NCAA rules Newton eligible but says father did violate his amateur status

[Russ Smith]

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=12286355

Not totally clear what the violation was beyond "shopping his son" and what they did to end the suspension but I assume they had repay some money to charity or something.

It sounds like they found no evidence Newton took the money they asked for but decided the dad did take something.

 

[boisesuns]

So suspended and re-instated in a few days? Really?

 

[Mulli]

:championship:

 

[Russ Smith]

So suspended and re-instated in a few days? Really?

Same thing happened to Mayo at USC. He got caught taking free Lakers and Clips tickets, USC suspended him for 6 games, he repaid the money to charity, and the NCAA reinstated him. He never actually missed a game because he repaid immediately.

Of course that didn't work out too well since the entire season wound up vacated and there are lots of people convinced that Rodney Guillory gave Mayo the money he paid to charity to get out of the suspension.

Auburn obviously has to hope their situation doesn't work out the same way it did for USC.

 

[Dback Jon]

:championship:

For once, appropriate...

 

[Mulli]

For once, appropriate...

no personal attacks.

 

[desertdawg]

:heisman:

 

[MigratingOsprey]

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=12286355

Not totally clear what the violation was beyond "shopping his son" and what they did to end the suspension but I assume they had repay some money to charity or something.

It sounds like they found no evidence Newton took the money they asked for but decided the dad did take something.

To me it reads like they didn't find any money changing hands.

Reads like they confirmed the scheme to pay for play at Miss State .... ruled Cam didn't know about it ... ruled that Auburn didn't provide any money to the newtons and found no evidence they were presented with the same options (hard to believe, imo) and then when news broke they froze cecil away from all athletic programs which is the act that can restore cams status

 

[Russ Smith]

To me it reads like they didn't find any money changing hands.

Reads like they confirmed the scheme to pay for play at Miss State .... ruled Cam didn't know about it ... ruled that Auburn didn't provide any money to the newtons and found no evidence they were presented with the same options (hard to believe, imo) and then when news broke they froze cecil away from all athletic programs which is the act that can restore cams status

Yeah ESPN is saying that the NCAA ruled the father was involved in a pay for play scheme but there's no evidence Cam or Auburn knew about it. They found no credible evidence they did, they ordered Auburn to keep the father away from the program.

They did also say that this ruling in no way precludes them from ruling him retroactively ineligible later if they find more information.

To me that says the father wanted to get paid, we can't prove the son knew or that Auburn paid him. We think they probably did but can't prove it yet, when we can, we can still rule him ineligible.

Remember the guy Rogers has already met with the Feds and with high ups in Miss regarding his allegations. The problem the Newtons have is those people have the authority to subpoena records the NCAA can't get, but once those records are out, the NCAA is allowed to use them. So if they did ask for money but never got any they're ok, if they got some, the odds are still pretty good they get caught.

I know it's guilty before proven innocent but I really hope South Carolina beats Auburn so they're not in the NC game. I'd just hate to find out later the kid should have been ineligible the whole time there are enough problems with the no playoff system now without something like that screwing up the national title implications.

 

[Mr. Boldin]

What have we learned from this situation?

Its time to have kids and solicit their abilities for money, because its ok according to the NCAA as long as the kids dont know.

 

[Russ Smith]

What have we learned from this situation?

Its time to have kids and solicit their abilities for money, because its ok according to the NCAA as long as the kids dont know.

I think there's something being missed there. The NCAA is saying the people who told us the dad was shopping him around told the truth. The problem is those same people also said that they had offers of 200K from "other schools" but MSU could have him for 180K. So the NCAA deems them credible about the shopping around, they just can't prove that any money changed hands.

Point being if they were telling the truth about the pay for play scheme why would we assume they were not telling the truth about 200K from other schools? And why wouldn't we assume one of those schools was Auburn since he signed there?

