How is the SEC allowing Cam Newton to play?

[cal_junior]

SportsbyBrooks had an interesting post yesterday, explaining that based on the NCAA finding that Cecil Newton actively solicited pay-for-play from MSU, Cam shouldn't be allowed to play for any school in the conference.

Bylaw 14.01.3.2:

“If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.”

LINK (http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/if-the-ncaa-is-right-cecil-lied-and-sec-cheated-29295)

[Farmer Ted]

Meh, this is nothing at all, especially compared to the SEC not doing anything last year when Brandon Spikes tried to blind a guy. He should be paid, anyway.

[Keino]

Because the NCAA is a corrupt institution that recognizes that it is in its own financial interest to have one of the most exciting players in college elligible. They will come in and declare him inelligible after the fact and further investigation which determination won't be made until Cam is long gone for the NFL and will likely penalize Auburn unjustly. The NCAA made the determination after Auburn itself declared him inelligible in less than 24 hours.

It is utterly ridiculous. The rule is pretty clear and the language makes it pretty hard to find any room for a different interpretation.

[cal_junior]

Meh, this is nothing at all, especially compared to the SEC not doing anything last year when Brandon Spikes tried to blind a guy. He should be paid, anyway.

I think this might be a little worse for the conference's national reputation than an eye-gouge.

While I agree with you that he should be paid, right now the rules don't allow for it. The SEC keeping this kid eligible basically gives the thumb's up for any father to shop his kid. As long as you don't find someone with deep enough pockets, there's no problem.

It creates a terrible precedent that is likely to embolden future Cecil Newtons.

[akhhorus]

They had no proof that Newton had any knowledge of what his father was doing. If they could prove that, even if Newton was the one who reported his father to the NCAA, he would be ineligible.

[cal_junior]

They had no proof that Newton had any knowledge of what his father was doing. If they could prove that, even if Newton was the one who reported his father to the NCAA, he would be ineligible.

According to the SEC bylaw, it doesn't matter if Cam knew.

[Keino]

They had no proof that Newton had any knowledge of what his father was doing. If they could prove that, even if Newton was the one who reported his father to the NCAA, he would be ineligible.

The language in the rule is very specific in that it does not matter whether Netwon had knowledge of his father's actions. Which is why Auburn, when faced with the fact that Cam's father made the solicitations, they declared Cam ineligible (and did so very quietly I might add).

The NCAA (and Cal, not the SEC, but the NCAA) came behind that ruling 24 hours later without regard to the language contained in the SEC rule. His knowledge is not required for it to affect his eligibility.

[akhhorus]

According to the SEC bylaw, it doesn't matter if Cam knew.

The language in the rule is very specific in that it does not matter whether Netwon had knowledge of his father's actions. Which is why Auburn, when faced with the fact that Cam's father made the solicitations, they declared Cam ineligible (and did so very quietly I might add).

The NCAA (and Cal, not the SEC, but the NCAA) came behind that ruling 24 hours later without regard to the language contained in the SEC rule. His knowledge is not required for it to affect his eligibility.

Unless I'm mistaken, the NCAA declared him ineligible for 24 hours. So, what happened in those 24 hours? Either they had evidence that turned out to be false or they made a decision based on an incomplete case.

And the SEC decided to let the NCAA handle this case.

[Keino]

Unless I'm mistaken, the NCAA declared him ineligible for 24 hours. So, what happened in those 24 hours? Either they had evidence that turned out to be false or they made a decision based on an incomplete case.

And the SEC decided to let the NCAA handle this case.

You are mistaken. The School declared him ineligible, not the NCAA. The NCAA came behind that decision and ruled, as you indicated above, that they have no proof of Cam's knowledge.

I would think, regardless of who is in charge of the investigation (The conference or the NCAA), the conference rules cannot be selectively applied.

FWIW, I think it's stupid to punish a kid for the actions of his parents, but the rule abudnantly clear and the language leaves no room for interpretation. Furthermore, the NCAA does not have the authority to usurp a conference by-law. Bad precedents all around.

[cal_junior]

And the SEC decided to let the NCAA handle this case.

Mike Slive & Co. made a conference decision to keep him eligible, which was the reason for this gem:

“Based on my research the league’s intent when it added this bylaw was to ensure that if an athlete participated in an NCAA investigation that he wasn’t able to transfer to another institution within our own conference. Essentially to keep one institution from getting into trouble and then have an individual attend another school in the same conference.

“You could read this bylaw expansively to conclude that an athlete is ineligible at all institutions for receiving a hamburger. I did not believe and do not believe that was the intent of the rule.”

[Keino]

Mike Slive & Co. made a conference decision to keep him eligible, which was the reason for this gem:

“Based on my research the league’s intent when it added this bylaw was to ensure that if an athlete participated in an NCAA investigation that he wasn’t able to transfer to another institution within our own conference. Essentially to keep one institution from getting into trouble and then have an individual attend another school in the same conference.

“You could read this bylaw expansively to conclude that an athlete is ineligible at all institutions for receiving a hamburger. I did not believe and do not believe that was the intent of the rule.”

If that is true, then they need to revise the language to reflect the actual intent of the rule. The language is far more broad that his interpretation of the intent of the rule.

[akhhorus]

You are mistaken. The School declared him ineligible, not the NCAA. The NCAA came behind that decision and ruled, as you indicated above, that they have no proof of Cam's knowledge.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/01/full-text-of-ncaa-release-on-cam-newtons-eligibility/

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.

THe school officially declared him ineligible at the direction of the NCAA and the results of their investigation.

I would think, regardless of who is in charge of the investigation (The conference or the NCAA), the conference rules cannot be selectively applied.

I'm fairly sure that the NCAA investigation overrides the SEC one, especially if the conference turns over the matter to the NCAA.

