the money is an easy way of solving the problem.

Hoosier Red

11-10-2010, 05:45 PM

Whenever you withdraw a large amount of cash (I believe its around 10K, the bank flags that transaction. But I agree with you about paying someone in cash, there is less of a money trail, especially if you are a person who can afford that amount of money. But then you have the issue of a guy like Cam Newton depositing 200K in cash in a bank account. How do you do that? You aren't going to keep that amount of cash lying around your college apartment are you?

The thing with money is it always leaves a trail. Follow the money is an easy way of solving the problem.

$200 K is a slightly different animal, but let's just assume that it was one businessman who paid for Newton's services, if he could pay $200K for something as extravagent as securing a recruit's committment, I think it's a good bet he's taken $200K out of the bank before for other purposes. So a bank may flag the withdrawl, but it's not like they wouldn't let him take it.

Also important, paying a recruit is not illegal, so even if he did take $200K out of the bank and even if the bank did flag the withdrawl, and even if Mr. Newton received the cash and deposited it into his church's coffers, there's nothing any bank will object to, and if the NCAA asks the bank on either end, they'll probably be told to pound sand. If the NCAA asks for the church's financial records, the pastor and church board can say no. Even if the NCAA figures out which booster paid the tab, there's nothing they can do to prove it.

nmculbreth

11-10-2010, 06:09 PM

Hoosier Red

11-10-2010, 06:18 PM

I'm sorry, I don't buy that argument at all. I cannot think of one legitimate reason why anyone, irrespective of their net worth, would need to withdraw $200k in cash. What sort of above board transaction would involve $200k payment in cash rather than via wire transfer?

The reason doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if there's an above board reason for it or not. People can take out that much money, and it's not the least bit illegal to take it out. If you, or the NCAA, were to ask all the banks in Alabama for a list of all the people who had withdrawn more than $50K from their bank accounts in one period, they'd come back with the same number of people on their list as they started. ZERO

nmculbreth

11-10-2010, 07:42 PM

The reason doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if there's an above board reason for it or not. People can take out that much money, and it's not the least bit illegal to take it out. If you, or the NCAA, were to ask all the banks in Alabama for a list of all the people who had withdrawn more than $50K from their bank accounts in one period, they'd come back with the same number of people on their list as they started. ZERO

I'm not claiming that the bank can stop you from withdrawing that kind of cash, I objected to the statement that if you've got the money to pay $200k to a recruit that you likely that it is likely that you've taken out that much cash for other reasons.

That said, when you take out that kind of cash you create a paper trail. Your financial institution is required by law to report suspicious activity to the Treasury Department, including all transactions involving over $10k in cash. When you're talking about an amount as much as $200k, you can pretty much guarantee somebody is going to investigate exactly what is going on. And while it may not be per se illegal to pay a player to attend your college of choice, you'd better have the rest of your house in order because if not you may find yourself in hot water.

kaldaniels

11-10-2010, 08:06 PM

Brutus

11-10-2010, 08:11 PM

Prepaid debit cards are the new fad with regard to paying recruits, parents and coaches these days.

bucksfan2

11-11-2010, 09:33 AM

$200 K is a slightly different animal, but let's just assume that it was one businessman who paid for Newton's services, if he could pay $200K for something as extravagent as securing a recruit's committment, I think it's a good bet he's taken $200K out of the bank before for other purposes. So a bank may flag the withdrawl, but it's not like they wouldn't let him take it.

Also important, paying a recruit is not illegal, so even if he did take $200K out of the bank and even if the bank did flag the withdrawl, and even if Mr. Newton received the cash and deposited it into his church's coffers, there's nothing any bank will object to, and if the NCAA asks the bank on either end, they'll probably be told to pound sand. If the NCAA asks for the church's financial records, the pastor and church board can say no. Even if the NCAA figures out which booster paid the tab, there's nothing they can do to prove it.

In today's banking world withdrawing $200K does and should raise a red flag. It is extremely easy to transfer money from one account to another using an ACH transfer. You can wire money, for a fee, but that can be debatable due to the size of bank account. We are in a financial environment where people don't have a high level of cash lying around. $200K in a bank making a small interest rate is a heck of a lot better than $200K stored in a safe at your house. And lets be honest here, while having that amount of money in cash isn't illegal, odds are it will be used for something that is illegal (or against NCAA rules in this situation).

So lets assume that an anonymous donor decides to pay Cam Newton $200K to attend Auburn. He doesn't have that money lying around his house, so he makes a withdraw from a bank. The Bank then has to notify the treasury department of the withdraw. There is nothing illegal here, just a bank following regulation. (IIRC the regulation was put in place because of the drug trade years ago). So you have one flag raised and a trail of money. Then if Newton's father's church has a mysterious increase in cash donations over the course of a couple of weeks that raises another red flag. If a church is struggling to make it, an increase of $200K should and will raise alarms, even if it is done gradually.

There is nothing illegal with what happened here. Although you could make an argument that there are some tax considerations that need to be taken care of. The issue is it is against NCAA rules and regulations for eligibility.

Blimpie

11-11-2010, 10:06 AM

It was almost 2 years ago, this little weird 'blame Urban' vibe from all the Auburn sites is just off the wall.

A short list of others who would benefit from getting this information out..

The AD at Georgia, who used to be the assistant AD at Florida, gee who is Auburn playing this week?
The heqad coach at Mississippi St.
The WR coach at LSU, had an acrimonious departure from Florida (he quit via post it note), wouldn't mind dragging everyone into some mud.
The kid who had his paper stolen by Newton.I think this has John Brantley's fingerprints all over it....

:)

WVRed

11-11-2010, 11:07 AM

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23StartingNewtonRumorsIsFun

Some of these are pretty good.

Hoosier Red

11-11-2010, 12:08 PM

I'm not claiming that the bank can stop you from withdrawing that kind of cash, I objected to the statement that if you've got the money to pay $200k to a recruit that you likely that it is likely that you've taken out that much cash for other reasons.

That said, when you take out that kind of cash you create a paper trail. Your financial institution is required by law to report suspicious activity to the Treasury Department, including all transactions involving over $10k in cash. When you're talking about an amount as much as $200k, you can pretty much guarantee somebody is going to investigate exactly what is going on. And while it may not be per se illegal to pay a player to attend your college of choice, you'd better have the rest of your house in order because if not you may find yourself in hot water.

You're right that it would be odd to take out $200K in cash for any purpose when it is easier to simply wire the funds, or use bank notes, etc.

That's true that it's red flagged and a paper trail is established so to speak. My point has been that the Treasury will look at it, but if there's no illegal use, they can't do anything. I'm admittedly not a lawyer, and I'm no longer a banker, but we still haven't gotten to how the NCAA would come across the information.
There may be a leak, somewhere in the process, who could confirm such a money withdrawl took place, but I don't know if they'd be able to prove anything from that leak without violating some pretty serious laws regarding a person's privacy.

I think you are severely underestimating the investigative powers of

1) The NCAA
2) The Media
3) Anyone with an axe to grind against Auburn (That's everyone in SEC-Land except Auburn fans)

When there is blood in the water, as we have here, keeping something like this quiet and getting away with it will be quite a feat in this day and age.

Perhaps you're correct, but does the NCAA really have that much investigative power? It took years to conclude the Reggie Bush investigation and they were much more flippant about showing how much money he was taking in.

There's a difference between finding a lot of circumstantial evidence, which has been done, and finding something that proves Auburn/Newton are guilty.

My point was always that if you took out that cash, it may raise red flags, but unless something illegal was done with the funds, there's little power anyone in the media or the NCAA, or anyone outside of federal authorities can do to find the information.

This does however bring up an interesting point, I've been discussing this as if nothing illegal was done. However, if say the father received the money, put it through his church as a donation, and after bringing the church up to code paid the remainder to himself, that's probably going to raise some serious legal questions which could bring up an investigation from federal law enforcement officials which would of course prove or disprove who the money came from.

So in this case, it may not be able to be done, but in general it probably makes the most sense when shopping for recruits to just do as Randy Moss does, and pay "straight cash homey."

Brutus

11-11-2010, 08:50 PM

MWM

11-11-2010, 09:04 PM

Yeah, I'm normally a don't rush to judgment guy, but it's getting awfully tough to not draw conclusions.

He's either guilty or not. The scenario where there's no truth to any of this seems incredibly unlikely at this point. There are only a couple of possibilities. First, the guy from MSU was making it all up. That's clearly not the case as it went as far as to be reported to the NCAA.

I think we can all assume Rogers did approach him about Newton. The question becomes whether or not he did it on his own. That leads to the next possibility, Rogers did it without knowledge of the Newtons. This isn't entirely unfathomable, but he's now coming out publicly to attempt to set the record straight. This is possible, but still seems somewhat unlikely... even more unlikely considering Rogers actually names a booster by name. That's risky business if there's no truth to it.

To make the scenario where it's not true feasible, it now requires that these "unnamed sources" were either fabricated by ESPN or Fox Sports reporters (I can't remember which one broke this story), or are somehow complicit with either Rogers or the guy from MSU in fabricating the story.

Now, I'm not one to put complete faith in unnamed sources, but I can certainly see why they would want to remain anonymous. And it just doesn't seem likely that a couple of guys decided they'd insert themselves into the story out of the blue. And it also doesn't seem likely that a news outlet would make it up either.

When you start breaking it down, the scenario where Newton is innocent just doesn't seem believable at all. I hope it is all false. I'm first and foremost a lover of college football and this is terrible for the sport. Cam Newton is a great player and he's having an other-worldly season. I'd hate to see this turn out to be true. It just seems highly unlikely at this point.

jojo

11-11-2010, 10:25 PM

Starting to look worse and worse for Auburn...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5792707

So far, I'm not sure how much Newton is at fault, but unfortunately for him his father seems to be very complicit. And if these allegations are true, Auburn is in big trouble.

Actually its starting to look really bad for MSU. They were still recruiting him a month after Rogers supposedly asked for money? They also apparently weren't fully forthcoming with the NCAA when they finally did get around to reporting Rogers.

Meanwhile the guy supposedly soliciting money has no knowledge of details concerning Auburn's recruitment of Newton and an audit of thousands of phone calls during the period they were recruiting Newton failed to turn up any ties between Rogers and Auburn.

Newton's Dad may have entertained the notion of getting money for Cam's commitment but its becoming increasingly apparent that he didn't get any from Auburn and the NCAA is neither investigating Auburn nor threatening Cam's eligibility though presumably they've known these facts since the spring.

MWM

11-11-2010, 11:42 PM

If Cam's dad even solicited money for a commitment from his son, even if he wound up at another university for free, that's all it will take. He'll be done.

Jojo, do you really believe this is all smoke an no fire? If you believe that then you put ZERO credence is the sources who claim to have heard from Cam after his acceptance to Auburn where he claimed the money was too much to pass up. Look, I'm not one to automatically assume these things are truth, but I also tend to not believe these types of things are completely fabricated.

And it could be that he had no knowledge of Auburn's recruitment because he didn't actually play at Auburn with one of the coaches. But that's just me.

Brutus

11-11-2010, 11:50 PM

Actually its starting to look really bad for MSU. They were still recruiting him a month after Rogers supposedly asked for money? They also apparently weren't fully forthcoming with the NCAA when they finally did get around to reporting Rogers.

Meanwhile the guy supposedly soliciting money has no knowledge of details concerning Auburn's recruitment of Newton and an audit of thousands of phone calls during the period they were recruiting Newton failed to turn up any ties between Rogers and Auburn.

Newton's Dad may have entertained the notion of getting money for Cam's commitment but its becoming increasingly apparent that he didn't get any from Auburn and the NCAA is neither investigating Auburn nor threatening Cam's eligibility though presumably they've known these facts since the spring.

I don't see how you would get the impression that someone asking for nearly $200k for his son's services would suddenly just go somewhere else for nothing. That seems like a real stretch. If what is being alleged here is true, it's really far fetched to think Auburn (or at least an Auburn booster) did everything by the books.

Further, since we're assuming this story is true, it's hard to ignore the following comment:

After Newton committed to Auburn, another source said an emotional Cam Newton phoned another recruiter to express regret that he wouldn't be going to Mississippi State, stating that his father, Cecil, had chosen Auburn for him because "the money was too much."

If you now accept that the allegations are true, or at least very well could be, it's hard to accept anything that leaves Auburn clean in this mess. If the father had his hand out, there's just no rational way of concluding that he didn't go to the highest bidder -- or at least someone willing to pay near what he was asking.

Mississippi State might be facing some collateral damage, I'll grant you, but Auburn is in serious trouble if the allegations in these reports are factual. These kinds of details often wind up being rather damning.

If Cecil Newton had his hand out, it's not likely he suddenly called off the dogs and had his son go to Auburn just for the heck of it.