So I don't think the NCAA is saying it's ok as long as the kid doesn't know, I think they're saying shopping the kid is a violation but until we can prove money changed hands, it's only a small violation. If we knew for a fact the kid and Auburn were ALSO involved in the shopping of the player, then we'd rule differently.


I really don't think this thing is over, the FBI has already interviewed Kenny Rogers and others, so have officials in Miss. Those people can subpoena, the NCAA can't.

If they took money I fully expect it will come out and bite Auburn in the butt bigtime.

 

[Mr. Boldin]

I think there's something being missed there. The NCAA is saying the people who told us the dad was shopping him around told the truth. The problem is those same people also said that they had offers of 200K from "other schools" but MSU could have him for 180K. So the NCAA deems them credible about the shopping around, they just can't prove that any money changed hands.

Point being if they were telling the truth about the pay for play scheme why would we assume they were not telling the truth about 200K from other schools? And why wouldn't we assume one of those schools was Auburn since he signed there?

So I don't think the NCAA is saying it's ok as long as the kid doesn't know, I think they're saying shopping the kid is a violation but until we can prove money changed hands, it's only a small violation. If we knew for a fact the kid and Auburn were ALSO involved in the shopping of the player, then we'd rule differently.


I really don't think this thing is over, the FBI has already interviewed Kenny Rogers and others, so have officials in Miss. Those people can subpoena, the NCAA can't.

If they took money I fully expect it will come out and bite Auburn in the butt bigtime.

Assuming all that is true, the only reason he was cleared was because Auburn ruled him ineligible yesterday. Either way, there shouldnt have been a ruling one way or the other. Even if he was eventaully ruled ineligible by the NCAA between now and the bowl game, Auburn has to forefit the wins, the bowl game, ect.

The NCAA made Arizona erase its tournament streak in the record books, and they would have done the same to Auburn, much like SC.

Essentially, yes they dont have any evidence that says Cam knew anything about what his father was doing or if he even took cash. However, they just set a precident until future notice that if your child doesnt know about what is going on, you can solicit money for his/her services.

Like it or not, that is what is out there right now and its making the NCAA look stupid.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

There is no loophole here or precedent being set..... it's driving me nuts that people keep harping on that.

The NCAA isn't saying it's OK to shop a player as long as the player didn't know.

What we do have here is a lack of evidence to put down punishment at this time.

The only violation they have at this moment is that his dad along with someone associated with the Miss St. program tried to solicit money from Miss State in an effort to get Cam to commit there

Since he didn't end up at that school and there was no money exchanged and no evidence that Cam even knew of it - it's hard to determine the penalty for this violation

In this case the NCAA determined that having his dad isolated from the program and having the other guy isolated from Miss State was enough corrective action to offset the violation that they had in hand.

The investigation is not closed though. There is also a federal investigation which will have more authority & scope than what the NCAA can get. If something comes from that investigation you can rest assured the NCAA will follow on their findings.

It is also unknown how the situation with Miss State came about. It could be something as simple as Newtons ties to Mullen from FL created a natural thought that Miss St could be a resting spot. Then a former player and program advocate notices, discovers the dads financial problems and decides to get a little maverick and propose to cecil that he could get some money for the family if cam goes to Miss State. If that's the case then it wouldn't be shopping Cam on the open market and the same deal wouldn't of necessarily of been made to Auburn.

If that's the case it's even harder to punish auburn and the player.

Russ - as to your point on credibility, what they have is admissions from both sides that align .... they have cecil/rogers admitting they tried a pay for play with Miss St. and people from Miss State saying they received such an offer and then turned it over to the NCAA. That builds the credibility. The amount of the $$ figure is speculation and could easily just be sales talk. Like buying a car. Hey the sticker is at $20k, but for you I'll sell it for $16k just act fast before my sales manager changes his mind about such a discount. Or the opposite being we have to hold firm to the $20k because i've had 4 other families look at this car this morning. Until you get another family to say they looked at the car or the sales manager to say he was consulted on that particular deal it's hard to implicate them beyond just sales talk.