FWIW, I think it's stupid to punish a kid for the actions of his parents, but the rule abudnantly clear and the language leaves no room for interpretation. Furthermore, the NCAA does not have the authority to usurp a conference by-law. Bad precedents all around.

The NCAA can overrule the conference if the conference turns over the investigation to them. As for being suspended for the actions of one's parents: the NCAA used to have a rule where if your parents received any monetary compensation from a school or a potential agent(or employee of an agent), they could be ruled ineligible. A bunch of SC boosters and I were working on a plan to get the entire Clemson roster declared ineligible that way lmao. But the NCAA changed the rule before we got the paperwork filed lol.

[akhhorus]

Mike Slive & Co. made a conference decision to keep him eligible, which was the reason for this gem:

“Based on my research the league’s intent when it added this bylaw was to ensure that if an athlete participated in an NCAA investigation that he wasn’t able to transfer to another institution within our own conference. Essentially to keep one institution from getting into trouble and then have an individual attend another school in the same conference.

“You could read this bylaw expansively to conclude that an athlete is ineligible at all institutions for receiving a hamburger. I did not believe and do not believe that was the intent of the rule.”

This is supposition, but I bet that the SEC(and the NCAA) couldn't prove that Newton's father got anything from Miss state or Auburn. He probably did, but they have to prove it.

[cal_junior]

If that is true, then they need to revise the language to reflect the actual intent of the rule. The language is far more broad that his interpretation of the intent of the rule.

The only thing I can think of is that the SEC rule says "receives or agrees to receive." So while the NCAA came out and said Cecil definitely was soliciting cash from MSU, since a deal was never struck it doesn't count as a violation under the bylaw.

If that's true, the result is basically: "Go ahead and shop your kid, you won't get in any trouble if you don't find a booster with enough off-the-books cash."

[Keino]

Akh, even with the SEC turning over the investigation, there is an obligation on the part of both the Conference and the NCAA to enforce the rules on the books. It doesn't matter who is running the investigation.

Can I assume that we agree that the language in the SEC rule leaves no room for interpretation? And that under the language contained therein, Newton should not be eligible?

[cal_junior]

This is supposition, but I bet that the SEC(and the NCAA) couldn't prove that Newton's father got anything from Miss state or Auburn. He probably did, but they have to prove it.

At this point nobody (I've read) can prove he actually got money. The issue is whether college football should allow a player to be eligible after his parent asked for pay-for-play.

I don't care if Cam knew or not. The loophole is too big if we say the player himself is only in trouble if he's aware of what his parent was doing. These are 17 and 18-year old kids - usually the dirt-bag is going to be the guardian.

[akhhorus]

Akh, even with the SEC turning over the investigation, there is an obligation on the part of both the Conference and the NCAA to enforce the rules on the books. It doesn't matter who is running the investigation.

Can I assume that we agree that the language in the SEC rule leaves no room for interpretation? And that under the language contained therein, Newton should not be eligible?

Putting aside my personal interest in Auburn's roster for the next 100 hours...

Look at the rule:
"If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance"

The NCAA proved that Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers asked(or sought) cash or financial compensation. I have yet to see any proof that Auburn(or Miss State) agreed or gave the Newton family anything(outside of ESPN's reporting that someone from the Newton family called Miss State and told them that "auburn offered more"). In a strict semantic sense and until they can prove that the Newton family got(or agreed upon) anything, the SEC doesn't have grounds to declare him ineligible(for now).

At this point nobody (I've read) can prove he actually got money. The issue is whether college football should allow a player to be eligible after his parent asked for pay-for-play.

See above.

I don't care if Cam knew or not. The loophole is too big if we say the player himself is only in trouble if he's aware of what his parent was doing. These are 17 and 18-year old kids - usually the dirt-bag is going to be the guardian.

They need better definition on the subject.

[Keino]

The only thing I can think of is that the SEC rule says "receives or agrees to receive." So while the NCAA came out and said Cecil definitely was soliciting cash from MSU, since a deal was never struck it doesn't count as a violation under the bylaw.

If that's true, the result is basically: "Go ahead and shop your kid, you won't get in any trouble if you don't find a booster with enough off-the-books cash."

One discrepancy I see is that this is the language I saw earlier for the SEC rule (See Below). The major difference (and the one that makes all the difference) is the word "solicits". I would really like to see the actual rule now, because that makes all the difference. Merely asking for it under this language affects eligibility. The SEC has said the rule doesn apply because the money wasn't actually paid or received.

If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family solicits, receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or... in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference, such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.

[Keino]

Putting aside my personal interest in Auburn's roster for the next 100 hours...

Look at the rule:
"If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance"

The NCAA proved that Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers asked(or sought) cash or financial compensation. I have yet to see any proof that Auburn(or Miss State) agreed or gave the Newton family anything(outside of ESPN's reporting that someone from the Newton family called Miss State and told them that "auburn offered more"). In a strict semantic sense and until they can prove that the Newton family got(or agreed upon) anything, the SEC doesn't have grounds to declare him ineligible(for now).



See the post above this one. The language I saw included the word "solicits" which is how I arrived at my conclusion.

[cal_junior]

One discrepancy I see is that this is the language I saw earlier for the SEC rule (See Below). The major difference (and the one that makes all the difference) is the word "solicits". I would really like to see the actual rule now, because that makes all the difference. Merely asking for it under this language affects eligibility. The SEC has said the rule doesn apply because the money wasn't actually paid or received.

You are right. SbB actually spends a good bit of time on that in the blog entry.

If you think asking a college for money counts as soliciting then under the SEC's own bylaw Cam Newton is ineligibly to play for any of its universities.