MWM

11-11-2010, 11:58 PM

So jojo, what are you suggesting most likely happened?

kaldaniels

11-12-2010, 12:06 AM

jojo

11-12-2010, 07:47 AM

I don't see how you would get the impression that someone asking for nearly $200k for his son's services would suddenly just go somewhere else for nothing. That seems like a real stretch. If what is being alleged here is true, it's really far fetched to think Auburn (or at least an Auburn booster) did everything by the books.

Further, since we're assuming this story is true, it's hard to ignore the following comment:

Lets pause for a second and just consider what we think we know. Rogers apparently left a pretty wide trail concerning whatever he was doing at MSU and Newton Sr may or may not have been supportive of his efforts. MSU continued to recruit Cam for a significant time following the date Rogers is first alleged to have asked MSU for money in exchange for Cam's commitment.

At the same time as the Rogers-MSU interactions, several schools including Auburn and Oklahoma were recruiting Cam. However, Rogers would've had to completely change his MO when interacting with other schools given there has been no link between Auburn and Rogers either through people accounts, phone records or financials. No other school has stepped up to collaborate the notion that Rogers was shopping Cam around. Actually the only info from other institutions has been completely unrelated and illegal leaks about Cam's academic record when he was a t Florida.

I agree that something is fishy and it seems to be Rogers/MSU.

If you now accept that the allegations are true, or at least very well could be, it's hard to accept anything that leaves Auburn clean in this mess. If the father had his hand out, there's just no rational way of concluding that he didn't go to the highest bidder -- or at least someone willing to pay near what he was asking.

But where are the ties that would support such supposition? Its apparently been very easy to uncover Rogers' business while in Starkville. Wouldn't it be even harder for him to suddenly become super covert in Auburn? What about other schools?

Mississippi State might be facing some collateral damage, I'll grant you, but Auburn is in serious trouble if the allegations in these reports are factual. These kinds of details often wind up being rather damning.

If Cecil Newton had his hand out, it's not likely he suddenly called off the dogs and had his son go to Auburn just for the heck of it.

This is a big leap. We're only hearing about alleged improprieties in Starkville. As the story stands today, it's Auburn suffering the collateral damage from MSU's inappropriate relationship with Rogers. I get why its tempting to project the Starkville stench onto Auburn but we really need to see proof for why that is actually appropriate.

It's entirely possible that Cam went to the school recruiting him that he thought best allowed his family to be a part of his college experience (i.e. reasonably close to home), gave him the best chance to start, go to bowls over the next two years, and build his NFL resume. Malzahn and Chizik among other things are excellent recruiters and the Malzahn offense coupled with Auburn's experienced offensive line was a perfect fit for Cam.

We probably shouldn't stray too far ahead of the facts when making conclusions about this mess.

jojo

11-12-2010, 08:05 AM

If Cam's dad even solicited money for a commitment from his son, even if he wound up at another university for free, that's all it will take. He'll be done.

If his recruitment to Auburn was as clean as it appears to be, it's very possible that his eligibility does not get revoked next season.

Jojo, do you really believe this is all smoke an no fire? If you believe that then you put ZERO credence is the sources who claim to have heard from Cam after his acceptance to Auburn where he claimed the money was too much to pass up. Look, I'm not one to automatically assume these things are truth, but I also tend to not believe these types of things are completely fabricated.

It sure would be nice to have names for those sources. If true, MSU would basically be toast. Also, how is it possible for Rogers to be so apparently transparent in Starkville and then so covert at other schools. How could Cam be so naive with MSU recruiters and so evil genius at Auburn concerning paper, phone, and money trails?

And it could be that he had no knowledge of Auburn's recruitment because he didn't actually play at Auburn with one of the coaches. But that's just me.

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.

And we also know that Rogers has issues with the NFL etc.

jojo

11-12-2010, 12:29 PM

So jojo, what are you suggesting most likely happened?

Here's a best guess based upon everything that appears backed up by named sources.

Newton Sr and Rogers probably had some type of a loose relationship. Rogers has ties to MSU and he tried to use them to get money as he knew MSU was recruiting Cam and saw this as an in to strengthen his relationship with the Newtons in preparation for an NFL association. Meanwhile Cam's father was managing several schools who were recruiting Cam simultaneously. It's probably likely that Cam's father was considering the possibility that MSU would pay money as part of the decision.

Ultimately MSU didn't give money and Cam's camp went with the program that best fit his chances for a large NFL payday, a decision that appears to have been made without the exchange of money or the influence of Rogers.

MWM

11-12-2010, 02:39 PM

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to think they tried with MSU, but when it failed decided not to risk it and go somewhere else.

However, if this is truly what happened then that means these unnamed sources are a complete fabrication. Is it possible? Perhaps. It just seems not as likely to me.

The one part of your theory that doesn't quite jive for me is the idea that Rogers was working alone on this hoping to get in the good graces of Cecil Newton. As a matter of fact, if Newton wasn't in favor of seeking out a cash deal, doing THAT on his own would have been the way to completely derail the relationship as it could really get him in trouble (like is happening right now).

Rogers is obviously not the most upstanding person in the world, but he's speaking out publicly now and even naming names. For your theory to be true, Rogers has to be completely fabricating the story about meeting with Newton. To me, that just doesn't seem to fit.

Hoosier Red

11-12-2010, 02:52 PM

Oh, and by the way, the FBI is now involved.

Well now, that's a horse of a different color :eek:
To be honest, I probably should have made clear that my statements were in the general paying of recruits and not this specific case. And I admittedly overstepped when suggesting that you could hide $200K easily. My main point is that if you're going to pay recruits, doing it in cash is by far the best way to do it, because it leaves the least paper trail of any payment.

But when you pay $200K you probably have to be a little bit more discreet and delicate than Cam Newton's father was.

bucksfan2

11-12-2010, 03:22 PM

Here's a best guess based upon everything that appears backed up by named sources.

Newton Sr and Rogers probably had some type of a loose relationship. Rogers has ties to MSU and he tried to use them to get money as he knew MSU was recruiting Cam and saw this as an in to strengthen his relationship with the Newtons in preparation for an NFL association. Meanwhile Cam's father was managing several schools who were recruiting Cam simultaneously. It's probably likely that Cam's father was considering the possibility that MSU would pay money as part of the decision.

Ultimately MSU didn't give money and Cam's camp went with the program that best fit his chances for a large NFL payday, a decision that appears to have been made without the exchange of money or the influence of Rogers.

Im sorry jojo but this is laughable.

First of all I had always thought that Newton's connection to MSU was through Dan Mullen. I think Rogers acted upon Newton's father and his desire to get $ for Cam's services.

When Miss. St. wouldn't pony up Newton's father went elsewhere looking for money. What is even more damning is the reports of Newton calling up MSU and telling them he is sorry but his father wanted him to go elsewhere.

I can see this ending several different ways, none of which have a happy ending for Cam or Auburn.

WVRed

11-12-2010, 03:31 PM

I can see this ending several different ways, none of which have a happy ending for Auburn.

Fixed it for you. :)

Cam still has potential (6'6, runs like a deer, and can throw). The NFL will take care of him and his father's church. Auburn on the other hand, that ship will sink the same way USC did.

jojo

11-12-2010, 03:39 PM

Fixed it for you. :)

Cam still has potential (6'6, runs like a deer, and can throw). The NFL will take care of him and his father's church. Auburn on the other hand, that ship will sink the same way USC did.

Given the current facts, Auburn's only real worry is losing Cam's eligibility most likely for next year because the NCAA would penalize Cam for something that happened at MSU. It's fairly likely Cam would jump ship for the NFL anyway.

jojo

11-12-2010, 04:01 PM

Im sorry jojo but this is laughable.

There has been zero verifiable, factual information that suggests Auburn has done anything wrong. Anonymous boogie man "recruiters" aren't compelling. Until there is verifiable information, it's inappropriate to act as if Auburn has done something wrong. That's not funny. It's fair.

First of all I had always thought that Newton's connection to MSU was through Dan Mullen. I think Rogers acted upon Newton's father and his desire to get $ for Cam's services.

Mullen's history with Cam was the impetus for MSU pursing Cam so aggressively because they saw him as much less of a risk and thus were willing to all but guarantee him the starting job. Rogers' relationship with MSU and Mullen's history is basically what would've led to the alleged Rogers ploy. Truthfully, its Mullen's relationship that makes the Rogers story about MSU more believable. It's easy to forget that coming into the season few people viewed Newton as a can't miss star quarterback. Mullen was more inclined to view him as a game changer given their history.

When Miss. St. wouldn't pony up Newton's father went elsewhere looking for money. What is even more damning is the reports of Newton calling up MSU and telling them he is sorry but his father wanted him to go elsewhere.

When Rogers couldn't come up with the money, they (the Newtons) looked for the best opportunity to step in as a starter into an offense that would allow him to build an NFL resume. Auburn was a better fit than MSU given the state of each school's programs.

I can see this ending several different ways, none of which have a happy ending for Cam or Auburn.

It's starting to look less and less likely that Auburn's program will be penalized while MSU has got to be feeling the heat. It's going to come down to what a couple of MSU coaches specifically remember about a statement supposedly made by Cam's dad in a Starkville Hotel. If they remember Mr Newton asking for money, then Rogers gains more credibility but the questions MSU has to answer become much more difficult. If they don't recollect details of the very vague, paraphrased question Rogers says Mr Newton posed, then MSU has less to answer for and Rogers' credibility takes a hit and likely the story centers more on Rogers.

That said the Starkville hotel room is a road that doesn't lead south if it in fact turns out to be paved.

Brutus

11-12-2010, 04:14 PM

Given the current facts, Auburn's only real worry is losing Cam's eligibility most likely for next year because the NCAA would penalize Cam for something that happened at MSU. It's fairly likely Cam would jump ship for the NFL anyway.

I can assure you, this is not the case. It didn't happen at MSU. Right now, all we know is that allegedly, Newton and Rogers solicited money from Mississippi State and it wasn't paid, but that Newton wound up at Auburn because his father got "too much money to pass up."

Auburn wouldn't be penalized for what happened at MSU. They'd be penalized for playing what turned out to be an ineligible player and the real worst-case possibility is that they are found to outright paid Newton's family to go there.

This isn't really about Mississippi State, jojo. This is Auburn in a deep, deep mess if these allegations are true.

I think your allegiance is clouding your perception here. You seem to be accepting most of this story, but conveniently downplaying the part about Auburn. If you accept these guys are telling the truth about their own situation, it isn't prudent to dismiss the damning circumstances being said about how it relates to Auburn.

Again, IF these allegations are true, MSU might get in trouble, but Auburn has a real problem on its hands. I'd advise you embrace the fetal position because it won't be pretty.

jojo

11-12-2010, 04:30 PM

I can assure you, this is not the case. It didn't happen at MSU. Right now, all we know is that allegedly, Newton and Rogers solicited money from Mississippi State and it wasn't paid, but that Newton wound up at Auburn because his father got "too much money to pass up."

Anonymous boogie man "recruiters" aren't compelling because they aren't verifiable.

Auburn wouldn't be penalized for what happened at MSU. They'd be penalized for playing what turned out to be an ineligible player and the real worst-case possibility is that they are found to outright paid Newton's family to go there.

They haven't played an ineligible player. The NCAA knew of the allegations in January and MSU finally supplied the SEC with all that they had by July. Neither body questioned Newton's 2010 eligibility at Auburn. Auburn's compliance office has been working with them on this issue too. This hasn't just popped up in the consciousness of the SEC, the NCAA, or Auburn.

The worst case scenario is that Auburn has paid Newton. There aren't any facts to suggest that's the case however. This is a very important point. Supposition is not fact.

This isn't really about Mississippi State, jojo. This is Auburn in a deep, deep mess if these allegations are true.

Actually this is exactly about MSU and Cam. Of course if the worst case supposition is true (i.e. Auburn out bid MSU), Auburn is in trouble. The facts don't really support such supposition at this point however.

I think your allegiance is clouding your perception here. You seem to be accepting most of this story, but conveniently downplaying the part about Auburn. If you accept these guys are telling the truth about their own situation, it isn't prudent to dismiss the damning circumstances being said about how it relates to Auburn.

This is a very important distinction-I'm focusing upon the facts. If and when the facts change, i'll modify my opinion. You're focusing upon territory that is many miles ahead of the facts as the next quoted statement again emphasizes by beginning with another if..... BTW, this is the same standard most fans of a program would adopt if their program faced something similar. In fact, I'm going out of my way to avoid supposition in an effort to avoid bias with the exception of a response to a request specifically for supposition...

Again, IF these allegations are true, MSU might get in trouble, but Auburn has a real problem on its hands. I'd advise you embrace the fetal position because it won't be pretty.

If it turns out that Auburn cheated, i'll be severely pissed. Right now something would have to dramatically change for that BIG if to become a reality.

Brutus

11-12-2010, 04:46 PM

Anonymous boogie man "recruiters" aren't compelling because they aren't verifiable.

They're no longer anonymous. Many of the key players have now come out publicly. That lends a lot more credibility to the story.