What they need is Auburn (not likely) or another university involved in his recruitment to say that Newton was shopped to them for $200k - that would build credibility to the claim that other schools were offering that.

It also doesn't create a loophole where the family can sollicit things willy nilly as long as the player doesn't know what they get there isn't an issue ....... i'm sure if Miss State paid the money and Cam went there the plea of ignorance would fall on deaf ears and both the university & player would be punished.

The problem in this situation is that they have zero evidence that the offer was made to Auburn or any other school involved in the recruitment and zero evidence that Miss State or any other school provided anything to the newton family.

That's the difference between this, reggie bush and some of the other things people keep mentioning. In those cases they were able to track the benefit received - there is tangible evidence that the player and/or university is implicated.

At this point there is zero evidence that this was more than an isolated incident that never got off the ground between a parent and an overzealous associate of the program who was quickly rebuffed by MS State.

My heart/head tell me there is probably more - but you can't punish someone on a gut feeling ..... you have to wait until the evidence is there and the NCAA definitely isn't done looking

 

[Russ Smith]

Assuming all that is true, the only reason he was cleared was because Auburn ruled him ineligible yesterday. Either way, there shouldnt have been a ruling one way or the other. Even if he was eventaully ruled ineligible by the NCAA between now and the bowl game, Auburn has to forefit the wins, the bowl game, ect.

The NCAA made Arizona erase its tournament streak in the record books, and they would have done the same to Auburn, much like SC.

Essentially, yes they dont have any evidence that says Cam knew anything about what his father was doing or if he even took cash. However, they just set a precident until future notice that if your child doesnt know about what is going on, you can solicit money for his/her services.

Like it or not, that is what is out there right now and its making the NCAA look stupid.

You have the first part backwards, Auburn declaring him ineligible was a technicality. The rule is that he can't participate as an ineligible player, in order to NOT break that rule, Auburn had to declare him ineligible for one day, and withold him from any football activities, so that the NCAA could reinstate him. Again USC declared Mayo ineligible the same way and then the NCAA reinstated him (over the free ticket stuff). That's just a red tape thing the NCAA didn't rule because of what Auburn did, Auburn did that knowing the NCAA was going to rule.

I do agree it's sending a bad message but I also think the NCAA ruled primarily because they know Auburn is about to play for an SEC title and a berth in the national title game and they for some reason felt they had to make a decision one way or another. I think they should have ruled him ineligible and I think they probably ultimately will. I'd bet anything they're just praying that S. Carolina beats Auburn.

I think he'll eventually be found to have taken money and probably not until after the bowl game. I think the NCAA is going to be embarassed when that happens and I don't know why they think that's preferrable to suspending him now. I guess ultimately they are saying if we can't prove it, we're going to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty. But I think it's going to look awfully bad in light of recent instances in basketball, to have yet another kid ruled retroactively ineligible in football, especially when the case against him looks so clear.

 

[Russ Smith]

Russ - as to your point on credibility, what they have is admissions from both sides that align .... they have cecil/rogers admitting they tried a pay for play with Miss St. and people from Miss State saying they received such an offer and then turned it over to the NCAA. That builds the credibility. The amount of the $$ figure is speculation and could easily just be sales talk. Like buying a car. Hey the sticker is at $20k, but for you I'll sell it for $16k just act fast before my sales manager changes his mind about such a discount. Or the opposite being we have to hold firm to the $20k because i've had 4 other families look at this car this morning. Until you get another family to say they looked at the car or the sales manager to say he was consulted on that particular deal it's hard to implicate them beyond just sales talk.

What they need is Auburn (not likely) or another university involved in his recruitment to say that Newton was shopped to them for $200k - that would build credibility to the claim that other schools were offering that.

It also doesn't create a loophole where the family can sollicit things willy nilly as long as the player doesn't know what they get there isn't an issue ....... i'm sure if Miss State paid the money and Cam went there the plea of ignorance would fall on deaf ears and both the university & player would be punished.

