OT - Newton article on Yahoo Sports
Has anyone else read the Newton article on Yahoo! Sports by Dan Wetzel?
It discusses an interesting result of the NCAA ruling on Newton's re-instatement of eligibility. Basically, the future is cleared for third-party "go-betweens", non-agent "agents", and even the parents for asking a school for compensation in return for their son's(or even daughter's, in the bigger women's sports) acceptance to play for them with no fear of any lasting repercussions to the player, team, or even the person doing the "asking".
There is also an interesting poll there. Right now, the leading vote getter is that Newton should be suspended for the entire season(at 77%), second is no penalties(17%), third is suspension from SECCG(5%), and last is suspension for a half of the SECCG(1%). My question would be just who are the 17% that agree that no action should be taken against him?
December 1st, 2010 at 9:29 PM ^
out to be. Ok so the result here is that this opens the door for people to go with their hand out? So what, people were doing that anyway. This ruling doesn't authorize the payment to the father. Plus the investigation is still pending against Auburn and MSU. This ruling was limited to the information that they have presently, and based on that, Cam is deemed to be eligible.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:45 PM ^
.......that as long as the player "didn't know about it" that the player won't be punished. It allows for more abuse of the system by people representing the player, not necessarily for the school.
Now, one could say that if Auburn gets it's ass handed to them as a result of the investigation, that schools will shy away from not only improper benefits but from those players whose representatives are asking for cash. And that may be true, but as a player, or their parents or whatever, they don't necessarily care so much about the school as they do their son/daughter and their own damn selves. It still invites a lot of improprieties that can be dismissed from punishment of the athlete and/or the school itself.
All this is based on the language that the NCAA used in it's ruling to re-instate Newton. They found that his amateur status had been violated, but ruled him eligible and stated that Newton knew nothing of it.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^
it's because I'm just cynical. But I just think this case would have been different if there was evidence of money actually changing hands. Right now, all the NCAA has is a dad asking for money, which I think occurs more regularly than it probably really does.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:58 PM ^
Here's the problem with this "investigation" that will take place at a later date. Similar to the Bush-USC thing, the team loses out on a chance to play for a championship for 1-2 years, its records are erased from the books, they lose some scholarships, and that's pretty much it.
Auburn will probably win the BCS Championship this year. They will make a bazillion dollars off of it. 5 years from now, they won't have technically won it, they won't be able to compete in the postseason in 2015 and 2016, they'll lose some scholarships and then in 2017, it won't matter anymore.
This is akin to if I copied test answers to pass a class, graduate from college, and then land an awesome 6-figure a job only for five years later some impartial body saying, "you actually didn't graduate from college, you can't apply for another job for 2 years, and you have to take a 10% reduction in salary for 2 years as well, but after that, do whatever the hell you want."
It's faux punishment, that whole contradiction stated above is mind-boggling considering Newton's amateur standing was compromised and then a organizing body whose sole purpose is to uphold the principles of amateur athletics says "Oh well, no harm done."
December 1st, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^
The ruling removes any consequences for these actions short of the "representative" getting relatively meaningless sanctions from the school in question and the NCAA. Had the NCAA actually sanctioned Newton, then it would be sending a message to parents that either soliciting money yourself or associating with the wrong people in the recruiting process had the potential to screw up their kid's athletic future. This, in turn, would lead potential recruits and their families to have an incentive to work to ensure that nobody close to them solicits money to deliver them to a school. Conversely, by not sanctioning Newton, this opens the door for any relative to solicit money for a recruit's signature without fear of any significant repercussions for themselves or the recruit.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:45 PM ^
This whole situation is nearly as bad as the guy who gets shit water on him all the time at work when using the restroom.
Cam knew what was going on, and to say otherwise would be very naive. Shame on him, his dad, and above all, the NCAA for looking the other way. We get probation and this asshole gets $180,000.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:07 PM ^
We get probation and this asshole gets $180,000.
Hey, come on now, let's be fair to the Newtons.
He got at LEAST $180,000.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
No, I think that getting shit on because you like clean bathrooms is just stupid. Taking money to play football is more like being the guy on the top floor that is shitting on everybody else.
December 1st, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
It's not a wonderful life after all
December 1st, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
...has created an absolutely vile precedent with this decision. They have signed off on the idea that it is permissible for parents to pimp their children to athletic programs as long as the child can plausibly claim that they had no knowledge of their parents' activities.
Yeah, the NCAA is all about "fair play" and the "student-athlete". I have some nice ocean front property in Colorado, who wants to start the bidding?
December 1st, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
Exactly, now literally every recruit in the country can have his parents act as agent and shop him around to the highest bidder, consequence free. The NCAA is fucking insane.
December 1st, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
Your point is precisely the most disturbing aspect of the whole thing. This decision sets a very bad precedent regardless of your opionion of Auburn, MSU, Cam Newton etc.
December 1st, 2010 at 10:27 PM ^
that "the money was too much" at Auburn he was talking about what??? Monopoly money? A job at the Pig and Poke? I mean how the fuck does the NCAA....
At my church we have bible study classes, Knights of Columbus, pasta dinners. At Cecil's Steeple they must have Graft 101, Lying 202 etc.