They haven't played an ineligible player. The NCAA knew of the allegations in January and MSU finally supplied the SEC with all that they had by July. Neither body questioned Newton's 2010 eligibility at Auburn. Auburn's compliance office has been working with them on this issue too. This hasn't just popped up in the consciousness of the SEC, the NCAA, or Auburn.

The worst case scenario is that Auburn has paid Newton. There aren't any facts to suggest that's the case however. This is a very important point. Supposition is not fact.

That's not how the NCAA operates. The NCAA can punish any institution for using a player that is declared ineligible after the fact if it had any reason to believe the player might be ineligible. The SEC was aware of these allegations before the season started and Auburn elected to continue playing Newton anyhow. It might not seem fair, but they could be culpable if Newton's amateur status is in jeopardy.

Also, it's no longer "supposition." There is a source on the record saying Newton told the Mississippi State staff that his father said the money was too good to pass up at Auburn. That's not supposition. It's evidence, circumstantial yes, but evidence nonetheless. Supposition is just drawing a conclusion that because they were asking for money from one team, thereby they asked for it from another. While that's the likely scenario no matter how hard someone tries to suggest otherwise, we have a report saying that Newton admitted this to be the case. That cannot be ignored if we're accepting any of this story as legit.

This is a very important distinction-I'm focusing upon the facts. If and when the facts change, i'll modify my opinion. You're focusing upon territory that is many miles ahead of the facts as the next statement again emphasizes by beginning with another if..... BTW, this is the same standard most fans of a program would adopt if their program faced something similar. In fact, I'm going out of my way to avoid supposition in an effort to avoid bias with the exception of a response to a request specifically for supposition...

I tend to think you're going out of your way to avoid the reality rather than supposition.

I'm giving Newton the benefit of the doubt, but it's getting much harder to do that. And like I said... if we accept that what is being alleged is true, then it becomes impractical to deny Auburn did anything wrong. And it's not all based on supposition. The quote citing a conversation with Cam is pretty damning if the rest of the story checks out.

bucksfan2

11-12-2010, 04:49 PM

If it turns out that Auburn cheated, i'll be severely pissed. Right now something would have to dramatically change for that BIG if to become a reality.

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

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

jojo

11-12-2010, 04:55 PM

They're no longer anonymous. Many of the key players have now come out publicly. That lends a lot more credibility to the story.

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

That's not how the NCAA operates. The NCAA can punish any institution for using a player that is declared ineligible after the fact if it had any reason to believe the player might be ineligible. The SEC was aware of these allegations before the season started and Auburn elected to continue playing Newton anyhow. It might not seem fair, but they could be culpable if Newton's amateur status is in jeopardy.

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

Also, it's no longer "supposition." There is a source on the record saying Newton told the Mississippi State staff that his father said the money was too good to pass up at Auburn. That's not supposition. It's evidence, circumstantial yes, but evidence nonetheless. Supposition is just drawing a conclusion that because they were asking for money from one team, thereby they asked for it from another. While that's the likely scenario no matter how hard someone tries to suggest otherwise, we have a report saying that Newton admitted this to be the case. That cannot be ignored if we're accepting any of this story as legit.

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

I tend to think you're going out of your way to avoid the reality rather than supposition.

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

I'm giving Newton the benefit of the doubt, but it's getting much harder to do that. And like I said... if we accept that what is being alleged is true, then it becomes impractical to deny Auburn did anything wrong. And it's not all based on supposition. The quote citing a conversation with Cam is pretty damning if the rest of the story checks out.

Again, if's, if's, if's......

jojo

11-12-2010, 04:56 PM

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

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

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

WMR

11-12-2010, 05:03 PM

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

Brutus

11-12-2010, 05:16 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoosier Red

11-12-2010, 05:34 PM

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

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

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

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

Cedric

11-12-2010, 05:42 PM

Per ESPN headline:

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

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

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

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

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

jojo

11-12-2010, 05:48 PM

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

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

WMR

11-12-2010, 05:52 PM

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

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

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

jojo

11-12-2010, 05:57 PM

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

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

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

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

Brutus

11-12-2010, 07:08 PM

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

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

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

jojo

11-12-2010, 08:31 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Here's Slive's comments from earlier today:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/11/slive_discusses_cam_newton_cas.html

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

Here's where the SEC stands right now:

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

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

MWM

11-12-2010, 08:41 PM

jojo

11-12-2010, 08:51 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brutus

11-13-2010, 01:24 AM

Hoosier Red

11-13-2010, 03:54 PM

jojo

11-13-2010, 04:07 PM

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

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

This is actually the beginning of this story getting marginalized.

MSU is about to back away from the edge.

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

Sea Ray

11-16-2010, 05:03 PM

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

Why is that?

MWM

11-16-2010, 05:45 PM

I just read a story on ESPN.com that said Bond will be speaking to the FBI about this. I can't figure out why this has anything to do with the FBI. What could possible have happened that would require them to investigate?

westofyou

11-16-2010, 05:54 PM

Sea Ray

11-16-2010, 06:19 PM

I'm wondering if maybe $200K changing hands in this kind of shady manner may have violated some federal laws

Reds4Life

11-16-2010, 06:46 PM

I'm wondering if maybe $200K changing hands in this kind of shady manner may have violated some federal laws

I figured it woud be an IRS issue, if the money exchanged hands, it's unreported income. Some perks and benefits are also considered taxable.

jojo

11-16-2010, 06:51 PM

I'm wondering if maybe $200K changing hands in this kind of shady manner may have violated some federal laws

Apparently no money did change hands since Rogers was not able to convince Newton to go to MSU.

jojo

11-16-2010, 06:52 PM

Why is that?

Why wouldn't a fan of NCAA football have that hope?

Brutus

11-16-2010, 06:53 PM

Apparently no money did change hands since Rogers was not able to convince Newton to go to MSU.

It's also possible money did change hands since he didn't end up at MSU.

Just sayin'

jojo

11-16-2010, 06:55 PM

It's also possible money did change hands since he didn't end up at MSU.

Just sayin'

It's the least likely scenario given everything currently known.

Sea Ray

11-16-2010, 06:55 PM

I figured it woud be an IRS issue, if the money exchanged hands, it's unreported income. Some perks and benefits are also considered taxable.

Does the FBI usually investigate tax evasion claims? I thought it was usually the IRS agents that did that

Sea Ray

11-16-2010, 06:57 PM

It's the least likely scenario given everything currently known.

I don't know why you'd say that. They are investigating to see if money changed hands. If they were convinced that no payoffs occured then I imagine Newton would be cleared and everyone would go home

Brutus

11-16-2010, 06:59 PM

It's the least likely scenario given everything currently known.

It's actually the most likely scenario. Since most of what has been alleged has turned out to be true, it's hard to ignore the other part of the allegations:

that Cam told Mississippi State coaches he had to go to Auburn because "the money was too good to pass up."

Considering the father has now partially admitted the story, it's a bigger leap to believe no money changed hands than to believe it didn't.

jojo

11-16-2010, 07:03 PM

I don't know why you'd say that. They are investigating to see if money changed hands. If they were convinced that no payoffs occured then I imagine Newton would be cleared and everyone would go home

I don't know why you're acting like they found something. I imagine Newton will be cleared concerning getting money and everyone has probably already gone home. The FBI is poking at Rogers BTW and is likely looking for evidence pointing toward his other shenanigans.

Sea Ray

11-16-2010, 07:03 PM

Why wouldn't a fan of NCAA football have that hope?

A fan of NCAA football wouldn't wish such allegations to be true of any NCAA team but given his comments re: U of Tenn allegations, WMR clearly isn't that type of fan

Sea Ray

11-16-2010, 07:06 PM

I don't know why you're acting like they found something. I imagine Newton will be cleared concerning getting money and everyone has probably already gone home. The FBI is poking at Rogers BTW and is likely looking for evidence pointing toward his other shenanigans.

I don't know if they've found anything but I do think that's what they're looking for

jojo

11-16-2010, 07:10 PM

It's actually the most likely scenario. Since most of what has been alleged has turned out to be true, it's hard to ignore the other part of the allegations:

that Cam told Mississippi State coaches he had to go to Auburn because "the money was too good to pass up."

Considering the father has now partially admitted the story, it's a bigger leap to believe no money changed hands than to believe it didn't.

Not really. He didn't go to MSU. Rogers was the guy asking for money and he doesn't have a foggy clue about Auburn's recruitment of Cam, a statement that is incredibly hard to ignore when begging the question that Auburn paid Cam (and a statement that is verified by the audit of all Auburn athletic phone calls during Cam's recruitment and the statement by Oklahoma that they were never approached for money either).

Again, to be accurate, Rogers said that Cam allegedly called MSU recruiters-not MSU coaches. He clearly considers Bond part of the recruitment effort which MSU would never concede as factual. This allegation is going to be impossible to verify and it's kind of silly to treat it as fact.

Brutus

11-16-2010, 07:28 PM

Not really. He didn't go to MSU. Rogers was the guy asking for money and he doesn't have a foggy clue about Auburn's recruitment of Cam, a statement that is incredibly hard to ignore when begging the question that Auburn paid Cam (and a statement that is verified by the audit of all Auburn athletic phone calls during Cam's recruitment and the statement by Oklahoma that they were never approached for money either).

Again, to be accurate, Rogers said that Cam allegedly called MSU recruiters-not MSU coaches. He clearly considers Bond part of the recruitment effort which MSU would never concede as factual. This allegation is going to be impossible to verify and it's kind of silly to treat it as fact.

First of all, no distinction has been made that "recruiters" weren't part of the Mississippi State staff.

Second, it's splitting hairs to worry about who it was said to. At this point, everything (to this point) that has been alleged has not been disproven. There is clearly a lot of validity to this story, so it doesn't matter who Cam made the comments to, the fact they are part of what is a credible story should be alarming to anyone that is objective.

People with their hand out don't suddenly just drop the issue after being rebuffed by one team. I think it's naive to think because they didn't get money from Mississippi State that suddenly Cecil Newton dropped the issue altogether.

jojo

11-16-2010, 07:33 PM

First of all, no distinction has been made that "recruiters" weren't part of the Mississippi State staff.

Second, it's splitting hairs to worry about who it was said to. At this point, everything (to this point) that has been alleged has not been disproven. There is clearly a lot of validity to this story, so it doesn't matter who Cam made the comments to, the fact they are part of what is a credible story should be alarming to anyone that is objective.

People with their hand out don't suddenly just drop the issue after being rebuffed by one team. I think it's naive to think because they didn't get money from Mississippi State that suddenly Cecil Newton dropped the issue altogether.

It matters whether he made the statement that you're using to argue is proof that Auburn paid him.

The facts as we know them don't allow you to make that assertion.

It's far fetched to argue that since Rogers approached Cecil, Cecil then sought out individuals with whom he had no prior relationship with at other schools to ask for money.

Sea Ray

11-16-2010, 07:37 PM

It matters whether he made the statement that you're using to argue is proof that Auburn paid him.

The facts as we know them don't allow you to make that assertion.

It's far fetched to argue that since Rogers approached Cecil, Cecil then sought out individuals with whom he had no prior relationship with at other schools to ask for money.

Your comments don't address the point Brutus made about Cam going to Auburn because of the money. I think that's the comment they're looking into

jojo

11-16-2010, 09:14 PM

Your comments don't address the point Brutus made about Cam going to Auburn because of the money. I think that's the comment they're looking into

It's the exact statement that has been addressed-a couple of times in this thread.

Boston Red

11-17-2010, 05:19 PM

Uh, oh, the dreaded TMZ story:

http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/17/cam-newton-fbi-investigation-probe-auburn-university-booster-milton-mcgregor-sec-football-ncaa/

Sea Ray

11-17-2010, 05:23 PM

Ahhhh. Now we're getting somewhere...

jojo

11-17-2010, 07:09 PM

Ahhhh. Now we're getting somewhere...

Assuming the TMZ source isn't made up, it now make sense why the FBI cares. They're fishing for a way to get Milton McGregor.

Brutus

11-17-2010, 08:04 PM

Uh, oh, the dreaded TMZ story:

http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/17/cam-newton-fbi-investigation-probe-auburn-university-booster-milton-mcgregor-sec-football-ncaa/

That was the logical next step in progression of this story. It just doesn't make sense someone with their hand out quit after one attempt. That's not how these things work in recruiting.

More details coming out on the Mississippi St. side of the ledger:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5818428&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_5818428

Seems like Mississippi St. did a darn good job distancing themselves from this one. Who knows if they were going to pay up and simply lost out or if they truly wanted to stay out of that. But either way, they're sure bringing the heat as far as covering their rears.

Brutus

11-17-2010, 08:09 PM

jojo

11-17-2010, 09:52 PM

That was the logical next step in progression of this story. It just doesn't make sense someone with their hand out quit after one attempt. That's not how these things work in recruiting.