The problem in this situation is that they have zero evidence that the offer was made to Auburn or any other school involved in the recruitment and zero evidence that Miss State or any other school provided anything to the newton family.

That's the difference between this, reggie bush and some of the other things people keep mentioning. In those cases they were able to track the benefit received - there is tangible evidence that the player and/or university is implicated.

At this point there is zero evidence that this was more than an isolated incident that never got off the ground between a parent and an overzealous associate of the program who was quickly rebuffed by MS State.

My heart/head tell me there is probably more - but you can't punish someone on a gut feeling ..... you have to wait until the evidence is there and the NCAA definitely isn't done looking

I agree with everything you said but, the same people who say he shopped them to MSU for 180K, say they had conversations with Cecil Newton about the price for other schools. Could be sales as you said, but then we have assistant coaches at MSU who said Cam called them, crying, and said I'm sorry I wanted to come to MSU but the money was too good at Auburn.

So we have a series of innuendoes that keep coming out true(about shopping the player). That's why I'm inclined to think that the assistant coaches are also telling the truth when they say Cam Newton told them on the phone that the money was too good to turn down Auburn.

But as you said they can't prove any of it so they're right now going innocent until proven guilty even though the NCAA isn't a court of law.

That's where my concern is, recently the NCAA has done the opposite, held out Renardo Sidney while investigating(he wound up suspended a full year plus 9 games). Held out Josh Selby(suspended 9 games), held out Enes Kanter from practices(ruled permanently ineligible, being appealed). So the recent precedent is if they think they have something but can't prove it, they hold the kid out, so in that sense, Newton is being treated differently.

Even in football they suspended Green the kid at Georgia for selling a jersey, but aren't suspending Newton for his dad trying to sell him, that's why I think people are up in arms about this the appearance of inconsistency.

 

[Mr. Boldin]

OK so lets see here...

A (lets for arguments sake say JUCO junior so he only has to play 1 year) father going into NLOI day begins to do what Cam Newton's father did. He guarantess his son to a program for a certain amount of cash. The father has a good influence over his son (like most do in recruiting). He gets paid x amount by school A, then at the last minute on signing day says, by the way we are signing with school B and takes nothing from them.

As long as the NCAA can prove (or cant for that matter) that the recruit and the school he is currently at knew nothing about the father and his agreement with school A, the player is eligible. To go even further, lets say the NCAA has pretty good infomation that the father more than likely received cash from school a, but just cant prove it.

Tell me how that is ok and doesnt set a precident until the NCAA blocks that loophole? It is a loophole, because Cam Newton has played in every game this year. Russ makes a good point about the basketball players and them being suspended vs. what Cam Newton is going through. Obviously, I dont think you can just suspend a player based on rumors, however how can you rule them eligible before the investigation is completed? There should be no ruling in this case at all. When there is a ruling it goes retroactive anyway, which is why it makes no sense.

You may not want to call it a precident, however it was a ruling that has negative clout on the NCAA until they amend the rulebook. A rulebook which is flawed in so many ways, yet extremely detailed on so many obscure rules that actually hurt fair recruiting practices of coaches. I do know a lot of the bylaws inside and out as I majored and have my masters in sports management with an emphasis on college athletics and its bylaws.

The point of that last paragraph isnt to point out what ive done, but to underline that things like this happen all the time, yet the NCAA decides to amend dates when coaches can evaluate recruits instead of important issues like this or what happened at USC.

 

[Mr. Boldin]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-newtonturn120110

Interesting article, but more importantly interesting quotes.

“The NCAA just gave cover to every middle man in the country,” Vaccaro said. “The kids never know. In all my years, I’ve never heard of a kid being involved in the negotiation. You think they ask? Of course not. Their mom asks. Their coach asks. Their cousin asks. This is crazy.”