Just my opinion here, but this kid and his father are doing irreparable damage to whatever credibility college football has left. And they are going to completely demolish the Heisman Trophy.

[cal_junior]

Putting aside my personal interest in Auburn's roster for the next 100 hours...

I'll never be a bigger Cocks fan than I'll be on Saturday. Your boys need to finish off this bunch of criminals so I can watch the BCS title game without needing to take a shower afterwards.

As they say in the poker community: One time, SC!

[CarMike]

And yet, UNC has to sit players for sleeping on a couch of a former teammate who is in the NFL today.

This boils down to one thing. The NCAA needs a $EC team in the national championship game. As Keino said, once the football season is over they'll make a discovery and punish Auburn after the fact.

What's really amazing is that Cams dads church was about to demolished due to not passing city code. Not long after he signs with Auburn, the church manages to get up to code and remains open. How much $$$ would it take to get up to code? Between $150,000 - $180,000 dollars.

IMO, the NCAA is scared to death of the $EC.

Compete and utter BS with what UNC has had to endure this season...

[cal_junior]

And yet, UNC has to sit players for sleeping on a couch of a former teammate who is in the NFL today.

Compete and utter BS with what UNC has had to endure this season...

Or how about the Southern California player who had to repay the value of a golf cart ride across campus? Or AJ Green getting four games for selling his bowl jersey?

The NCAA is a joke

[CarMike]

You read and decide. I'm going to take a bath after reading all this.

Timeline-notice the bank comes up early. Bobby Lowder runs the bank and Auburn athletics.

June 9, 2009
Colonial Bank is served with a cease and desist order.

Cecil Newton, father of then Blinn (Junior) College Quarterback, Cameron Newton, and Pastor/Bishop of the Holy Zion Church of Deliverance, is told by Newnan Georgia code enforcement officials that he must make a series of costly repairs to his church or it will be demolished.

August 14, 2009
Colonial Bank is seized by state regulators and placed in receivership with the FDIC, throwing the banks’ books open to forensic accountants and investigators.

September 2009
Newton returns to the Newnan City Council and says that the church can meet code in “six months.”
According to published reports:

City Council reporter for the Times-Herald, Elizabeth Melville, said Cam Newton's father told the council that another son was signing to a football team and was giving the church some money from the deal. "He said he had a different son that played football that was being signed on that expected to get a lot of money from a deal. He was going to be able to give him some and I think he was going to get some from somewhere else. I think he was going to get some from somewhere else. He explained the origins of where the money would come from at a council meeting and no one was suspicious at the time."

Note: The following entries are taken from an interview Kenny Rogers had with ESPN Radio in Dallas, TX on November 11, 2010.

Mid to Late November, 2009
Kenny Rogers, a registered sports agent. meets Cecil Newton.
Rogers contacts John Bell, former Mississippi State Quarterback, and tells him that it will take “cash to get Cam.”

November 27, 2009
Rogers, Cecil, and two unnamed Mississippi State coaches meet at Starkville area Hilton Garden Inn. Cecil, according to Rogers’ statements, says it will take " $100,000 to $180,000" in order for his son to play for Mississippi State. One of the two coaches responds “No, no, I don’t want to hear that.”

November 29, 2009
Rogers contacts Bill Bell, a Mississippi State athletics booster, and leaves a voicemail asking if a deal is in the works. Bell saves the voice mail (See the November 2010 entries).

November 30, 2009 to early December 2009
Bell, Rogers and Cecil Newton participate in a three-way conference call in which a pay-for-play scheme was discussed. Bell apparently gets nervous and calls Bond, urging him to report the matter to Mississippi State University compliance officials.

Bond calls then Athletic Director Greg Byrne and reports the matter.
Mississippi State declines the pay-for-play offer, but continues to recruit Newton as it would “any other student-athlete.”

December 20, 2009
Cam Newton makes an official visit to Auburn University.

December 31, 2009
Cam Newton gives his verbal commitment to play at Auburn.

January 2010
Mississippi State compliance officials report the pay-for-play offer to Southeastern Conference officials, per SEC policy.

SEC compliance responds with a request for more information. However, Mississippi State delays its response to the SEC while it sorted out eligibility issues connected with a student-athlete in a different sport.

April 2010
The FBI informs several Alabama state legislators that it is conducting an investigation into a scheme to pay legislators for their votes on an upcoming bill to legalize casino-style bingo gambling in Alabama. Investigators also tell them that the investigation involves court-approved wiretaps of their phone conversations with lobbyists.

May 2010
Newton’s church receives a stop work order.

June 2010
Mississippi State notifies the NCAA regarding Newton’s alleged pay-for-play offer. The NCAA contacts the SEC about the matter.

A federal grand jury indicts Lee Farkas, CEO of the failed Colonial Bank partner Taylor Bean and Whitaker, for bank and wire fraud. Court documents implicate a "senior Colonial officer,” believed to be former Colonial CEO, Auburn booster and Board of Trustees member Bobby Lowder.

Auburn University is made aware of Newton’s recruitment irregularities by the NCAA and SEC.

Early October 2010
The NCAA requests financial records from Cecil Newton.


October 12, 2010
A federal grand jury indicts Auburn booster, casino owner and Colonial Bank board member Milton McGregor and 11 others for bribery, extortion and conspiracy.

October 21, 2010
Mississippi State Head Football Coach Dan Mullen is asked about Newton’s recruitment by a Rivals.com Radio interviewer. Mullen's response is prophetic: "that’s a long long story ... that’s going to be in the book."

October 28, 2010
Cecil Newton’s church has all repairs completed and approved by the City of Newnan.

November 4, 2010
The ESPN Story breaks.

November 5, 2010
John Bond releases a statement.

Cam Newton denies wrongdoing.