More details coming out on the Mississippi St. side of the ledger:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5818428&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_5818428

Seems like Mississippi St. did a darn good job distancing themselves from this one. Who knows if they were going to pay up and simply lost out or if they truly wanted to stay out of that. But either way, they're sure bringing the heat as far as covering their rears.

MSU is cauterizing their wounds. Today basically doesn't add anything that changes the situation other then to add a few details that further implicate Rogers. The TMZ story does zilch to implicate Auburn in any wrong doing. It can't even verify a tangible connection between MM and Cecil. More and more everything rests on Rogers' word.

The NCAA is poised to close the book on this circus possibly as early as Friday but probably no later than the Bama game unless the verifiable facts as we know them dramatically change.

Cedric

11-17-2010, 09:59 PM

MWM

11-17-2010, 10:07 PM

jojo, are you seriously saying you think this thing is just going to go away?

jojo

11-17-2010, 10:15 PM

jojo, are you seriously saying you think this thing is just going to go away?

Its going to go away in the sense that the NCAA is going to make ruling and end it.

I don't know what the NCAA will do because one has to assume that they know more than we know but right now Auburn is sitting where they want to be considering the story. I think they feel like this is not going to end in the explosion that many seem to expect.

We'll see.

jojo

11-17-2010, 10:25 PM

Wow.

I still haven't gotten through all of this, but someone has done one heck of a job on an SEC message board compiling leads on this whole fiasco...

Tigerdroppings.com: case against Auburn (http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/MessageTopic.asp?p=22778676&Pg=1)

Unfortunately there is an awful lot of axe grinding editorialization and innuendo masquerading as established fact in LSU fan's version of the truth.

May favorite "fact":

Lowder and AU continue search, which ultimately leads to the hiring of Chizik, a former Sexton client which with a 5-19 record would knowingly jump at any opportunity to enhance his resume. Chizik also was familiar with Lowder, Dye, and Co., as he previously acted as DC under Tubs, making him a perfect "puppet" for Lowder and crew to manipulate. Chizik's Recruiting Coordinator is TTaylor

Well actually the part where bluetunatiger equated Auburn to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany is probably all but impossible to top.

Brutus

11-18-2010, 12:17 AM

Its going to go away in the sense that the NCAA is going to make ruling and end it.

I don't know what the NCAA will do because one has to assume that they know more than we know but right now Auburn is sitting where they want to be considering the story. I think they feel like this is not going to end in the explosion that many seem to expect.

We'll see.

That's got to be the most optimistic statement I've ever seen on the matter. When have you ever known the NCAA to "make ruling and end it." That's never been how they operate.

They gather. And gather. And gather. And deliberate. And deliberate. And deliberate some more. Then they rule.

If the FBI is now involved, as reported, you can bet they will milk their coattails for all it's worth.

This won't likely end well for Auburn. It's not going away and it stands a very good chance of getting worse.

Sea Ray

11-18-2010, 11:15 AM

jojo

11-18-2010, 11:26 AM

I think the NCAA ought to make an effort to rule on this more quickly than they normally do. I don't think it's in their best interests to have Auburn playing for a national title with the possibility of having it revoked shortly after the t-shirts are printed. That sort of uncertainty can make a mockery of the BCS championship, not to mention the unfairness to the #3 team who missed out on a chance to play for it all. If it's Boise then it could be a once in a lifetime chance missed

It's a fairness issue that is driving the quickness. Not only to #3 but to #2 in the SEC West.

bucksfan2

11-18-2010, 11:30 AM

I think the NCAA ought to make an effort to rule on this more quickly than they normally do. I don't think it's in their best interests to have Auburn playing for a national title with the possibility of having it revoked shortly after the t-shirts are printed. That sort of uncertainty can make a mockery of the BCS championship, not to mention the unfairness to the #3 team who missed out on a chance to play for it all. If it's Boise then it could be a once in a lifetime chance missed

Auburn wants them to take as long as possible. You think they are going to give back all their t-shirts printed for SEC Champs? How about National Championship Champs? They will take all that money to the bank and wish Cam luck in the pros.

Sea Ray

11-18-2010, 11:36 AM

Auburn wants them to take as long as possible. You think they are going to give back all their t-shirts printed for SEC Champs? How about National Championship Champs? They will take all that money to the bank and wish Cam luck in the pros.

No doubt it's in Auburn's best interests to have a slow investigation but that's it. The other 100 or so football programs should be pushing for a quick resolution

Sea Ray

11-18-2010, 11:38 AM

It's a fairness issue that is driving the quickness. Not only to #3 but to #2 in the SEC West.

#2 in the SEC West isn't going to play for a national championship and I doubt they can wrap up this investigation in the next week which is what they'd have to do in order to keep the #2 SEC West team from getting screwed

jojo

11-18-2010, 11:46 AM

#2 in the SEC West isn't going to play for a national championship and I doubt they can wrap up this investigation in the next week which is what they'd have to do in order to keep the #2 SEC West team from getting screwed

But #2 would become undefeated if the worst case scenario happens and Auburn's season was vacated. LSU would be guaranteed an additional game that gave them a chance for a conference championship (i.e. it's not just another game) and given #2 is #5 in the BCS rankings, it's not a huge leap that an NCAA ruling could have BCS implications not just limited to Auburn being removed from the picture.

BTW, I don't think Auburn's season will be vacated.

bucksfan2

11-18-2010, 12:10 PM

But #2 would become undefeated if the worst case scenario happens and Auburn's season was vacated. LSU would be guaranteed an additional game that gave them a chance for a conference championship (i.e. it's not just another game) and given #2 is #5 in the BCS rankings, it's not a huge leap that an NCAA ruling could have BCS implications not just limited to Auburn being removed from the picture.

BTW, I don't think Auburn's season will be vacated.

#2 wouldn't become undefeated. Teams don't get wins when their opponent has to vacate wins.

BTW, I think that Auburn's season will be vacated and the program be placed on probation at best.

jojo

11-18-2010, 12:35 PM

#2 wouldn't become undefeated. Teams don't get wins when their opponent has to vacate wins.

BTW, I think that Auburn's season will be vacated and the program be placed on probation at best.

If the decision was made during the season, the loss would revert (assuming the NCAA forfeits them rather than vacates).

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Stats/Statistics+Policies

There's a lot of ifs and unknowns but if the NCAA declares Cam ineligible, it's tough to predict how they would interpret the infraction and how they would deal with records. This is an unusual case.

bucksfan2

11-18-2010, 12:38 PM

If the decision was made during the season, the loss would revert (assuming the NCAA forfeits them rather than vacates).

Ok makes sense. I know when teams like USC and Memphis had to vacate their wins the team that lost didn't get a W instead.

Also on a different SEC note, weren't there rumors about UF having to vacate their Sugar Bowl win against UC?

jojo

11-18-2010, 12:42 PM

Ok makes sense. I know when teams like USC and Memphis had to vacate their wins the team that lost didn't get a W instead.

Also on a different SEC note, weren't there rumors about UF having to vacate their Sugar Bowl win against UC?

Vacating a season doesn't effect the record of opponents-forfeiting does. My language wasn't accurate in post #157.

Sea Ray

11-18-2010, 12:51 PM

I am of the opinion that voters wouldn't allow LSU to benefit from Auburn's misfortune but it will be a hot topic of discussion

bucksfan2

11-18-2010, 05:52 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/11/17/newton.payment.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

The reports are starting to get more detailed. Now there was a payment plan in place for Cam's services.

WMR

11-18-2010, 06:26 PM

Bell told ESPN.com he is publicly talking about the payment plan to make clear Mississippi State did not break NCAA rules.

:lol:

Yeah, THAT'S why you're talking.

IslandRed

11-18-2010, 07:33 PM

jojo

11-18-2010, 07:38 PM

Rogers is an innocent victim of the evil Cecil. That's why MSU continued to recruit Cam well after Rogers' approached MSU for money claiming he could deliver Cam. That's also why MSU only reported the allegations to the SEC after Cam went to Auburn and did so using language so vague that it was impossible for the SEC to investigate. That's also why MSU ignored repeated requests by the SEC to elaborate upon their original allegations only doing so after an unprecedented 7 month delay. That's also why MSU was less than forthcoming when they finally answered the SEC.

Yep, Rogers is simply a victim who was taken advantage of....

Unfortunately for MSU, links between Auburn and pay for play schemes just aren't materializing. Cam hasn't been accused of anything. That's right, lost in all of this is the reality that Cam has not been accused of anything. Frankly, at this point, there hasn't been anything other than hearsay to suggest that Cecil was asking for money and even less to support the notion that Cecil was the driving force behind Rogers' efforts. Bell seems to corroborate some of Rogers' story though Bell admits he never heard Cecil actually ask for money and the texts detailing the elaborate pay schedule that could actually corroborate Bell were apparently lost due to water damage. Things could obviously change but the principle players in this ordeal aren't adding up to a crush of facts.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/18/lawyer-one-million-percent-confident-cam-newton-took-no-money-from-no-one/related/

jojo

11-18-2010, 07:42 PM

IF Auburn gets nailed to the wall and set on fire by the NCAA, it will probably be because the rumors are true about the FBI wiretapping McGregor (gambling proprietor, Auburn booster and business partner of Bobby Lowder, a name every SEC fan knows) and having Auburn dead to rights on a lot more than Cam Newton, information they happily shared with the NCAA once the figures involved were indicted and the wiretaps were unsealed.

Or that could all be a bunch of hooey. Guess we'll find out eventually.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/18/lawyer-one-million-percent-confident-cam-newton-took-no-money-from-no-one/related/

According to the Birmingham News, and citing multiple unnamed sources, “[w]iretaps made as part of the recent federal investigation into vote-buying in the Alabama Legislature contain no conversations that connect Victoryland owner Milton McGregor to quarterback Cam Newton’s recruitment to Auburn.”

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=13522648

"Contrary to postings on celebrity and sports blogs, Milton McGregor has never had any contact direct or indirect with Cam Newton, Cecil Newton - Cam's father, Kenny Rogers or anyone purporting to represent Cam Newton. Mr. McGregor has never been asked to provide money for any recruitment or compensation of any current or prospective student athlete including Cam Newton at Auburn or any other school, and has never provided any type of compensation in that regard period no exceptions. As a proud supporter of Auburn University Mr. McGregor wants it known that he does cheer loudly for Cam Newton and thinks he is the best athlete in college football."

KronoRed

11-19-2010, 12:56 AM

Also on a different SEC note, weren't there rumors about UF having to vacate their Sugar Bowl win against UC?

Not that I ever heard, there was an "agent" who claimed he have given money to a UF offensive linemen who had gone pro, but it was debunked pretty quickly.

Brutus

11-19-2010, 01:20 AM

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/18/lawyer-one-million-percent-confident-cam-newton-took-no-money-from-no-one/related/

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=13522648

A couple of attorneys denying allegations on behalf of their clients? Shocking.

jojo

11-19-2010, 07:23 AM

A couple of attorneys denying allegations on behalf of their clients? Shocking.

“[w]iretaps made as part of the recent federal investigation into vote-buying in the Alabama Legislature contain no conversations that connect Victoryland owner Milton McGregor to quarterback Cam Newton’s recruitment to Auburn.”

It's fairly significant for the Newton's lawyer to answer some of the questions the way they did publicly for the first time:

(Has he taken money?)
"No money has been offered to Cam. Cam Newton has not asked for any money."

(Talked to NCAA?)
"Cam Newton, Cecil Newton and Jackie Newton have participated in the ongoing NCAA investigation. They have been truthful and candid with the NCAA and will continue to cooperate with the NCAA and will produce and answer any and all questions that the NCAA has for them."

(Cam didn't know?)
"I don't think there's any question that Cam knew nothing about any money discussions, if any discussions were had."

Read more: http://wareagleextra.blogspot.com/2010/11/newton-family-attorney-is-million.html#ixzz15j3mOpea

Several things are becoming clearer with time. First, Cam had no knowledge of talks concerning money. Second, MSU acted in bad faith concerning the reporting of the allegations as their behavior represents an orchestrated pattern that seems more aimed at damaging Auburn's football program than complying with rules and ethical standards. Third, as the main players in this circus have circled their wagons, we are basically only left with facts that establish a solid link between Rogers and Bell (and that's mostly just because they admit it)-in other words, the only thing that is clear in this mess is that Rogers approached a couple of MSU boosters and solicited money while claiming to be a representative of Cecil though it has yet to be corroborated that Cecil asked Rogers to solicit money.

Clearly the NCAA did not recommend that Auburn keep Cam out of the Georgia game.

That's where this mess stands a week before the Iron Bowl.