"That’s the most messed up ruling I’ve ever heard,” one major college assistant coach said Wednesday. “They can ask every school for money and then someone will bite on it. And then if they get caught for asking they can just say the kid didn’t know."

Said another major college assistant: “The NCAA could’ve sent a clear message to everyone that this won’t be tolerated. Don’t ask. Don’t suggest. Look what happened to Cam Newton. You don’t want that happening to your son, your player. Instead they said the opposite.

“I can’t even imagine what it will be like. Oh, man.”

 

[MigratingOsprey]

OK so lets see here...

A (lets for arguments sake say JUCO junior so he only has to play 1 year) father going into NLOI day begins to do what Cam Newton's father did. He guarantess his son to a program for a certain amount of cash. The father has a good influence over his son (like most do in recruiting). He gets paid x amount by school A, then at the last minute on signing day says, by the way we are signing with school B and takes nothing from them.

I quit reading here because you are making up a scenario that just doesn't equate.

In order for there to be a precedent there needs to be consistency in facts.

In this case school A didn't pay the players father a dime, reported the possible violation to the NCAA (opening up them for investigation) and cut ties with the individual who was working with the players father

If Miss State did cut a check then the situation would be a whole lot more complicated than it currently is .... big difference between asking & receiving

 

[Mr. Boldin]

I quit reading here because you are making up a scenario that just doesn't equate.

In order for there to be a precedent there needs to be consistency in facts.

In this case school A didn't pay the players father a dime, reported the possible violation to the NCAA (opening up them for investigation) and cut ties with the individual who was working with the players father

If Miss State did cut a check then the situation would be a whole lot more complicated than it currently is .... big difference between asking & receiving

How am I making up a scenario that doesnt exist? You cant say it doesnt equate, because the NCAA hasnt ruled if Cecil did in fact receive money from Mississippi St. Even if it does rule he did, when does that ruling come down? Cecil Newton confirmed he asked Mississippi St for money.

Why even make a ruling on Cam Newton, when the NCAA doesnt even know if Mississippi St gave Cecil money? If Auburn did not clear Cam to play, because they knew the NCAA was going to rule he could, what is the point?

Going back to the underlying problem, which has been echoed by nearly every college football writer in the U.S. As long as the recruit doesnt know, it is ok for the family to solicit money from a university for the recruit's services. Even if it is proven that Cecil received money, look where we are in the season. The SEC championship game and more than likely the bowl game. If the season ends, Auburn wins the title and Cam goes 1st round, what does Cecil or Cam Newton care?

They "potentially" could have gotten their money, played in a BCS bowl, and landed Cam in the first round of the NFL draft. That is the problem.

Pat Haden, from SC, was told "the family is the recruit." So then amend the rules to say, if the recruit or any family member "ask" for compensation, they are to be held out pending an NCAA investigation. Simple, end of loophole.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

And those writers are dopes as it doesn't line up

No where in this ruling can you draw that conclusion - there is just no way to get there without having all logic fall apart .... it's 100% false

It's a mess with no good solution for the NCAA at this time - you hold him out pending an investigation this deep into the season and find nothing further, then you fail

You let him play and then find something, you fail

The statement to reinstate clearly said the investigation is still ongoing .... at this time there is nothing to show that Miss State paid a dime and if they did it would be very foolish of them to alert the NCAA that they tried to pay a player and even sent cash.

I'm sure there will be an investigation to see if they had some kind of agreement in principle that was trumped .... but right now there is nothing to show they sent any cash.

So if you want a loophole or a precedent, here it is:

If a family member & scouting service director try to solicit money on a play for pay scheme and we have no evidence that your current university was involved, no evidence the player had knowledge of such scheme, no evidence any money exchanged hands and no evidence that any other school aside from the scouting service associates alma mater (where he was even on the football team) was involved the player will be eligible to participate with their current team until we find otherwise. A full and comprehensive investigation will be launched as well.