November 9, 2009
ESPN.com’s Joe Schad files a report, claiming that Mississippi State recruiters confirmed that a pay-for-play plan was discussed during two separate phone conversations. In one, Cam Newton told a MSU representative that he chose Auburn because the “money was too much.”

Sources: FBI becomes involved in the case.

November 11, 2010
In an email statement, SEC spokesman Charles Bloom denies that the conference received information about phone calls from Mississippi State.

According to a report in the Mobile Press-Register Print Edition, dated November 14, the NCAA, Auburn officials and the Newtons hold a meeting on campus. The NCAA informs Auburn that there are legitimate and credible questions about Newton's eligibility. Auburn officials leave the meeting issuing "no comment" responses to press inquiries.

November 13, 2010
Cecil Newton admits to talking money, per a WSBTV report, but denies that Auburn, Cam or Cam’s mother were aware of his negotiations.

November 14, 2010
SEC Commissioner Mike Slive issues a statement regarding the matter.

November 16, 2010
John Bond is interviewed by the FBI.

Sources say the FBI is also interested in links between McGregor and pay-for-play at Auburn.

November 17, 2010
Bill Bell acknowledges that he has met with the NCAA “last week” and turned over the voice mail messages left by Rogers the year before.

November 18, 2010
A report from an Auburn beat writer cites sources “close to the investigation” of Milton McGregor’s alleged vote buying scheme that the wiretaps from that investigation do not implicate McGregor in a pay-for-play scheme.

This, despite the curious fact that no news reports have even mentioned wiretaps having been used as part of the recruitment investigation. The “internet chatter” goes nuclear.

November 19, 2010
SEC Commissioner Mike Slive suspends Tennessee Men’s Basketball Coach Bruce Pearl for eight conference games, citing the following clause in the SEC’s constitution:

"The Commissioner has the duty and power to investigate the validity of violations and impose penalties and sanctions against member institutions, their athletic staff members or student-athletes, for practices and conduct which violate the spirit, as well as the letter of NCAA and SEC rules and regulations. This shall include the ability to render prospective student-athletes or current student-athletes ineligible for competition due to their involvement in a violation of NCAA or SEC rules that occurs during the individual's recruitment. The Commissioner also has the authority to suspend institutional staff members from participation in recruiting activities or participation in practice and/or competition due to their involvement in violations of NCAA or SEC rules."


November 24, 2010
Mississippi Secretary of State officials interview Bill Bell as part of the investigation into Kenny Rogers' role in Newton's recruitment.

November 30, 2010
Former Auburn Coach acknowledges a program-wide gag order before hanging up on prominent radio host Paul Finebaum.

December 1, 2010
The NCAA declares Cam Newton "eligible."

www.ibleedcrimsonred.com/p/cam...n-timeline.html


STARKVILLE — The NCAA revealed today that Cam Newton‘s father did shop his son to Mississippi State, but the Auburn quarterback was ruled eligible to play this weekend in the Southeastern Conference Championship.
With the official revelation by the NCAA that Cecil Newton did solicit money in exchange for his son’s commitment to enroll at MSU, another question pops up: Does that mean Newton should therefore be ruled ineligible according to SEC bylaws?
Well, no, says the SEC. For background, here’s the SEC bylaw raised into question:
“If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.”
“SEC Bylaw 14.01.3.2 does not apply in this situation,” SEC spokesman Charles Bloom said in an e-mail to The Clarion-Ledger. “It only applies when there is an actual payment of an improper benefit, or an agreement (such as a handshake agreement) to pay and receive an improper benefit. The facts in this case, as we understand them, are that the
student-athlete’s father, without the knowledge of the student-athlete, solicited improper payments (which were rejected) from an institution the young man did not attend, and that the institution where the young man is enrolled was not involved.”
blogs.clarionledger.com/msu/20...in-newton-case/

As a result of the investigation, Auburn has limited Cecil Newton’s access to the athletics program and Mississippi State has disassociated itself from Rogers. Rogers, a former MSU football player, reportedly solicited between $100,000 and $180,000 from coaches at his former school on the behalf of Cecil Newton.
“The conduct of Cam Newton’s father and the involved individual is unacceptable and has no place in the SEC or in intercollegiate athletics,” SEC commissioner Mike Slive said in a statement. ”The actions taken by Auburn University and Mississippi State University make it clear this behavior will not be tolerated in the SEC.”
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.
collegefootballtalk.nbcsports....leared-by-ncaa/


Cam-ouflaging Reality: Newton’s Story Parallels Bush, Bonds, Rodriguez, Jones
Dec. 2 2010 - 10:45 am | 20 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Posted by Patrick Rishe

How many times have we heard this story in alternate forms over the last decade in either collegiate or professional sports?
On Wednesday the NCAA ruled that Cam Newton, Auburn’s star quarterback and top contender for this year’s Heisman Trophy, was cleared to compete without conditions. They stated:
The student-athlete’s father (Cecil Newton) and an owner of a scouting service (Kenny Rogers) 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.
The NCAA determined Monday that a violation of Newton’s amateur status had occurred. Auburn ruled the quarterback ineligible Tuesday and requested he be reinstated. By Wednesday, the NCAA restored his eligibility because it “does not have sufficient evidence” to prove that Cam Newton knew his father was trying to sell him.
So the NCAA knows that a serious bylaws infraction was committed, but at present they are accepting the excuse that the student-athlete was unaware of his father’s inappropriate actions.
Is this possible? Certainly.
Is it likely? Extremely doubtful.
As many sports writers and sports talk show hosts have opined in the last 24 hours, this ruling opens Pandora’s Box and essentially provides a road map to student-athletes, their families, and their handlers as to how to beat the system.
Just claim the kid didn’t know what was going on, or make sure that there is no recorded evidence of his/her awareness, and the ‘ignorance argument’ may beat the wrap of significant NCAA sanctions.
Without the benefit of a money trail into the Newton’s bank account or recordings (phone, text, face-to-face) of Cam Newton’s awareness of these pay-for-play scenarios, the NCAA is on the one hand understandably remiss to presume guilt.

blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2...channelsections


Newton will play Saturday, and in whichever bowl game the Tigers end up in. It's a done deal. The NCAA has reinstated (very important term) Newton, declared him eligible to play, and that's that for now. Whatever comes next, it's not going to happen before the BCS title game, let alone Heisman voting.
The term used was "reinstated" rather than "cleared" for two important reasons. First is more of a procedural issue that sounds sexy, but isn't: Newton was technically declared ineligible to play yesterday, by Auburn rather than the NCAA. On Monday, this stage of the NCAA's investigation concluded that an amateurism violation had occurred (the solicitation of pay-for-play), and as per their rules, Auburn was forced to declare Newton ineligible. They immediately requested his reinstatement, and today, it was granted.
This doesn't mean it took investigators months to find wrongdoing, and just a day to reverse their decision. The NCAA has been in constant contact with Auburn officials throughout the process, and the university was likely told what their options were if the rules violation was found to have occurred. They would have, in turn, informed the NCAA that they would immediately appeal for Newton's reinstatement, so both sides came in to this week totally prepared. It would surprise me if this outcome hadn't been decided before Monday.
The second reason the NCAA's statement doesn't use the word "cleared" is because Newton isn't. From the NCAA's VP of academic and membership affairs, emphasis mine: "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, which led to his reinstatement."
deadspin.com/5703485/explainin...-as-best-we-can

Cam Newton Investigation: Why Auburn's Wins Might Still Be Vacated

The Newton investigation might still cost Auburn games.
As you know if you've been awake and on the planet Earth for the last several hours, Cam Newton was ruled ineligible and then reinstated by the NCAA, which is a long way of saying that the star quarterback is eligible for the SEC Championship Game. The story probably still has a long way to go before it's all wrapped up, but the immediate problems for Auburn and Newton appear to be gone.
But the legalese is important here. And that's why I'm not as sure as Year2 is that "no wins are currently on the hook for being vacated." Here is the significant part of the NCAA's statement in full, without the excluded words.
"Our members have established rules for a fair and equal recruitment of student-athletes, as well as to promote integrity in the recruiting process," said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs. "In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete’s eligibility, we must consider the young person’s responsibility. Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement. From a student-athlete reinstatement perspective, Auburn University met its obligation under NCAA bylaw 14.11.1. Under this threshold, the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible." [Emphasis added]
That looks like the NCAA is explaining its reasoning for reinstating Newton without suspending him. The logic then flows into this bit about "from a student-athlete reinstatement perspective" and "NCAA bylaw 14.11.1." What does NCAA bylaw 14.11.1 say?
If a student-athlete is ineligible under the provisions of the constitution, bylaws or other regulations of the Association, the institution shall be obligated to apply immediately the applicable rule and to withhold the student-athlete from all intercollegiate competition. The institution may appeal to the Committee on Student- Athlete Reinstatement for restoration of the student-athlete’s eligibility as provided in Bylaw 14.12 if it concludes that the circumstances warrant restoration. [Emphasis added]
So what it appears to me that the NCAA is saying is this: Auburn ruled Cam Newton ineligible for whatever it found that caused all this activity this week. (My bet is that they nailed down the fact that Cecil Newton asked for money.) Auburn then appealed for reinstatement under NCAA bylaws, as they are allowed to do. Because Newton was ruled ineligible this week and the reinstatement was made this week, Newton has not participated while ineligible. In other words, he has not participated while ineligible because he was reinstated before Auburn played any games -- not because the NCAA is finding that he can't be ruled retroactively ineligible based on what they already know.
That, of course, doesn't mean that any of Auburn's wins necessarily will be vacated. And it would seem that the games he plays in from here on out will likely be safe, though future vacations could raise existential questions about whether a team could be a 1-8 SEC champion or a 2-12 national title holder. As with so many things about the Cam Newton investigation, those will have to be answered at a later date.
www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/12...till-be-vacated
Ugly side of Auburn athletics
http://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/how-corrupt-auburn-is-and-how-they-laundered-money-to-players-cam-newton/39981


Alum runs auburn athletics
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/528661-bobby-lowder-may-be-the-next-logan-young-auburns-trustee-being-probed-by-feds

Names/dates/times on dirty football
www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/me....asp?p=22778676

[CarMike]

Or how about the Southern California player who had to repay the value of a golf cart ride across campus? Or AJ Green getting four games for selling his bowl jersey?

The NCAA is a joke

Yep, and UNC also sat out players for academic reasons due to a tutor helping with editing papers.

Meanwhile, at UF, Cam Newton plagiarized a paper by buying one already written off of the internet. Something that he was eventually kicked off of the team for. Yet, still gets a bye from the NCAA.

[akhhorus]

See the post above this one. The language I saw included the word "solicits" which is how I arrived at my conclusion.

That seems like SbB's interpretation of the law. On the letter of the law, there was never any proven agreement.

And yet, UNC has to sit players for sleeping on a couch of a former teammate who is in the NFL today.

This boils down to one thing. The NCAA needs a $EC team in the national championship game. As Keino said, once the football season is over they'll make a discovery and punish Auburn after the fact.

What's really amazing is that Cams dads church was about to demolished due to not passing city code. Not long after he signs with Auburn, the church manages to get up to code and remains open. How much $$$ would it take to get up to code? Between $150,000 - $180,000 dollars.