What a joke.
Edit: 5 Hail Marys for the f word.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^
...are just lowerclassmen prerequisites for the JuniorCollege course of Microeconomics 500: Robbing the NCAA
December 1st, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
December 1st, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
at the shit we get into for 10 minutes of extra practice ! Pity there's no Birmingham Free Press
December 1st, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^
Hey maybe we could send Drew Sharp to the SEC. Can we set up a fund ?
December 1st, 2010 at 11:20 PM ^
So if Auburn does get sanctioned becuase of this...I guess that means we land Kris Frost, right? Even if we have a head coaching change?
December 1st, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
It is puzzling that the NCAA has given Auburn a “free” pass on Cam Newton. Maybe the NCAA told Auburn that Auburn is “at risk” with the investigation continuing. Maybe the NCAA communicated that Cam and Auburn were innocent until proven guilty and they have not seen anything yet directly implicating Cam, although how they can ignore his Father is beyond me. Maybe the NCAA is saying to Auburn go knock yourself out but if evidence comes out later than Auburn will be USC’d (loss of titles, scholarships, etc). In the meantime, Auburn gets the immediate glory and money and Cam gets the Heisman (temporarily). It is Reggie Bush, part 24. It doesn’t make sense to me when you have evidence of the Cecil Newton’s money demands for his son’s services. It is a very disappointing finding from the NCAA.
My Auburn friends are very pleasantly surprised. They were expecting “Alabama got caught the last time and we got caught this time verdict” regarding Cam. They are just happy they beat Alabama and have a chance for redemption and a NC.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:31 AM ^
I've been reading this blog for two years now, but I've never posted. I'm sure I'll be "negbanged" into oblivion for putting in my input, but oh well. My question is this. Why does it matter if he received money? Yes, it might be against the rules, but does it help him any when it comes to playing football? If he's the best college football player in america, then he's the best college football player in america. What does it matter if he received 180k? I highly doubt the 180k, or whatever amount of money people are saying he was asking for, made him play any better. You don't start playing better just because you're getting paid to play. Actually, one of the reasons I don't like the NFL is exactly that. A lot of the times you can tell they aren't giving it their all, because they are getting paid to play. It doesn't really matter if they don't give it their all every play, because regardless they are getting a ridiculous paycheck.
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:13 AM ^
FYI, you only get negbanged (as far as I know) when your post is more of a rant than an opinion backed up with either insight gleaned from observation (there's a science-y word for this), truth, or statistics.
Though the post is kind of a rant (paragraphs are your friend) it's an interesting take and one that I haven't seen before.
And it leads into a very interesting take on how the NCAA views college athletics. Y
You are absolutely right. Cam Newton is the best player in America this year and since the Heisman goes to the best player (well, on the best team), he should get it. Just like Reggie should've won it.
What matters is that it's more than likely Cam's amateur status (the only thing that matters) was compromised. The NCAA somehow believes that though his father was openly soliciting schools for 6 figures to have his son play there, none of this magical money found its way into his son's pockets. The real kicker is that the NCAA thinks erasing trophies from shelves retroactively is some kind of serious punishment. Reggie doesn't have that gold statue in his den anymore. USC doesn't have a crystal football. The money they (Bush and the school) made isn't being returned. No one is saying, "Remember when USC won those back-to-back titles," only to have someone chime in and say "Actually, the title was vacated because of Reggie Bush."
The NCAA resides in a fantasy land where there is a handful of shifty people with greasy hair and cheap gold rings cracking their knuckles while standing at the fringe of the community. This hasn't been true for 50 years and it isn't true now. See: UNC, Auburn, USC, Kentucky, Memphis, Kansas, SMU, etc.
No one is disputing whether Cam is the best college football player in America. They're disputing whether he's a "college football" player at all.
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:14 AM ^
If Auburn did not pay him:
<br> - they wouldn't have him and he might be at a different school putting up different numbers playing with different teammates, different coaches, on a different schedule.
<br>- even if he still decided to go to Auburn pro bono, it has been rumored that this is a pattern at Auburn (see previous posts). So Auburn might be surrounding him with paid players making his team better.
<br>
<br>You don't see a problem with this? I think it's about setting a precedent.
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^
It doesn't change the fact that he is an outstanding talent but it does call into question the talent around him. If Auburn is paying players to come play there and schools like Michigan are not, that throws off the competitive balance of recruiting. They are offering something that no other school legally can offer. So lets say they paid to get the top 5 offensive lineman and their #1 running back. They now have a more talented offense because they were offering something that other schools could not legally offer and got better talent because of it.
Now if we are talking about does it or should it affect Heisman voting? I think that is a different story.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:54 PM ^
Kind of sounds like the NY Yankees doesn't it?
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:42 AM ^
Mark Snyder.
And Michael Rosenberg.
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:24 AM ^
Cam Newton's guide to finding a college team:
Step 1: Ask Mississippi State for money, get turned down, and tell them "Sorry, the money is too much."
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Go to Auburn.
Step 4: PROFIT!
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:49 AM ^
Step 5: Win the NC game, and laugh at everyone else (especially Reggie Bush), because you got paid and beat the system!