Brutus

11-19-2010, 03:09 PM

It's fairly significant for the Newton's lawyer to answer some of the questions the way they did publicly for the first time:

Read more: http://wareagleextra.blogspot.com/2010/11/newton-family-attorney-is-million.html#ixzz15j3mOpea

Several things are becoming clearer with time. First, Cam had no knowledge of talks concerning money. Second, MSU acted in bad faith concerning the reporting of the allegations as their behavior represents an orchestrated pattern that seems more aimed at damaging Auburn's football program than complying with rules and ethical standards. Third, as the main players in this circus have circled their wagons, we are basically only left with facts that establish a solid link between Rogers and Bell (and that's mostly just because they admit it)-in other words, the only thing that is clear in this mess is that Rogers approached a couple of MSU boosters and solicited money while claiming to be a representative of Cecil though it has yet to be corroborated that Cecil asked Rogers to solicit money.

Clearly the NCAA did not recommend that Auburn keep Cam out of the Georgia game.

That's where this mess stands a week before the Iron Bowl.

Fairly clear? I guess you're choosing to ignore the part of the story that he called "recruiters" noting why he was going to Auburn. I think that's still a pretty big elephant in the room that most people outside of Auburn don't believe has been dealt with despite these denials. The worst thing in the world was the father admitting guilt.

Second, I can tell you 100% having friends in compliance at a few different D-1 institutions and knowing how this process typically operates that the NCAA does NOT make recommendations on such a thing. It's completely and totally up to the school to use discretion whether or not to play a player that might turn out to be ineligible.

The NCAA is absolutely hands-off until after the investigation. They do not make recommendations. It's the school's job to decide that until the NCAA makes a ruling.

The fact that Newton played last week meant absolutely nothing other than Auburn deciding it was worth the risk. In fact, at this point, I actually don't blame them. If Newton gets in trouble, their season is likely over with anyhow, as the wins will probably be vacated. So suspending him now won't really change their status any. May as well continue playing him. They knew before the season much of what they know now. So his playing won't change their culpability any.

jojo

11-19-2010, 03:48 PM

Fairly clear? I guess you're choosing to ignore the part of the story that he called "recruiters" noting why he was going to Auburn. I think that's still a pretty big elephant in the room that most people outside of Auburn don't believe has been dealt with despite these denials. The worst thing in the world was the father admitting guilt.

Both of those issues that you are accepting as fact are uncorroborated and based upon unnamed sources that are counter to denials from the Newtons. Jeeps, waterlogged text messages? What's next from the Rogers' gang? Cecil was about to be paid but a dog ate the check before Rogers could give it to Cecil? :shocked:

Second, I can tell you 100% having friends in compliance at a few different D-1 institutions and knowing how this process typically operates that the NCAA does NOT make recommendations on such a thing. It's completely and totally up to the school to use discretion whether or not to play a player that might turn out to be ineligible.

And I can tell you 100% that Auburn has worked closely with the NCAA and the SEC concerning Cam's eligibility and the NCAA does indeed make recommendations about whether a player should sit out. It's completely up to the university to heed them or not.

The fact that Newton played last week meant absolutely nothing other than Auburn deciding it was worth the risk. In fact, at this point, I actually don't blame them. If Newton gets in trouble, their season is likely over with anyhow, as the wins will probably be vacated. So suspending him now won't really change their status any. May as well continue playing him. They knew before the season much of what they know now. So his playing won't change their culpability any.

It means the NCAA did not recommend that Auburn sit Cam out.

I know you've made your mind up and its possible that eventually you may be right concerning Cam being declared ineligible but right now your position is ahead of the facts and its entirely possible that the facts may never catch up.

MWM

11-19-2010, 03:57 PM

No offense jojo as you're clearly a very smart guy, but it's got to the point it's hard to take seriously what you're saying on this topic. You seem to refuse to look at what seems obvious to everyone else.

jojo

11-19-2010, 03:58 PM

Scrap Irony

11-19-2010, 03:59 PM

The NCAA is absolutely hands-off until after the investigation. They do not make recommendations. It's the school's job to decide that until the NCAA makes a ruling.

The fact that Newton played last week meant absolutely nothing other than Auburn deciding it was worth the risk. In fact, at this point, I actually don't blame them. If Newton gets in trouble, their season is likely over with anyhow, as the wins will probably be vacated. So suspending him now won't really change their status any. May as well continue playing him. They knew before the season much of what they know now. So his playing won't change their culpability any.

Yep.

The NCAA, like Fight Club, doesn't talk about investigations while they're taking place.

That the NCAA hasn't told the Tigers anything should hold no weight one way or another.

And whatever any lawyer says should never be taken at face value. Ever.

What is significant is the possible "proof" the NCAA might find.

jojo

11-19-2010, 04:10 PM

Yep.

The NCAA, like Fight Club, doesn't talk about investigations while they're taking place.

That the NCAA hasn't told the Tigers anything should hold no weight one way or another.

And whatever any lawyer says should never be taken at face value. Ever.

What is significant is the possible "proof" the NCAA might find.

The NCAA will indeed advise a university that a player's eligibility is in question which is tantamount to suggesting the university should suspend/sit the player based upon info the NCAA has gathered.

The "possible" proof the NCAA may find is largely supposition at this point.

Brutus

11-19-2010, 04:34 PM

The NCAA will indeed advise a university that a player's eligibility is in question which is tantamount to suggesting the university should suspend/sit the player based upon info the NCAA has gathered.

The "possible" proof the NCAA may find is largely supposition at this point.

Clearly you don't want to hear anything differently, so believe me at your own peril, but people that have dealt with the NCAA for a living will tell you the NCAA does not give recommendations. And the NCAA--they've said as much. There has been a few reports the past few weeks where they've even said the burden is completely on the institution to decide whether a player is eligible initially. They'll rule after the fact, but during the process, they do not give much feedback on the decisions to play or not play a player.

Look, I usually give the benefit of the doubt when a report like this comes out. And after the first report, I did. But since then, everything that has come out has provided more and more detail. Here you have a father that has admitted to having these conversations. And absolutely nothing has been disproven. To me... that's a major red flag in itself.

Add to the fact that laundry list of information provided on that LSU site... and you have a real mess. Is it true some of that might be exaggerated, out of context or perhaps even flat out untrue? Sure. But if even 10% of the information compiled in that report is true... Auburn will be in such a world of hurt. Everytime the FBI has gotten involved on an NCAA investigation... it's turned out to be trouble for the institution. Why? Because frankly there are no schools that are truly clean from booster involvement/shenanigans.

jojo

11-19-2010, 04:55 PM

Clearly you don't want to hear anything differently, so believe me at your own peril, but people that have dealt with the NCAA for a living will tell you the NCAA does not give recommendations

Brutus I have listened carefully to you. My position has been to form an opinion based upon only what we know for certain. You've accepted certain things as reality using a lower burden of proof than I. That doesn't make me close minded. My opinion is fluid and will continue to change as new facts emerge. Again, the NCAA absolutely WILL advise a university when they have uncovered information that may effect a player's eligibility. Ask you acquaintances-they will verify this.

Look, I usually give the benefit of the doubt when a report like this comes out. And after the first report, I did. But since then, everything that has come out has provided more and more detail. Here you have a father that has admitted to having these conversations. And absolutely nothing has been disproven. To me... that's a major red flag in itself.

This is a key distinction. There has been a single report that relied completely upon an unnamed source who alleged Cecil was part of a conversation about money in exchange for a commitment. This is a pretty weak point to begin with and even if it were absolutely true, it's difficult to interpret it's significance. For instance, did it mean Cecil was pushing hard for Rogers to solicit money from MSU or did it mean that Rogers had initiated a conversation with Cecil about the possibility in the hopes of solidifying his ties to the family? There's a huge swath of nuances here which could dramatically influence how this mess should be viewed. In short, this needs much more light before we just blithely call it another "fact".

Add to the fact that laundry list of information provided on that LSU site... and you have a real mess. Is it true some of that might be exaggerated, out of context or perhaps even flat out untrue? Sure. But if even 10% of the information compiled in that report is true... Auburn will be in such a world of hurt. Everytime the FBI has gotten involved on an NCAA investigation... it's turned out to be trouble for the institution. Why? Because frankly there are no schools that are truly clean from booster involvement/shenanigans.

Again you're simply assuming links that aren't there. You were all over the TMZ report as validation that the next obvious step has begun. But the TMZ report and the blogotivity that ran with it was later shown to be nothing.

Brutus

11-19-2010, 05:20 PM

Brutus I have listened carefully to you. My position has been to form an opinion based upon only what we know for certain. You've accepted certain things as reality using a lower burden of proof than I. That doesn't make me close minded. My opinion is fluid and will continue to change as new facts emerge. Again, the NCAA absolutely WILL advise a university when they have uncovered information that may effect a player's eligibility. Ask you acquaintances-they will verify this.

I don't think you're listening carefully enough, because I'm telling you they (my acquaintances) have said the NCAA absolutely does NOT advise a university. This is coming from these same individuals that deal with them on a daily basis. That's not the modus operandi of the NCAA. I have had this conversation with them several times long before this incident, but I even spoke with each of them more about it since. They both independently reiterated the NCAA does not advise institutions on that matter.

I'm not accepting anything as a reality. But I'm playing the percentages at this point that it seems the burden of proof has shifted with all the details emerging. It's a pretty easy leap now to assume someone continued to ask for a handout when there's (by Cecil's admission) precedent.

This is a key distinction. There has been a single report that relied completely upon an unnamed source who alleged Cecil was part of a conversation about money in exchange for a commitment. This is a pretty weak point to begin with and even if it were absolutely true, it's difficult to interpret it's significance. For instance, did it mean Cecil was pushing hard for Rogers to solicit money from MSU or did it mean that Rogers had initiated a conversation with Cecil about the possibility in the hopes of solidifying his ties to the family? There's a huge swath of nuances here which could dramatically influence how this mess should be viewed. In short, this needs much more light before we just blithely call it another "fact".

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

Again you're simply assuming links that aren't there. You were all over the TMZ report as validation that the next obvious step has begun. But the TMZ report and the blogotivity that ran with it was later shown to be nothing.

Shown to be nothing? The only thing that has been reported since was that there's no taped conversations on the Newton situation. It didn't do anything to discredit the TMZ report. In fact, TMZ didn't even conclude that there were any taped conversations to the report that surfaced had more to do with other assumptions that TMZ never made.

BuckeyeRed27

11-19-2010, 06:12 PM

Brutus is right about the NCAA and advising a University about this type of thing. It is 100% up to the university how they want to handle it. In fact how they handle it can make a big difference in the ultimate punishment or lack there of (i.e. USC and Reggie Bush vs. OSU and Troy Smith or Michigan and RichRod).

Auburn is choosing to handle it with Newton still playing and rolling the dice that it works out for them. However if it doesn't the punishment will most likely be much worse than had they sat him.

jojo

11-19-2010, 06:35 PM

I don't think you're listening carefully enough, because I'm telling you they (my acquaintances) have said the NCAA absolutely does NOT advise a university. This is coming from these same individuals that deal with them on a daily basis. That's not the modus operandi of the NCAA. I have had this conversation with them several times long before this incident, but I even spoke with each of them more about it since. They both independently reiterated the NCAA does not advise institutions on that matter.

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

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

I'm not accepting anything as a reality. But I'm playing the percentages at this point that it seems the burden of proof has shifted with all the details emerging. It's a pretty easy leap now to assume someone continued to ask for a handout when there's (by Cecil's admission) precedent.

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

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gayf-_zo7sZJ2vianLw_pUSev9bw?docId=997046c24b434ffd922c 1d629b8bd95a

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

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

Shown to be nothing? The only thing that has been reported since was that there's no taped conversations on the Newton situation. It didn't do anything to discredit the TMZ report. In fact, TMZ didn't even conclude that there were any taped conversations to the report that surfaced had more to do with other assumptions that TMZ never made.

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

Brutus

11-19-2010, 09:18 PM

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

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

The process (usually) is as follows:

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

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

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

* The NCAA conducts its investigation into the matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gayf-_zo7sZJ2vianLw_pUSev9bw?docId=997046c24b434ffd922c 1d629b8bd95a

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

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

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

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

jojo

11-19-2010, 10:58 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brutus

11-19-2010, 11:19 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jojo

11-19-2010, 11:45 PM

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

They kinda do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What exactly do "we" suspect?

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

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

Brutus

11-20-2010, 12:35 AM

They kinda do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure what to respond here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jojo

11-20-2010, 02:42 AM

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

That is the way it is done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jojo

11-20-2010, 02:58 AM

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

Scrap Irony

11-20-2010, 11:37 AM

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

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

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

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

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

jojo

11-20-2010, 01:14 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The NCAA also said this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541229,00.html):

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

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

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

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

http://www.maine.edu/pdf/NCAADivision1RulesandBylaws.pdf

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

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

Brutus

11-20-2010, 03:04 PM

That is the way it is done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here (https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch?miSearchSubmit=publicReport&key=672&publicTerms=THIS%20PHRASE%20WILL%20NOT%20BE%20REPE ATED) is the public report from the NCAA Major Infractions database. From the introduction, a very key statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MWM

11-20-2010, 03:22 PM

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

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

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

Roy Tucker

11-20-2010, 03:23 PM

KronoRed

11-20-2010, 04:57 PM

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

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

A bigger one then USC and their shenanigans?