If they could prove where that money came from, they would have a case. If the FBI and the state of Mississippi are investigating this and they start subpoenaing records, we'll find out.

IMO, the NCAA is scared to death of the $EC.

Compete and utter BS with what UNC has had to endure this season...

You forget that the NCAA is investigating UGA and South Carolina as part of that case. I don't think that the situations are congruent. A bunch of UNC players(along with a coach)+AJ Green and Wes Saunders were clearly receiving benefits from an agent. Thats an automatic boot from the sport. Green was only let back in because he sold a jersey and didn't get direct benefits. Saunders never played for the Cocks this year and Spurrier didn't care how involved he was. He also pre-empted any investigation and suspended several other players just for a hint of receiving benefits from a hotel.

[Keino]

That seems like SbB's interpretation of the law. On the letter of the law, there was never any proven agreement.



Which is why I would like to see the actual language in the by-law. I didn't get that language from SbB blog (I don't even know what that is). A friend of mine in a separate discussion sent me the language yesterday. I didn't notice the exclusion of the word "solicits" until Cal's post to which I was responding. I think that is crucial in determining that actual letter of the law, which at this point is not all that clear to me.

The language I provided, the solicitation is enough. In the language at the OP, there has to be offer and acceptance.

[akhhorus]

Which is why I would like to see the actual language in the by-law. I didn't get that language from SbB blog (I don't even know what that is). A friend of mine in a separate discussion sent me the language yesterday. I didn't notice the exclusion of the word "solicits" until Cal's post to which I was responding. I think that is crucial in determining that actual letter of the law, which at this point is not all that clear to me.

The language I provided, the solicitation is enough. In the language at the OP, there has to be offer and acceptance.

Everything I can find is that what Cal posted is the bylaw. Unless there's specific, clear language saying that asking for money is outlawed, I don't see how the SEC could boot Newton unless there's more information.

[cal_junior]

I didn't get that language from SbB blog (I don't even know what that is).

I believe he posted the entire 14.01.3.2 bylaw, which I copied in the first post of the thread. His point was that the language "agree to receive" is, by definition, solicitation.

(SbB is a sports blog run by a former sportswriter. It's got a little of the entertainment feel of a blog, but contains some solid reporting. It's among the most well-respected sports blog out there.)

[Keino]

Everything I can find is that what Cal posted is the bylaw. Unless there's specific, clear language saying that asking for money is outlawed, I don't see how the SEC could boot Newton unless there's more information.

I agree. If the word Solicits is in the bylaw, as was my initial understanding, however, then there is no need to prove anything as the solicitation has been stipulated to as fact.

If the language Cal posted is in fact the language, then that clearly affects my earlier arguments.

[akhhorus]

I believe he posted the entire 14.01.3.2 bylaw, which I copied in the first post of the thread. His point was that the language "agree to receive" is, by definition, solicitation.

(SbB is a sports blog run by a former sportswriter. It's got a little of the entertainment feel of a blog, but contains some solid reporting. It's among the most well-respected sports blog out there.)

Thats his opinion. Use of "agree" makes it hard for defining that as "solicitation" to survive a court challenge. If Cecil Newton was caught on audio tape with a representative of Auburn agreeing on a price, whether or not the price was actually paid, Cam Newton would be in violation of that rule. Asking for money doesn't seem to fit with that rule, SportsByBrooks' opinion or not.

[cal_junior]

Thats his opinion. Use of "agree" makes it hard for defining that as "solicitation" to survive a court challenge. If Cecil Newton was caught on audio tape with a representative of Auburn agreeing on a price, whether or not the price was actually paid, Cam Newton would be in violation of that rule. Asking for money doesn't seem to fit with that rule, SportsByBrooks' opinion or not.

His point is that Cecil Newton agreed that he would take money from Mississippi State, which the NCAA confirmed in its ruling by saying:

"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."

If Cecil agreed he would take a certain amount of money for his son's signature on a LOI, isn't that soliciting, even if MSU couldn't meet the price?

[akhhorus]

His point is that Cecil Newton agreed that he would take money from Mississippi State, which the NCAA confirmed in its ruling by saying:

"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."

If Cecil agreed he would take a certain amount of money for his son's signature on a LOI, isn't that soliciting, even if MSU couldn't meet the price?

Your quote isn't evidence of your claim. Its evidence that they wanted to get money for Cam Newton's signature. Unless there's proof that someone representing Miss State agreed to pay their price or made an offer that they agreed to, they don't seem to be in violation of the bylaw.

[cal_junior]

Your quote isn't evidence of your claim. Its evidence that they wanted to get money for Cam Newton's signature. Unless there's proof that someone representing Miss State agreed to pay their price or made an offer that they agreed to, they don't seem to be in violation of the bylaw.

In that case the SEC is saying parents of student-athletes are allowed to ask programs for money in exchange for a letter-of-intent, just so long as none of its universities want to meet the asking price.

That's quite a precedent to set.

[akhhorus]

In that case the SEC is saying parents of student-athletes are allowed to ask programs for money in exchange for a letter-of-intent, just so long as none of its universities want to meet the asking price.

That's quite a precedent to set.

If there's no agreement, what rule is being broken? I know Spurrier lost some recruits when they asked for cash and he told them to stick it up their ass. Should South Carolina(and the player) get penalized if the player commits anyways and it comes out that his folks asked for a suitcase full of 100s(which was never agreed to and never paid)?

[cal_junior]

If there's no agreement, what rule is being broken? I know Spurrier lost some recruits when they asked for cash and he told them to stick it up their ass. Should South Carolina(and the player) get penalized if the player commits anyways and it comes out that his folks asked for a suitcase full of 100s(which was never agreed to and never paid)?

I don't think colleges should give scholarships to players who demand (either themselves or through a guardian) cash. Once it is determined a player's father is asking for money in exchange for a scholarship, that player should be considered ineligible.