That's the precedent - that's it.

There is nothing in there that states that the actions of the family will not affect the player or that players can plead ignorance as a loop hole. To suggest otherwise is quite frankly not intelligent.

 

[Russ Smith]

To me this situation is closest to what happened to Derrick Rose and Memphis. The NCAA Clearinghouse cleared him but looked again and clered him again. Then in I believe November of his freshman year they sent him a letter, and Memphis, notifying them that ETS had red flagged his test for certain issues and that his eligibility might be in question. The issues were he didn't take his own test, Memphis asked him repeatedly if he did, he said yes, so Memphis played him. Later the NCAA got the word from ETS, test disqualified they believed he didn't take it, and Memphis got nailed for playing an ineligible player that they had reason to believe was not eligible, the reason was that letter in November telling them his test was under review again.

In this case Auburn has been notified we know they asked for money, we don't know if they got it, he's eligible. But if you play him and we find evidence later, you are now at fault. The point being any games before now, if he took cash he's ineligible, but Auburn didn't know. ANy games after now, the SEC title and the National Title game(possibly) he's ineligible AND you had reason to believe he was.

So what they've done is draw the line in the sand, up until now games get forfeited but no harm to Auburn, games after now harm to Auburn if you decide to play him.

That's really what I think they did.

I'm not surprised people are saying they opened up a loophole but I don't think they really did, asking for money isn't necessarily a violation, getting money is. Asking was a minor violation, accepting it a major one and I strongly suspect if the NCAA had any proof Cecil Newton got money, even if it wasn't from Auburn, they would have ruled him ineligible. But the way that stuff works giving donations to a non profit is something the NCAA can't access, but the FBI can. So they're waiting for the FBI to give them the information they need.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Very good post Russ - agree 100%

 

[Southpaw]

Cheaters cheat. That is what they do.( see the other thread http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f9/newton-left-florida-after-cheating-scandal-159854.html )Daddy Newton needed to pay off church debt. Guess that makes it right. Everybody knew. Just like my sig says

The secret of grand fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done.

Balzac

 

[Russ Smith]

With respect to the NCAA setting a bad precedent.

In the Kansas/UCLA hoops game last night they showed Josh Selby on the KU bench several times and finally explained his eligibility situation.

Selby was found to have taken nearly 5K in extra benefits, he has a 9 game suspension and has to repay the money to charity.

now here's the crazy precedent part. ESPN's Fran Fraschilla said that the NCAA is allowing Selby to take the money from his scholarship fund and repay it to charity. he then has to repay the money to the scholarship fund.

So we have a kid who got extra benefits and the NCAA is essentially allowing Kansas to pay his fine, and he has to repay Kansas. unless the terms say he has to repay it before he signs with an agent, they are essentially allowing him to borrow money from Kansas to pay it and then repay it when he turns pro. You are not allowed to use future pro earnings as collateral for a loan.

So unless the NCAA says he must repay it before he turns pro, they just set an absolutely crazy precedent, allowing a kid to violate NCAA rules to repay a fine for violating his amateur status?

Edit, he doesn't have to repay it to Kansas, the scholarship money is considered to be "his" so if he has extra, he can spend it.

Crazy.

 

[Mr. Boldin]

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1161735

You think the NCAA's ruling on Cameron Newton didn't shock a few people last week? The response was such that new NCAA president Mark Emmert posted a reply on the organization's Web site Thursday, a day after the ruling, saying, "We recognize that many people are outraged at the notion that a parent or anyone else could 'shop around' a student-athlete and there would possibly not be repercussions on the student-athlete's eligibility." Emmert also said he's committed to "further clarifying and strengthening our recruiting and amateurism rules so they promote appropriate behavior by students, parents, coaches and third parties." ACC commissioner John Swofford, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott weighed-in separately, each voicing concerns about the precedent the NCAA may have set with the ruling.

Guess, there are a lot of conference commissioners out there who are also not intellegent...