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

Sea Ray

11-21-2010, 11:12 AM

A bigger one then USC and their shenanigans?

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

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

jojo

11-25-2010, 10:22 AM

On November 4th, ESPN and The NY Times independently broke the news that the NCAA was looking into MSU’s recruitment of Cam Newton and the story quickly consumed daily news cycles. Reports indicate that the NCAA is moving quickly in an effort to reach some sort of conclusion on this issue. That said, the slow news week in the Cam Newton story represents a chance to catch up on everything that has been reported on this issue and to review just what we actually do know about this story.

What follows below is a summary outline of the events (please provide corrections or point out omissions as needed) with sources and a breakdown of which facts are corroborated and which are not necessarily trustworthy. This is meant to help me answer the all important question relative to the BCS-if what we know about the story represented everything the NCAA knew as well, would we rule Cam ineligible? I offer it here as quick view for others who might be interested in this well. Obviously I’m an Auburn fan but I’ve done my best to be objective and to minimize editorialized comments as much as possible so please realize that any omissions etc have come about honestly and I welcome corrections.

Timeline:
November-December 2009: Cam Newton was recruited by MSU, Auburn, and Oklahoma and he made official visits to each (Nov 28-MSU, Dec 11-OU, Dec 18-AU).

December 31, 2009: Cam publically committed to Auburn.

January-July 2010: MSU reported irregularities with Cam’s recruitment; The SEC requested additional information within days of receiving the news and made regular and repeated requests throughout the spring and summer though these requests went unheeded by MSU. MSU filed its initial response to the SEC’s inquiries in July.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...ewton_cas.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5786315
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5796839

November 4th, 2010: The NY Times and ESPN independently report that former MSU quarterback John Bond alleges he was approached by a former MSU player who solicited money in return for Cam’s commitment to MSU. Kenny Rogers is incorrectly identified as that player. Rogers initially denies involvement in a pay for play scheme. Cecil Newton denies any wrongdoing. Bond indicated that he informed the MSU athletic department then headed by Greg Byrnes upon being approached with the solicitation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5765214
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/sports/ncaafootball/05auburn.html?_r=2

November 5th, 2010: John Bond’s lawyer Phil Abernathy, states that John Bond never named Kenny Rogers as the player who approached Bond to either the NY Times nor ESPN. This is also corroborated by Bond in an interview with Buck and Kincaid at WCNN radio where Bond indicates that Kenny Rogers never asked him for money on Cam’s behalf suggesting there were two individuals between Bond and Rogers.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/14267701/consider-the-source-on-newton-story
http://blogs.clarionledger.com/msu/2010/11/05/bond-speaks-publicly-on-newton-allegations/

November 8th, 2010: Allegations that Cam cheated while at Florida are leaked by unnamed sources.

November 9th, 2010: Cam Newton publically denies wrongdoing in his recruitment. An unnamed source associated with Auburn indicated that Auburn University had not received a letter of inquiry from the NCAA concerning Cam’s recruitment and an audit of phone records spanning the months of Cam’s recruitment failed to turn up any evidence of contact between Rogers and Auburn University. Likewise Auburn had found no irregularities in either the Rogers’ family records or those of Cecil’s church. Bob Stoops commented upon OU’s recruitment of Cam saying OU was not approached about providing extra benefits in return for Cam’s commitment.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5783876

November 11-12th, 2010: Rogers does an interview with ESPN’s Ian Fitzsimmons. Rogers contradicts earlier statements and now admits he solicited money and claims to have acted on Cecil Newton’s behalf. Rogers provided some details about the solicitation of extra benefits indicating it would have taken between $100-180K to secure Cam’s commitment to MSU and Rogers said Cecil asked about payment while in a Starkville hotel room on Nov 27th with Rogers and two MSU coaches. He indicated that Bill Bell, another former MSU player, was the person that Rogers solicited for money. Rogers admitted he could recall no specific language regarding conversations where Cecil is alleged to have directed Rogers to solicit money on behalf of the Newtons. Separate reports also cited unnamed sources claiming that 1) Cecil told an unnamed MSU recruiter, “It would take more than a scholarship for Cam to go to MSU” and referred the recruiter to a third unnamed individual, and 2) another unnamed source said Cam called another unnamed MSU recruiter and expressed regret that he chose Auburn over MSU because “the money was too much”. 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. 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 as each go on record indicating they have no knowledge of details concerning Auburn’s recruiting effort.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5786315
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5792707
http://blogs.ajc.com/barnhart-college-football/2010/11/12/cameron-newton-story-reaching-critical-mass/
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5796839

November 13th, 2010: WBTV out of Atlanta reports that an unnamed source close to the Newtons indicated that Cecil admitted having conversations with an ex MSU football player about money. No money was said to change hands and this was also said to have occurred without Cam’s knowledge.

http://www.wsbtv.com/sports/25778803/detail.html

November 16th, 2010: John Bond is interviewed by the FBI though the focus of their involvement is unclear.

November 17, 2010: TMZ reports on its website that the FBI has asked an unnamed individual connected with the Newton case if that person was familiar with Milton McGregor, an Auburn booster who is involved in a gambling/bribery scandal in Alabama.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/11/17/cam-newton-fbi-investigation-probe-auburn-university-booster-milton-mcgregor-sec-football-ncaa/

November 18th, 2010: Mark Schlabach of ESPN.com reports that Bill Bell was interviewed by the NCAA and discussed a text message that details a pay schedule (three payments over consecutive months comprised of $80K, $50K, and $50K). He also shared voice mail messages with the NCAA though it is unknown if Cecil’s voice is on them or if he participated. Bill Bell indicated that Cecil did not specifically ask for money during alleged conversations between Bell, Rogers and Cecil Newton. Bell does seem to indicate that Cecil and he talked about money in other undocumented conversations. The Birmingham news reported that wire taps of McGregor contain no conversations connecting him to Auburn’s recruitment of Cam Newton.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5818428&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_5818428
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/18/lawyer-one-million-percent-confident-cam-newton-took-no-money-from-no-one/related/

November 19th, 2010: A lawyer for the Newtons denies that Cam ever took money or knew of any efforts to secure a pay for play arrangement. The NCAA President, Mark Emmert goes on record to address the standard that the NCAA applies when judging evidence in investigations of player eligibility saying, “"I want our people to be as efficient and expedited in the way they manage these things as possible, but at the same time, you've got to get the facts right. The burden of proof is higher than what it is for somebody who's writing in a blog,"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gayf-_zo7sZJ2vianLw_pUSev9bw?docId=997046c24b434ffd922c 1d629b8bd95a
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5825694
http://wareagleextra.blogspot.com/2010/11/newton-family-attorney-is-million.html#ixzz15j3mOpea

Summary:

At this time there have been no accusations against Auburn or against Cam and the NCAA is not investigating Auburn’s recruitment of Cam.

At this time, the alleged pay for play scheme does not appear to involve individuals acting in an official capacity for MSU.

Based upon both named and unnamed sources in the above narrative, here is the chain of individuals and the order of their connections regarding the alleged pay for play solicitation during MSU’s recruitment of Cam:

Cecil--------Rogers---------Bell----------Bond-----MSU AD-------NCAA

Given information that can be corroborated, the only thing we know with absolute certainty about these connections is that Rogers and Bell had detailed conversations about money because both have admitted to having such conversations.

Cecil has publicly denied that Rogers solicited money on his behalf both in person and through his lawyer. An uncorroborated secondhand source alleges Cecil admitted to having a conversation about money without Cam’s knowledge.

It does not appear that the relationship between the Newtons and Kenny Rogers was a strong one. Cecil and Rogers had never met in person before Cam’s visit to Starkville. Cecil has indicated that he had been contacted initially by Rogers when Cam was leaving U of F. Cecil has indicated that he called Rogers in late 2009 when MSU started recruiting Cam. Rogers is on record as indicating this phone call was about life in Starkville and MSU’s campus and program. In Roger’s Dallas radio interview, Rogers indicates that he met with Cecil on the 27th (the alleged hotel room meeting with MSU coaches) but did not interact with the Newtons during the 28th (Cam’s official visit) and thereafter only had significant contact with Cecil at a gas station as Cecil was leaving Starkville.

Apparently, MSU has reported no information regarding a solicitation of extra benefits by Cecil to MSU coaches contradicting Rogers’ account of the 27th meeting in a Starkville hotel room. This also calls into question the unnamed secondhand sources that claimed Cecil told an MSU recruiter it would take more than a scholarship and that Cam told an MSU recruiter that the money was too good. It would be a shady scenario for two coaches to meet a known player handler with a checkered past and the player’s father in a hotel room. Did the meeting happen? Maybe-maybe it’s even probable. But it seems unlikely that Rogers’ account is going to be corroborated by the two coaches if indeed they were present given the omission from MSU’s reports to the NCAA. It should be fairly easy for the NCAA to determine the identity of any coaches who were present on official recruiting business. Mullen has made it clear that only he and his coaches are officially allowed to recruit. At this time, it appears that any alleged conversations about extra benefits would have only occurred between individuals outside of MSU’s official recruiting efforts. Bond, the individual who initially reported irregularities to the MSU athletic department, was at least three degrees removed from any alleged conversation with Cecil about extra benefits. MSU continued to recruit Cam until he announced his commitment to Auburn despite information Bond provided to their athletic department.

Nothing in what we know from media accounts can directly tie Cecil to Bell with certainty. Rogers asserts a connection but the detailed pay for play text to Bell was sent to Bell from Rogers. Also that text no longer exists so the NCAA would have to rely only upon the word of Rogers and Bell regarding its contents. Bell has provided voicemails to the NCAA but it is unclear if Cecil’s voice is on them and Bell is on record as stating he never heard Cecil ask directly for money in alleged conversations between Bell, Rogers, and Cecil. Given that admission, it is unlikely that the voicemails will corroborate anything more than Rogers’ effort to solicit money through Bell.

At this point, there has been nothing credible to suggest Cam knew of Rogers’ efforts. There is only circumstantial evidence to link Cecil to such conversations and little of this evidence can be corroborated independently of the word of Rogers and Bell. Rogers has some major flags concerning credibility issues.

Concerning Auburn there has been nothing to implicate Auburn in any wrongdoing. Rich McGlynn, Auburn’s compliance officer, has a reputation of being hard-nosed concerning procedure in the mold of Slive. If the NCAA or Slive had indeed informed Auburn of specific facts that called Cam’s eligibility into question, it just isn’t likely that Auburn would play Cam. There would be no reason to the NCAA or the SEC to withhold such facts from Auburn especially given the NCAA is attempting a speedy resolution to this situation.

Clearly, the scandal brewing in the media raises the possibility that Cam’s eligibility could be affected. But Auburn’s recruitment of Cam appears to be legitimate at this point and the details of what may or may not have happened in Starkville are very murky with very few facts actually being corroborated. What in the above narrative suggests that it is obvious that Auburn should sit Cam and doing so would be fair to Cam or to Auburn?

Here is some editorializing: Auburn may be taking a bit of a risk by continuing to play Cam but frankly, and yes, I’m biased here, their defense of Cam is laudable and seems justified given what we know from media accounts of this currently all smoke and no fire saga.

Brutus

11-27-2010, 11:28 PM

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

Newton Admits Money Talks (http://www.wsbtv.com/sports/25778803/detail.html)

This post is where Cecil admitted his comments. The story has since been changed, and now they're only using a "source" as his admission. But I assure you the original story contained a quote from Cecil hence the reason I phrased it as I did.

I posted that on Friday, November 12 and if you look at the top of the story, you'll see that it was listed as being "updated" 3 days later. Someone must have raised a ruckus because the quote from Cecil was removed.

jojo

11-27-2010, 11:35 PM

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/528327-auburn-and-cam-newton-challenge-college-football-and-america-the-real-beef

Brutus

11-27-2010, 11:38 PM

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/528327-auburn-and-cam-newton-challenge-college-football-and-america-the-real-beef

Instant credibility is lost when someone ever cites a bleacher report article. Ever.

It's ironic, actually. That article is talking about people believing things for a lack of evidence, yet, bleacher report leads the internets in exaggerated, misleading and usually flat out false stories. This was the same story that said the Reds were trading Chris Heisey for Carlos Marmol.

jojo

11-28-2010, 07:55 AM

Instant credibility is lost when someone ever cites a bleacher report article. Ever.

It was posted because of the argument the author made. Where was the argument flawed?

Brutus

11-28-2010, 04:13 PM

It was posted because of the argument the author made. Where was the argument flawed?

There has already been 'evidence' and even a direct quote from the father. You may not like to hear it, thereby you're dismissing it, but we're past the stage of having to make giant assumptions.

A little speculation is fair game this far along in the storyline.