12 months ago a Mississippi State coach knew Cecil Newton was asking for money. At that point it should have been reported to the conference and Cam Newton should never have played a down. You punish Cam Newton to try and prevent this from happening again.

[akhhorus]

I don't think colleges should give scholarships to players who demand (either themselves or through a guardian) cash. Once it is determined a player's father is asking for money in exchange for a scholarship, that player should be considered ineligible.

12 months ago a Mississippi State coach knew Cecil Newton was asking for money. At that point it should have been reported to the conference and Cam Newton should never have played a down. You punish Cam Newton to try and prevent this from happening again.

Then its time to write a new bylaw. The current rules are clear and Brooks is frankly fabricating. There's nothing against asking for cash. If the school agrees, its a rule violation.

[cal_junior]

Then its time to write a new bylaw. The current rules are clear and Brooks is frankly fabricating. There's nothing against asking for cash. If the school agrees, its a rule violation.

I'll give you that the SEC rule probably doesn't specifically take into consideration asking for money and not getting it.

But the SEC rule aside, it is currently an NCAA violation to ask for money or goods in exchange for a player's commitment. Cecil Newton broke the rules and he knows he did. Not allowing him to attend the SEC title game (or whatever) just isn't good enough.

By not punishing Cam the status quo is maintained and there is a greater chance this practice continues with more scumbag parents.

[akhhorus]

I'll give you that the SEC rule probably doesn't specifically take into consideration asking for money and not getting it.

But the SEC rule aside, it is currently an NCAA violation to ask for money or goods in exchange for a player's commitment. Cecil Newton broke the rules and he knows he did. Not allowing him to attend the SEC title game (or whatever) just isn't good enough.

By not punishing Cam the status quo is maintained and there is a greater chance this practice continues with more scumbag parents.

The only reason that Cam is allowed to play moving forward(and there's almost no doubt he's leaving after this season, even if Auburn has to forge his signature to enter the draft) is because of a lack of evidence. There's no proof that Cam knew what went on and no paper trail of any money changing hands(almost certainly, some Auburn booster paid for Cecil Newton's church issues, but there needs to be actual proof of that). Prove any of that and Cam will be ineligible and the NCAA and SEC won't hesitate to boot him even if its 48 hours before Auburn plays in the Champ game.

[cal_junior]

The only reason that Cam is allowed to play moving forward(and there's almost no doubt he's leaving after this season, even if Auburn has to forge his signature to enter the draft) is because of a lack of evidence. There's no proof that Cam knew what went on and no paper trail of any money changing hands(almost certainly, some Auburn booster paid for Cecil Newton's church issues, but there needs to be actual proof of that). Prove any of that and Cam will be ineligible and the NCAA and SEC won't hesitate to boot him even if its 48 hours before Auburn plays in the Champ game.

There is proof Cam's father asked for money and that's enough for me.

I frankly don't care whether Cam knew or not. As long as the person in question is a primary (not-estranged) guardian, soliciting funds for their child's LOI should make that kid ineligible. That's the only way to stop parents from asking.

[akhhorus]

There is proof Cam's father asked for money and that's enough for me.

I frankly don't care whether Cam knew or not. As long as the person in question is a primary (not-estranged) guardian, soliciting funds for their child's LOI should make that kid ineligible. That's the only way to stop parents from asking.

The rules say that Cam had to know for NCAA sanctions and that there had to be agreement for the conference. I want Cam to be ineligible so that I can go ahead and book my trip to Nola, and there's a lot of smoke around him, but not enough fire.

[cal_junior]

The rules say that Cam had to know for NCAA sanctions and that there had to be agreement for the conference. I want Cam to be ineligible so that I can go ahead and book my trip to Nola, and there's a lot of smoke around him, but not enough fire.

Solicitation of funds on a player's behalf is against the rules, whether the player had any knowledge or not. The NCAA just has complete discretion over what kind of penalty it wishes to levy. In this case they picked "none."

My question is this: How can the NCAA conclusively prove Cam had no knowledge his cash-strapped father was asking for massive sums of money. Do they say: "Cam, did you know?" And if he says "no" then that's it? The kind of kid who would be okay with his dad asking for money is the kind of kid who would lie about later.

And that's why you have to punish the player when the parent acts this way. Otherwise the loophole left is massive.

[akhhorus]

Solicitation of funds on a player's behalf is against the rules, whether the player had any knowledge or not. The NCAA just has complete discretion over what kind of penalty it wishes to levy. In this case they picked "none."


Because they couldn't prove that Cam knew what was going on. You might not like that and you might not believe it, but thats just the facts of the situation.

My question is this: How can the NCAA conclusively prove Cam had no knowledge his cash-strapped father was asking for massive sums of money. Do they say: "Cam, did you know?" And if he says "no" then that's it? The kind of kid who would be okay with his dad asking for money is the kind of kid who would lie about later.


If Cam was involved in any of the discussions or made any calls to Miss State boosters and Kenny Rogers, that would be plausible evidence that he knew what was going on.

[cal_junior]

If Cam was involved in any of the discussions or made any calls to Miss State boosters and Kenny Rogers, that would be plausible evidence that he knew what was going on.

Speaking hypothetically: If you imagine the possible circumstances in which a player did know his guardian was soliciting funds on his behalf, my guess is rarely (if ever) would the kid be an active part of the process.

An 18-year old isn't going to glad hand with a 60-something Friend of the Program and negotiate his own worth. The kid might overhear his parents talking about a booster or recruiter, or perhaps his father might remind him not to tell anybody about the meeting dad had with that shady guy at the tailgate.

In any real-world scenario you'd be hard-pressed to find the kid linked directly to a paper trail.

