OT: Newton Ruled Eligible

Submitted by MGoTarHeel on December 1st, 2010 at 1:12 PM

http://www.auburn.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1159915

Auburn University football student-athlete Cameron 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.

Am I the only one a little confused? In any event, it looks like he's eligible.

Comments

ZooWolverine

December 1st, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^

It's an incredibly annoying decision, but I think it's a correct one nonetheless.  I respect the NCAA in this case for standing by the ideal that someone's innocent until proven guilty.  I fully expect that they'll eventually be able to prove him guilty, but they haven't yet, so he should get to play.

Had there been hard evidence of Newton's knowledge, I'm sure that Newton would not have been reinstated.  There are reports of a tape, but I'm assuming it was not available to the NCAA when they made the decision, so presumably they treated it as a rumor.  The only hard evidence they had involved Newton's father, and so it's correct to only punish him at this time.

Blue_Sox

December 1st, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^

 

Innocent until proven guilty, yes. But they specifically said they had evidence of a "pay to play" situation involving his father. Since Cam's father isn't an NCAA athlete, obviously they can't do anything to him. The precedent to set, in my opinion, is that a parent acting for their child in doing something like this is the same as the child doing it. Otherwise, you have no disincentive to carry out this behavior. It is very easy to claim "but he didn't know" and indeed the nature of the relationship makes it hard to disprove. 

It is a hard line to take, but I think it is the only way to stop actions like this. 

ZooWolverine

December 1st, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^

The parent acting for their child is not the same as the child acting, and should decidedly not be handled in the same way.  The reason we're outraged is that Cam clearly knew what was going on, but pretend that's not the case.  If the student doesn't know the actions of the parent, why should the student be punished?

I keep hearing that if the student "doesn't know" it's this magical way around the rules, but since most players are out of the NCAA by the time the infractions are discovered, the players are rarely the ones punished anyways--schools are always fundamentally responsible, and paying the player's parents doesn't change any of that.

Magnus

December 1st, 2010 at 1:16 PM ^

It's pretty clear.

He was ineligible...for a length of two days, and neither of those days included a competitive contest.  Consider his lesson learned.

Marley Nowell

December 1st, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^

This is ridiculous. Newton doesn't lose eligibility because he has plausible denyability?  I understand not punishing the son for the father's indiscretion, but this is going to end badly.

MichiganStudent

December 1st, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^

That would be intelligent wouldn't it?

 

Well, it was basically that the NCAA contradicts itself all the time. They enforce rules when they feel like it and then they will go and do the opposite in other situations. He said the NCAA has rules for one sport and not another. For example, you are allowed to be drafted to the NHL and MLB and still play in college. This is not the case for NFL or NBA. This is a nit-picky part of his argument, but thats all I really remember. 

He articulated it much better than me. I can't find his argument online. 

Alton

December 1st, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^

This is just a short-term "enforcement" issue; the NCAA states clearly that the investigation is ongoing.  From the NCAA:

"Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete’s involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation. It is NCAA policy not to comment on current, pending or potential investigations."

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2…

Translation:  we're investigating Auburn, but we don't have anything on Cam Newton as an individual right now.

Section 1

December 1st, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^

is something like a predicate declaration, to go ahead an get an immediate "eligibility" declaration, along the lines as described above.  Alton gets it.

On a hilarious and even more Off-Topic note, there's this:

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20101130/NEWS/101129587/1011/sports?Title=UA-staffer-fired-for-pregame-songs

I hope I'm not repeating anything and creating needless clutter.  The story is that a part-time stadium employee in Alabama played Steve Miller's "Take the Money and Run" and the (fantastic and legendary) original Dusty Springfield recording of "Son of a Preacher Man" during the warmup sessions of the 'Bama-Auburn game.  And, for that act of pure musical genius, was summarily terminated. 

st barth

December 1st, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^

...I don't think this is over yet.  Supposedly the FBI has an investigation going in Alabama that may include wiretap evidence of a pay-for-play scheme at Auburn.  If/when that investigation concludes and the info becomes public, then the shit will really hit the fan.

I think at this point in time, the NCAA just doesn't have enough info and without due process they would probably be exposing themselves to a massive lawsuit if they suspended a player who was later cleared.  Innocent until proven guilty.

Bosch

December 1st, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^

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.

Wasn't there a recorded phone conversation where Cam admitted to a Mississippi State official that he was going to Auburn because the "money was too much" or something to that effect?  Was this a myth?  Was the conext of the conversation too cryptic?

 Does this effect Michigan or myself?  No, but the apparent lack of in-depth analysis on this allegation versus others around the nation is mind boggling.

Edit:  Unless, of course, the investigation is still on going as someone mentioned above.  In that case, who cares if he is inelligible from this point forward?  If the results of any further investigation are more egregious than this initial report, then Auburn's season is fubared anyway.

MichiganStudent

December 1st, 2010 at 3:09 PM ^

The way I look at it is this: let Auburn go to the SEC championship game, make money on it. Hopefully Auburn goes to the MNC, make money on it. Hopefully Cam Newton wins the Heisman, make money on it. 

Then after all is said and done, come out after they made all their money and say that new evidence shows Cam Newton did have knowledge and is retroactively suspended and punished. 

If this happens, consider me The Knowledge and shoot me because the NCAA is a joke and The Knowledge is not someone I want to be. No offense, he's a cool dude...

Steve in PA

December 1st, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^

If they let him play in the SEC and MNC games, this will be swept under a rug when he goes pro next year.  The NCAA & SEC don't want this stink on them so soon after the Reggie Bush stink.