In other words, the article has little or no merit. It's an Auburn fan simply upset that the attention has been taken away from a potentially historic season at Auburn.

jojo

11-28-2010, 06:25 PM

There has not been a direct quote from Cecil and since that innaccuracy has been clearly pointed out, you really should quit repeating it as truth. Cecil has denied the allegations both directly and through his lawyer.

Concerning the evidence for your conclusion, what is the compelling evidence forming such a solid case for the conclusion of guilt? I've went out of my way to wallow in the minutiae of this story in order to inform my opinion, so Its not likely ive missed something and certainly, nothing has been purposefully ignored as seems to be suggested above. We're past the point of ignoring the devil in the details and simply assuming facts.

Btw, assuming Cam was paid to commit to Auburn, the NCAA will declare Cam ineligible for the season, and Auburns season will be vacated isn't the same thing as a little speculation.....

Brutus

11-28-2010, 07:12 PM

jojo

11-28-2010, 07:59 PM

It's not an inaccuracy. It was in the article I posted. The quote must have been removed when the story was last updated a few days later, but it absolutely was there and others saw it. I'm sure there are other people here that can attest the quote existed. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't get published. It absolutely, positively was there. I've shown the link and shown the update. Your refusal to believe it is the only inaccuracy.

Frankly I'm at a loss concerning your stance on this. But here's a question... If a news agency attributed a direct quote to a primary individual that spoke to the essence of the story, why would it be replaced by much weaker evidence?

FWIW, I remember the initial story attributing the comment indirectly as told to a family acquaintance. In any event, the contents of an initial version of a story are immaterial when replaced by more accurate versions.

jojo

11-28-2010, 08:01 PM

Regardless, I still think you're wholheartedly denying yourself of a lot of things on this story.

Like what specifically?

Brutus

11-28-2010, 10:51 PM

Frankly I'm at a loss concerning your stance on this. But here's a question... If a news agency attributed a direct quote to a primary individual that spoke to the essence of the story, why would it be replaced by much weaker evidence?

FWIW, I remember the initial story attributing the comment indirectly as told to a family acquaintance. In any event, the contents of an initial version of a story are immaterial when replaced by more accurate versions.

Working in the media, it's actually very easy to see why it would be edited. I myself have quoted people and several times they've called and asked to have certain quotes removed from a story because they had a change of heart being on the record or having certain portions on the record. And I've never had a story as sensitive as this one.

I could very, very, very easily see Cecil having said something on the record, and on the advice of an attorney, asked to be taken off the record about it. It certainly makes sense considering the tone of how they're sourcing the admission by Cecil.

Heck, I once had a coach of an institution call me begging to have one quote taken from a story by a recruit that said something that made his school look bad. These things have a tendency to look and feel a little different to the speaking parties after their words are seen in print.

jojo

11-28-2010, 11:14 PM

Working in the media, it's actually very easy to see why it would be edited. I myself have quoted people and several times they've called and asked to have certain quotes removed from a story because they had a change of heart being on the record or having certain portions on the record. And I've never had a story as sensitive as this one.

I could very, very, very easily see Cecil having said something on the record, and on the advice of an attorney, asked to be taken off the record about it. It certainly makes sense considering the tone of how they're sourcing the admission by Cecil.

Heck, I once had a coach of an institution call me begging to have one quote taken from a story by a recruit that said something that made his school look bad. These things have a tendency to look and feel a little different to the speaking parties after their words are seen in print.

You're arguing that Cecil made a mea culpa to wsbtv then asked them to remove his quote? WSBTV then decided to do so and completely changed the tenor of the original story by attributing the comments to some nondescript source instead?

Again, I recall the original story attributing the comments indirectly via an unnamed source.

This link from the 12th confirms:

http://college-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/25807185

If anyone was going to milk a direct Cecil quote, it would be tigerdroppings but here is their post from the 12th:

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/messagetopic.asp?p=22689186

I'd propose that any conclusion based upon the belief that a direct quote from Cecil was given to wsbtv for their story be revisited and revised.

Brutus

11-28-2010, 11:27 PM

I don't know what transpired after the fact, but I'm not going to bother.

I feel confident this story has legs. I'm done debating with someone that clearly has let a personal emotional investment get in the way. You're one of my favorite posters here, and that won't change. But on this topic, I think your allegiance is blinding.

jojo

11-28-2010, 11:49 PM

MWM

11-28-2010, 11:55 PM

jojo

11-29-2010, 12:01 AM

jojo, you're approaching this topic as a defense attorney would approach defending their client. Nothing wrong with that given your relationship with Auburn. But I doubt anyone is buying that you're not approaching this with bias line.

I'm approaching this topic like facts are important. Not rushing to judgment is a symptom of bias? If one wants to argue that my approach is being adopted because of a bias, who cares? It's the approach that SHOULD be taken as a matter of course.

Seriously, I'm blinded because I assert the wsbtv report didn't quote Cecil directly? How is that element of the story even open to interpretation?

MWM

11-29-2010, 12:14 AM

jojo

11-29-2010, 12:41 AM

But you're not withholding judgment. You've given several "it's becoming clear to me" statements in this thread. You've jumped to conclusions using logic pretty much assuming if we don't have confirmed evidence in front of right now, then none must exist. At least that's what I've taken from several of your comments on this thread.

No one is saying Cam should be thrown in jail, or even be declared ineligible based on what WE (note: not the authorities on the matter) know at the moment. But you're acting like there's no reason to believe Cam, or his father, was out there soliciting money for a commitment to play college football. I don't need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to assess what the most likely scenario was based on the evidence we do have.

Why not quote a specific statement so that we can actually discuss it in turn?

Concerning Rogers' involvement in the recruitment of Cam, available info seems to suggest he had a very small influence and that was limited to MSU. New facts need to emerge for the narrative that "Cecil was aggressively shopping Cam for money" is established as the most likely interpretation. Clearly Rogers was aggressively trying to get money from Bell but it's unclear if Cecil requested it or if Rogers initiated the effort. There has been nothing indicating improprieties in either Auburn's or OU's recruitment of Cam at this point. Rogers is the thing that doesn't look like the others in this story so far. Why is that?

traderumor

11-29-2010, 08:30 AM

Next thing you know they're going to try to say Reggie Bush was dirty while at USC. Say it isn't so.

jojo

12-01-2010, 02:15 PM

And so ends the saga:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/12/ncaa_rules_auburns_cam_newton.html

The NCAA has has ruled Auburn quarterback Cam Newton is eligible to compete after looking into his recruitment at Auburn and Mississippi State.

Hoosier Red

12-01-2010, 02:50 PM

Well it's over from an enforcement standpoint this year, but I can't believe they found him eligible considering;

According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete's father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton's commitment to attend college and play football. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship.

As far as I could tell from what I had read, the minute his father asked for money(which it appears Auburn and the NCAA agreed that he did) Newton would be ineligible, even if he never was paid to go to Auburn.

Sort of the same thing as associating with gamblers is enough to get you a never ending suspension from baseball, simply asking for money to play at a certain university invites the suspicion of cheating.

jojo

12-01-2010, 02:52 PM

Well it's over from an enforcement standpoint this year, but I can't believe they found him eligible considering;

As far as I could tell from what I had read, the minute his father asked for money(which it appears Auburn and the NCAA agreed that he did) Newton would be ineligible, even if he never was paid to go to Auburn.

Sort of the same thing as associating with gamblers is enough to get you a never ending suspension from baseball, simply asking for money to play at a certain university invites the suspicion of cheating.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/01/cam-newton-auburn-cleared-by-ncaa/related/

The reason for Newton’s reinstatement is simple. ”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,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs.

Newton was unaware of his father’s actions according to the facts gathered in the NCAA’s investigation and therefore did not participate — i.e. play in games — while ineligible, and is therefore eligible for reinstatement under NCAA bylaws.

Cedric

12-01-2010, 02:54 PM

Hoosier Red

12-01-2010, 03:00 PM

The NCAA has opened a HUGE can of worms here. It's ok now for intermediaries to ask for money? Players will just pretend they knew nothing about it and the highest bidding booster will be cheating legally. I love it.

That's my thought too. There's already a giant gray area with recruiting services which a high school player will pay to market their services to universities. Those work mainly with guys who are low on the totem pole and are attempting to get a scholarship somewhere though. Imagine if they could get a cut for every blue chip prospect they move to a university. They could even cover it in a way where I'll get Cam Newton to go to Auburn if you also give scholarships to my two other clients.

Cedric

12-01-2010, 03:03 PM

That's my thought too. There's already a giant gray area with recruiting services which a high school player will pay to market their services to universities. Those work mainly with guys who are low on the totem pole and are attempting to get a scholarship somewhere though. Imagine if they could get a cut for every blue chip prospect they move to a university. They could even cover it in a way where I'll get Cam Newton to go to Auburn if you also give scholarships to my two other clients.

Just imagine if you were a USC fan. They got nailed because of basically nothing, IMO. This is all about perception. People wanted USC destroyed because they flaunted their "pro style program" in the NCAA's face.

Auburn and the SEC schools just know how to cheat better. They always have.

AintlifeGrande

12-01-2010, 03:19 PM

Lol.

Also, lol at Newton writing his name on a different students paper without that students knowledge. Sure fooled 'em on that one.

Not to mention stolen laptop he threw out the window at Florida,driving on a suspended license 6 times as well.

MWM

12-01-2010, 03:35 PM

LOL!!!! Cam had no knowledge that his own father was asking for money for him to play. Yeeeeahhhhhhhh, right! If you believe that you're either incredibly naive or incredibly stubborn.

I agree that this is not an insignificant ruling for the precedent it sets. I also don't think this is the end we'll hear of Cam Newton's recruitment.

traderumor

12-01-2010, 03:50 PM

traderumor

12-01-2010, 03:51 PM

Just imagine if you were a USC fan. They got nailed because of basically nothing, IMO. This is all about perception. People wanted USC destroyed because they flaunted their "pro style program" in the NCAA's face.

Auburn and the SEC schools just know how to cheat better. They always have.Southern charm!

Brutus

12-01-2010, 03:58 PM

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/01/cam-newton-auburn-cleared-by-ncaa/related/

Couple of things...

1. I would bet this isn't over. The NCAA ruled on this now because they were struggling to gather any conclusive evidence. But it doesn't dismiss anyone from future problems if more information comes out. If he's found out to later be ineligible, Auburn could still have to vacate the entire season, because

2. As I told you all along, the school needed to make Newton ineligible and request reinstatement. That's exactly what happened here, and voila. Problem for Auburn is, one could question why they didn't do this at the start of the season, they didn't do this in the middle of the season and didn't do this any of the last few games when all these rumors were floating over their heads.

OnBaseMachine

12-01-2010, 04:00 PM

Auburn and the SEC schools just know how to cheat better. They always have.

Yep. If this were a school from the Pac-10 or Big-10, Newton would have been suspended and the program would be put on probation.

bucksfan2

12-01-2010, 04:13 PM

jojo

12-01-2010, 04:25 PM

Couple of things...

1. I would bet this isn't over. The NCAA ruled on this now because they were struggling to gather any conclusive evidence. But it doesn't dismiss anyone from future problems if more information comes out. If he's found out to later be ineligible, Auburn could still have to vacate the entire season, because

2. As I told you all along, the school needed to make Newton ineligible and request reinstatement. That's exactly what happened here, and voila. Problem for Auburn is, one could question why they didn't do this at the start of the season, they didn't do this in the middle of the season and didn't do this any of the last few games when all these rumors were floating over their heads.

Brutus it goes without saying that Cam could be ruled ineligible if it was later uncovered that Cam had specific knowledge of requests for special benefits. The NCAA wasn't investigating Auburn's recruitment of Cam however and this ends their investigation of the Rogers freak show. Something new and more substantial than what we've seen would have to surface for the NCAA to open up a new investigation. This issue is pretty much over.

As to your second point, you've been mostly arguing past me and seem still to be... I've argued that Auburn would not play Cam if the NCAA told them that they had reason to believe the status of his eligibility would/should change and the North Carolina saga was a poor comp for Cam's situation. I've argued the fact that Auburn kept playing him was a sign that the NCAA had not adopted that stance. Voila, the events of the past several days pretty much validates that view.

Given the ruling, Auburn has no problem. Cam has been ruled eligible without conditions. This is the absolute best outcome for Auburn and Cam. It's also the outcome most consistent with what a close look at the time line/facts of this issue as we know them suggests was pretty likely.

jojo

12-01-2010, 04:27 PM

I am hoping South Carolina can beat Auburn in the SEC title game. As a college football fan I don't want a cloud hanging over the BCS title game because of Newton and the allegations. I also don't really want to see Newton win the Heisman only later to see it stripped a la Reggie Bush.

SC might very well beat Auburn but cloud? There is no cloud. In fact, as it stands, college football fans need these: :cool:

IslandRed

12-01-2010, 04:36 PM

I agree that this is not an insignificant ruling for the precedent it sets.