Which is why, IMO, this is a perfect case where an athlete simply must pay the price for his parent's indiscretion. If not the NCAA just isn't serious about the whole thing.

[akhhorus]

Speaking hypothetically: If you imagine the possible circumstances in which a player did know his guardian was soliciting funds on his behalf, my guess is rarely (if ever) would the kid be an active part of the process.

An 18-year old isn't going to glad hand with a 60-something Friend of the Program and negotiate his own worth. The kid might overhear his parents talking about a booster or recruiter, or perhaps his father might remind him not to tell anybody about the meeting dad had with that shady guy at the tailgate.

In any real-world scenario you'd be hard-pressed to find the kid linked directly to a paper trail.

Which is why, IMO, this is a perfect case where an athlete simply must pay the price for his parent's indiscretion. If not the NCAA just isn't serious about the whole thing.

If you punished athletes for actions taken without their knowledge(or simply without proving that they had knowledge), then the system would totally break down with boosters paying off recruits in the name of other schools(even if its just documenting sending players' parents a 100 dollar check written off an account from a "prospective agent", then reporting it to the NCAA which may or may not have been the plan to make Clemson ineligible) just to spike their rivals' rosters.

Prove that Auburn paid off Cecil Newton with or without Cam's knowledge and they should(and will) all be punished. If you can't prove a payoff, then his knowledge of what his father was doing is the letter of the law according to the NCAA and the conference requires that there was an agreement in place.

[cal_junior]

If you punished athletes for actions taken without their knowledge(or simply without proving that they had knowledge), then the system would totally break down with boosters paying off recruits in the name of other schools(even if its just documenting sending players' parents a 100 dollar check written off an account from a "prospective agent", then reporting it to the NCAA which may or may not have been the plan to make Clemson ineligible) just to spike their rivals' rosters.

Prove that Auburn paid off Cecil Newton with or without Cam's knowledge and they should(and will) all be punished. If you can't prove a payoff, then his knowledge of what his father was doing is the letter of the law according to the NCAA and the conference requires that there was an agreement in place.

I'm saying if you prove the player's primary guardian was the one who asked for money, the athlete should get punished. Not any action without their knowledge, just the player's primary familial advisee when it comes to college - parent, grandparent, uncle, etc.

A booster paying off a player or parent unsolicited is something different.

[akhhorus]

I'm saying if you prove the player's primary guardian was the one who asked for money, the athlete should get punished. Not any action without their knowledge, just the player's primary familial advisee when it comes to college - parent, grandparent, uncle, etc.

If they did receive money or benefits, the player(and program) would be punished.

A booster paying off a player or parent unsolicited is something different.

If you want to create a system where knowledge isn't required, its another big loophole that can cause problems.

[cal_junior]

If they did receive money or benefits, the player(and program) would be punished.

For me the solicitation is the infraction, payment received or not. Obviously if the college or booster pays out then that's an additional violation for the program.

What do you think happens if every high school football coach/counselor/etc. tells parents of athletes: "Remember, if you ask a representative of a college program for money or gifts Little Johnny could lose his college eligibility" The answer is parents stop asking for money.

I don't care if the kid knew or any money changed hands. If we can prove that a legitimate representative of a kid was the one who asked for money, his kid doesn't get to play. That's my rule.

[akhhorus]

For me the solicitation is the infraction, payment received or not. Obviously if the college or booster pays out then that's an additional violation for the program.

What do you think happens if every high school football coach/counselor/etc. tells parents of athletes: "Remember, if you ask a representative of a college program for money or gifts Little Johnny could lose his college eligibility" The answer is parents stop asking for money.

I don't care if the kid knew or any money changed hands. If we can prove that a legitimate representative of a kid was the one who asked for money, his kid doesn't get to play. That's my rule.

And if the school(or a booster) said "Done" when asked for cash the Athlete will be suspended whether or not he knew what was going on.

[redbamaskins]

if auburn beats oregon, will the title be tainted?

[WarEagle]

if auburn beats oregon, will the title be tainted?

Like your boxers after the Iron Bowl?

[redbamaskins]

Like your boxers after the Iron Bowl?

Yep

[WarEagle]

Yep

lol.
If this small state (pop. 4.7 mil) produces back-to-back HT winners and Nat Champs from different universities, a statue is needed on the state capitol grounds or something.

[redbamaskins]

It would be amazing and unprecedented to think two teams from one state (and conference) could win back to back Heisman trophies and nat championships?
Wow
There should be statues of satan and cheese it in front of the state Capitol! Lol
IMO I don't think (as bad as I hate to say it) Oregon has a chance
That would be five in a row for the sec, so add another amazing stat to go with the back thing too.

[WarEagle]

It would be amazing and unprecedented to think two teams from one state (and conference) could win back to back Heisman trophies and nat championships?
Wow
There should be statues of satan and cheese it in front of the state Capitol! Lol
IMO I don't think (as bad as I hate to say it) Oregon has a chance
That would be five in a row for the sec, so add another amazing stat to go with the back thing too.

Montgomery has a claim to the monument since Bama stayed here before the 2009 Iron Bowl, and Auburn stayed here before this season's Iron Bowl. (Big hotel downtown.) We need a towering obelisk or something. Even the Guv'nah talked about the back-to-back thing today. He's a Mason so he should be able to build something mysterious.

[redbamaskins]

Montgomery has a claim to the monument since Bama stayed here before the 2009 Iron Bowl, and Auburn stayed here before this season's Iron Bowl. (Big hotel downtown.) We need a towering obelisk or something. Even the Guv'nah talked about the back-to-back thing today. He's a Mason so he should be able to build something mysterious.

How about a commerative state coin?
Or license plate?
Bama on side and auburn on the other!