Remember, they're both dirty organizations only driven by public perception and money.  Letting him slide accomplishes both if there is "no conclusive" evidence that Cam was involved...just his agent, er Dad.

bighouseinmate

December 1st, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

.......of convenience for both the SEC and the NCAA. Suspend the player for the ongoing investigation on Monday, reinstate by Wednesday, no worries for Saturday.

Is anyone else hoping that South Carolina absolutely crushes them this saturday?

Bosch

December 1st, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^

to beat the Gamecocks and then go on to win the MNC on the chance that the investigation isn't over. 

I think it would be down right beautiful for the NCAA to ultimately rule Newton ineligible and strip Auburn of the championship. It would then become the third time in the last 18 seasons that Auburn went undefeated, but did not get annointed as the nation's best.

1993:  11-0, post season ban

2004:  13-0, BCS formula picks USC and Oklahoma

2010:  14-0, NCAA drops the hammer?

GVBlue86

December 1st, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^

I really, really like this scenario.

After that story about all the alledged things going on there, and how Chizik was hired because he possibly was just willing to be a puppet for all the crazy things going on there, I can't help but think he was not hired because they thought he would just be a good coach.On the foundation of no conclusive evidence, I hate Auburn now. And to think, I would start Dynasties with that team in NCAA as a change of pace from UofM because I liked their uni's. Never again.

st barth

December 1st, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^

If Auburn wins out & claims the titles, the Heismans, etc.  then it will be a huge black mark on the SEC's credibility to have one of their champion teams stripped bare of everything immediately afterward.

Yeah, the SEC keeps winning the BCS...but since they're paying their players would you expect anything less?  

bighouseinmate

December 1st, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^

........is that sportswriters everwhere still believe that USC was the greatest team ever with Bush, even though they were stripped of wins, postseason ban, Bush stripped of Heisman, etc. And...................there are fans everywhere that believe the same thing.

I'd rather Spurrier's team go batsh*t crazy on Auburn and beat them by 30-some points, reducing Auburn to a mere mention in the annals of history for this year as being busted for major infractions involving a player, and basically getting nothing for it. That would be serious justice in the world.

USC still won a title with Bush. I'd rather Auburn not repeat that same soap opera.

Bosch

December 1st, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^

I don't have a problem with what people think.  It won't be in the record books. 

People everywhere recognize the Fab Five as the greatest freshmen class ever assembled but it doesn't make the fact that the Final Four banners are no longer in Crisler hurt any less.

Having a team stripped of high profile accolades is a humiliating stench that sticks around for a long, long time.

I prefer my scenerio. 

joeyb

December 1st, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^

If USC beats them, then USC and Auburn both likely make it to a BCS bowl game. That would mean Florida would be in the Outback. If Florida-Michigan is really a desirable matchup, then Florida being there might help us get into the Outback. So, yes, I am rooting for USC to beat Auburn this weekend.

MGoShoe

December 1st, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

...Newton gets off scot-free for his dad's attempt to shake down Mississippi State.

Nothing in this decision indicates that the NCAA wouldn't take action if there are credible allegations about any Auburn-related pay-to-play scheme that may emerge in the future.

It's still a horseshit decision. 

psychomatt

December 1st, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^

Every prospect should turn over the decision regarding which school to attend to his/her parents and tell them not to mention anything that is going on that violates NCAA rules. Then, during the offseason, have your parents voluntarily disclose what they did to the NCAA and have your school declare you ineligible and immediately request reinstatement of your eligibility. The athlete and the school should be in the clear within a few days (just make sure there is no paper trail on the money).

bigmc6000

December 1st, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^

Future conversation between 5 start QB and his father:

Son: Hey dad! I've been looking at the lot of schools and I think I have it down to 5

Father: That's great son!  Which 5 were you thinking?

Son: USC, LSU, Alabama, MSU (NTMSU) and Oklahoma

Father: Great! I've already got a list of rich boosters from 4 of those!

Son: Wait, what??

Father: Oh nothing, don't worry about it. I'll let you know which school to pick in a couple months. Right now you just keep worrying about football and getting good grades

Son: Awesome dad, you're the best.

 

(I thought that was going to be funnier but, ya know, it's the holiday season and even blog-commenting motivation is down ;)

UM4ME

December 1st, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^

And all we had to go through for over a year for 7 minutes a week of excessive stretching. Who knew we could just say, well, I didn't know!

We all know this but the NCAA is such a joke. But, hey, look on the bright side - all of you out there who have sons or daughters that are great athletes, you can pimp them out for as much money as possible and it will be all good.

You know this had a TON to do with the BCS rankings. Need to keep Auburn up there; can't have TCU creeping up in there and ruining everything. Go Gamecocks this weekend!

Tim Waymen

December 1st, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^

I could be missing something and there could be something that we don't know, but here's what I understand that we know:

  • Cecil Newton is a sleazy guy, and tested the waters for selling his son to Mississippi State
  • Kenny Rogers and some other guy at MSU negotiated with him
  • ...
  • Cam Newton ends up at Auburn

Is Auburn accused of anything?  Isn't there some rumor out there about a mysterious $250k donation to Cecil Newton's church?  Alabama almost got the death penalty for its involvment in the Albert Means case, so I'd like to think that Auburn isn't that stupid.  It seems possible that MSU is just playing dumb at this point and Auburn is hiding something.  Perhaps we shall see.