On a local talk show, a college football writer said everyone he'd spoken to within the game was incredulous. It's settled fact (according to the NCAA) that Cecil Newton was shopping his son and they didn't do anything about it. So now it's kosher for family members and middlemen to openly shop kids around. As long as the NCAA can't find the cash or prove the kid knew about it, nothing's going to happen, right?

Brutus

12-01-2010, 04:44 PM

Brutus it goes without saying that Cam could be ruled ineligible if it was later uncovered that Cam had specific knowledge of requests for special benefits. The NCAA wasn't investigating Auburn's recruitment of Cam however and this ends their investigation of the Rogers freak show. Something new and more substantial than what we've seen would have to surface for the NCAA to open up a new investigation. This issue is pretty much over.

I doubt it's "pretty much over" because if memory serves me correctly, the FBI is now involved and given their subpoena power, something the NCAA lacks, a lot more could end up coming out about Newton or anything else that surfaces. You really think this is going to go away, after it has now been established that Cecil did solicit money on behalf of his son? I don't think this story is close to being over with.

As to your second point, you've been mostly arguing past me and seem still to be... I've argued that Auburn would not play Cam if the NCAA told them that they had reason to believe the status of his eligibility would/should change and the North Carolina saga was a poor comp for Cam's situation. I've argued the fact that Auburn kept playing him was a sign that the NCAA had not adopted that stance. Voila, the events of the past several days pretty much validates that view.

Given the ruling, Auburn has no problem. Cam has been ruled eligible without conditions. This is the absolute best outcome for Auburn and Cam. It's also the outcome most consistent with what a close look at the time line/facts of this issue as we know them suggests was pretty likely.

That's not what happened, though. Auburn finally declared him ineligible, then had dialog with the NCAA about the facts of the case, and it was concluded there was not "sufficient evidence" to go forward right now and he was reinstated upon Auburn's request. The NCAA, as I've said all along, doesn't 'advise' an institution. They wait for the institution to act (Auburn finally did) and then they will engage the institution.

kaldaniels

12-01-2010, 04:55 PM

Debating all these points aside, my gut tells me this isn't over.

paintmered

12-01-2010, 05:01 PM

I hope this isn't over. Setting the precedent that it's okay to shop a kid as long as "he doesn't know it" is going to open the floodgates.

BuckeyeRed27

12-01-2010, 05:04 PM

This is just a stunningly stupid move by the NCAA. I get that they haven't found the proof that Auburn or somebody associated with Auburn paid Newton to go there, but they have proved that his father was shopping him around. Now all you have to have is plausible deniability that your son didn't know that you were pimping him out and making his life decisions for him and it's all good?

You ask for money and get caught you broke the rules and you shouldn't be allowed to play. I get that the NCAA is trying to give Newton the benefit of the doubt here and you certainly don't want to rule him ineligible for no reason, but rules have been broken.

I really want to hear the reason that they turned down $180k to go to Auburn for free.

jojo

12-01-2010, 05:22 PM

jojo

12-01-2010, 05:35 PM

I doubt it's "pretty much over" because if memory serves me correctly, the FBI is now involved and given their subpoena power, something the NCAA lacks, a lot more could end up coming out about Newton or anything else that surfaces. You really think this is going to go away, after it has now been established that Cecil did solicit money on behalf of his son? I don't think this story is close to being over with.

Absent new facts, this story is pretty much over. The FBI really isn't heavily involved in this. They poked a little at McGregor and interviewed Bell in what was characterized as an inquiry into the potential that players are being shopped around in a widespread manner. Assuming no money actually changed hands and there is reason to believe it did and assuming Rogers is pretty smalltime and this really seems to be the case based upon what we know about this story, this is very boring to the FBI.

That's not what happened, though. Auburn finally declared him ineligible, then had dialog with the NCAA about the facts of the case, and it was concluded there was not "sufficient evidence" to go forward right now and he was reinstated upon Auburn's request. The NCAA, as I've said all along, doesn't 'advise' an institution. They wait for the institution to act (Auburn finally did) and then they will engage the institution.

I'm not sure why you keep hammering at this but here's how it happened-Auburn had a dialog with the NCAA and then declared Cam ineligible.

Auburn made Cam ineligible AFTER the NCAA informed them of a violation.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/12/ncaa_rules_auburns_cam_newton.html

The NCAA's statement said:

"Auburn University football student-athlete Cam Newton is immediately eligible to compete, according to a decision today by the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff. The NCAA concluded on Monday that a violation of amateurism rules occurred, therefore Auburn University declared the student-athlete ineligible yesterday for violations of NCAA amateurism rules."

Roy Tucker

12-01-2010, 05:39 PM

With the glacial speed the NCAA works at, this will end up like the Pete Carroll/Reggie Bush era at USC.

The coach and the player go on to big bucks in the NFL and the university and poor schlubs still in school will pay the price. When they award the Heisman to Newton, they better give him a return shipping sticker with it.

BuckeyeRed27

12-01-2010, 05:42 PM

There never was an offer. Basically the NCAA has said there is enough evidence to believe conversations were had about extra benefits between Rogers and Cecil but beyond that there aren't enough details to yield a clear picture of the devil.

Ok lets assume that's true and there really wasn't an offer.

I want him to stand in front of the media and answer that question:

"Cecil, you had a $180,000 deal worked out for your son to go to MSU. Why did you tell him to go to Auburn for free after you worked out this deal?"

I have a feeling he would be about as convincing as Mark Mcgwire infront of a congressional subcommittee.

jojo

12-01-2010, 05:45 PM

Ok lets assume that's true and there really wasn't an offer.

I want him to stand in front of the media and answer that question:

"Cecil, you had a $180,000 deal worked out for your son to go to MSU. Why did you tell him to go to Auburn for free after you worked out this deal?"

I have a feeling he would be about as convincing as Mark Mcgwire infront of a congressional subcommittee.

Again, this story has mostly been told so far in front of the facts...

All we have evidence of is Rogers asking for money.

Brutus

12-01-2010, 05:49 PM

Again, this story has mostly been told so far in front of the facts...

All we have evidence of is Rogers asking for money.

If it's in front of the facts, how can you make definitive statements such as "there wasn't an offer?"

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse if we don't have all the facts?

Also, regarding the NCAA's conclusion... they weren't in dialog with Auburn as you're suggesting. They reached as far as they could go with the investigation as is, so they sent a notice to Auburn and Auburn then ruled the player ineligible. As I said earlier in this thread, it goes one of two ways... either the institution is proactive and rules ahead of the NCAA, or they take a chance on waiting on the NCAA to do their own work and make a ruling. NCAA ruled there was a violation so Auburn acted. Fortunately for them, they have not found culpability based on what has been established, so they're off the hook (at least for now).

Cedric

12-01-2010, 06:00 PM

Cameron Newton lied multiple times and stole papers from a classmate. He also was arrested for the laptop thing.

How Auburn can come out with a press release gloating on him is amazing to me. It's just typical SEC institution idiocy, IMO.

jojo

12-01-2010, 06:33 PM

If it's in front of the facts, how can you make definitive statements such as "there wasn't an offer?"

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse if we don't have all the facts?

Being in front of the facts assumes things that require certain assumptions to indeed eventually become fact. Its been one big begging the question supposition party. Not surprisingly, the general consensus wasn't consistent with the NCAA's ruling.

Also, regarding the NCAA's conclusion... they weren't in dialog with Auburn as you're suggesting. They reached as far as they could go with the investigation as is, so they sent a notice to Auburn and Auburn then ruled the player ineligible. As I said earlier in this thread, it goes one of two ways... either the institution is proactive and rules ahead of the NCAA, or they take a chance on waiting on the NCAA to do their own work and make a ruling. NCAA ruled there was a violation so Auburn acted. Fortunately for them, they have not found culpability based on what has been established, so they're off the hook (at least for now).

The NCAA informed Auburn of a violation by Cecil. Auburn responded by declaring Cam ineligible. Where is there room for argument? How this happened is very consistent with my position. It's not very consistent with the narrative you've argued.

But please, is there really a point to hammering at this tangent?

Brutus

12-01-2010, 06:51 PM

Being in front of the facts assumes things that require certain assumptions to indeed eventually become fact. Its been one big begging the question supposition party. Not surprisingly, the general consensus wasn't consistent with the NCAA's ruling.

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 NCAA informed Auburn of a violation by Cecil. Auburn responded by declaring Cam ineligible. Where is there room for argument? How this happened is very consistent with my position. It's not very consistent with the narrative you've argued.

But please, is there really a point to hammering at this tangent?

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.

BuckeyeRed27

12-01-2010, 06:55 PM

Again, this story has mostly been told so far in front of the facts...

All we have evidence of is Rogers asking for money.

Rogers asking for money wouldn't make Cam ineligible. His father asking for money would. Apparently the NCAA believes there is evidence of that occuring, but that isn't enough to rule him out due to a rather large leap of faith on the NCAAs part. I would still like him to answer that question that I posted earlier.

WVRed

12-01-2010, 07:30 PM

You have to be incredibly naive to believe Cecil Newton asked for money at MSU and then suddenly took nothing from Auburn. Auburn wasn't even a big time player in his recruitment.

The NCAA isn't saying Auburn didn't pay Newton. They are just saying they have no info on that right now. I think anyone with half a brain would assume Cecil Newton got cash from someone at Auburn.

The NCAA has opened a HUGE can of worms here. It's ok now for intermediaries to ask for money? Players will just pretend they knew nothing about it and the highest bidding booster will be cheating legally. I love it.

For once I actually agree with you (avid SEC supporter), but on a different merit.

Enes Kanter was ruled ineligible about a month ago for accepting $33,000 in professional expenses. $20,000 of that was used for tutoring while the remaining $13,000 went untouched. Even if he did accept money, it was painfully obvious where the money was headed, and that was toward gaining amateur status and focusing on studies to come to America to play basketball.

So its ok for the NCAA to allow players to be shopped around by their parents but if a player is trying to study his way to play amateur basketball, then its not? Sounds extremely hypocritical to me.

I understand Enes took money and im sure thats the first thing that would be pointed out, but so did the Newtons, and they can get away with it.

As a UK fan, I am absoutely furious at this ruling. It will be worse if the appeals committee fails to overturn Kanter.

Brutus

12-01-2010, 07:48 PM

For once I actually agree with you (avid SEC supporter), but on a different merit.

Enes Kanter was ruled ineligible about a month ago for accepting $33,000 in professional expenses. $20,000 of that was used for tutoring while the remaining $13,000 went untouched. Even if he did accept money, it was painfully obvious where the money was headed, and that was toward gaining amateur status and focusing on studies to come to America to play basketball.

So its ok for the NCAA to allow players to be shopped around by their parents but if a player is trying to study his way to play amateur basketball, then its not? Sounds extremely hypocritical to me.

I understand Enes took money and im sure thats the first thing that would be pointed out, but so did the Newtons, and they can get away with it.

As a UK fan, I am absoutely furious at this ruling. It will be worse if the appeals committee fails to overturn Kanter.

With all due respect to Bilas, whom I respect a ton, the NCAA made the right decision with Kanter. It sets a bad precedent to allow any money to be accepted, even if it were under virtuous circumstances. But for that reason, I agree this was a mistake by the NCAA to allow without punishment.

Scrap Irony

12-01-2010, 08:20 PM

With all due respect to Bilas, whom I respect a ton, the NCAA made the right decision with Kanter. It sets a bad precedent to allow any money to be accepted, even if it were under virtuous circumstances. But for that reason, I agree this was a mistake by the NCAA to allow without punishment.

Ahem... John Selby? Renardo Sydney?

Brutus

12-01-2010, 08:35 PM

Ahem... John Selby? Renardo Sydney?

Well, those players were punished, were they not? Selby's arguably was too lite, but Sidney sat out an entire season and is missing 9 games this year in addition to not playing last year.

But if you're arguing they should have been ruled ineligible entirely, not sure I disagree.

Scrap Irony

12-01-2010, 08:43 PM

Brutus

12-01-2010, 08:49 PM

Allowing players to play after they've accepted benefits has been okay for a number of years. The kids pay it back, lose games, but are generally eligible.

Kanter's deal is really no different, aside from the amount of money. (Selby's amount-- more than $12,000, IIRC-- was next closest to the $33,000+ Kanters family took for his "education expenses," including tutors.)

If one is ruled eligible, shouldn't they all? Or is a specific amount too much? (And, if it is, what amount is that?)

The NCAA is the most schitzophrenic organization in the world. It's truly amazing they have any credibility left at all.

I guess the difference is, right or wrong, is that Kanter's money came from a professional club. He received money from a professional organization. Let's not downplay that distinction.

Certainly the NCAA is often all over the map. I won't refute that point. But the amount of money makes it a significantly bigger case and one thing the NCAA has typically been fairly consistent about is the more money involved the more severe the punishment.