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

[Southpaw]

Just when it seemed the NCAA was growing some cajones and enforcing their own rules, this decision is handed down. Wow. just wow. The embarrassment will come when this guy wins the Heisman.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Or just bitterness at potential lost revenue

Don't confuse intelligence and logical thought with protectionism and money grabbing with a dash of whining (we were hit for the same thing and it's not fair when in reality the situations weren't identical)

Not a single person can draw a precedent and have it play out within the given scope of the facts to where someone is actually getting additional benefits through their parents/representatives and being immune from punishment due to lack of knowledge on their actions

Anyone who wants to argue anything different at this time is indeed stupid or has a separate motive where truth and honesty really do not matter.

Also, don't take thinking that there is a lack of precedent in the respects to parent involvement means that there is a lack of potential for this to turn very bad or that there very well could be some solid stuff coming down the line.

The fact that people keep missing is that in this instance there is a violation and a punishment that has been doled out. They did not extend the punishment to auburn or cam for this offense because they cannot link them in.

At this time the violation is a minor one.

That doesn't mean it will not get major in the future .... but at this moment there just is nothing there.

There is a lot of talk out of SEC country that some of the names/faces that are starting to come into the conversation from the Auburn side of things were involved in some of the past issues at Auburn and there may be federal indictments involved as well as SMU type penalties if the depth of this goes as far as they are trying to get at

 

[Mr. Boldin]

Not a single person can draw a precedent and have it play out within the given scope of the facts to where someone is actually getting additional benefits through their parents/representatives and being immune from punishment due to lack of knowledge on their actions

Anyone who wants to argue anything different at this time is indeed stupid or has a separate motive where truth and honesty really do not matter.

The problem in this whole matter, as I said above a few times, is that Cam's father asking is not a violation.

The precedent everyone is referring to is that, a family member can ask/act on their behalf for money towards a committment as long as the recruit doesnt know. In this precedent, the recruit is deemed eligible, which is the problem.

Look, if Cam's father asked for money, I dont think Cam should be suspended the whole year. However, when you have players in college basketball suspended before and during the year for potential improper benefits, they are suspended pending the investigation.

Again, the problem is that according the NCAA bylaws, soliciting money is not a violation. That is the uproar and the reason why the NCAA is looking foolish right now. I fully expect that to change. However, considering all the NCAA's vague bylaws and rule changes, how can this be missed for so many years? Its not like this is the first time someone has solicited money during a recruitment, its just the first time someone used the bylaws to protect the recruit from the NCAA.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

The problem in this whole matter, as I said above a few times, is that Cam's father asking is not a violation.

Again, this is false.

Maybe that's the issue here. Bad information going out.

They never determined that Cams father took money which would rule out the precedent for unknowingly receiving benefits from a school which you didn't attend through an intermediary on the promises of your services.

They also did rule that there was a violation and that Cams amateur status was violated. However, given the punishments and facts at this time it was pretty much a minor violation.

Here are some things from the ruling to help map this one out.

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.

Clearly states there was a violation of rules.

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

explains the rule that was broken - cleary it's a violation to engage in a pay for play scenario, even if solicitation comes from the father

When a school discovers an NCAA rules violation has occurred, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible and may request the student-athlete’s eligibility be reinstated. Reinstatement decisions are made by the NCAA national office staff and can include conditions such as withholding from competition and repayment of extra benefits. Newton was reinstated without any conditions.

Explains why Newton was declared ineligible by Auburn to be later reinstated .... the reinstatement committee cannot rule on a player that has full eligibility status

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.”

I think this is the part that is drawing some confusion - but not the ton of hedges in there .... not really strong language at all

What that does is frame the conversation further - there is a violation, but how should it impact the students eligibility .... well, if it follows the known facts of this case where the father & someone connected with a program are working a scheme to get the player to that program but we have no evidence of benefits being transfered and the player didn't choose to go there and there is no evidence the player or the university he did attend knew the scheme or participated in it then we cannot hold them ineligible at that time ........ this is your precedent

So since there was a violation, what did Auburn & MS State do to clear it up

In conjunction with the case, Auburn University has limited the access Newton’s father has to the athletics program and Mississippi State has disassociated the involved individual.

Well, is that the end of it then?

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.

So this isn't the end of the whole thing. The investigation goes on, they will not comment further on it until it's concluded and any future violations they find will be addressed separately.

The summary is:

1. A violation occurred due to the pay for play scheme between Cecil & Rodgers
2. Because of this violation Auburn made Cam ineligible so this violation could be ruled on by the reinstatement committee
3. No evidence that Miss State exchanged benefits to get Cam
4. No evidence Auburn knew of the pay for play
5. No evidence Cam knew of the pay for play activity
6. Miss State reported the potential violation which started the issue
7. When details were discovered Miss State froze out Rodgers
8. When details were discovered Auburn froze out Cecil
9. The responses by Auburn & MS State were adequete enough to counteract the violation in question with the facts presented
10. They chose not to punish Cam when there was zero evidence that either Cam or Auburn knew of the scheme or participated in the scheme. Also no evidence the Newtons received anything from MS State.
11. Cam Newton reinstated
12. Further investigations are ongoing

 

[Mr. Boldin]

Again, even though it is considered a minor violation for Cecil to solicit, as long as Cam didnt know, Cecil is the one who suffers the consequences immediately for admitting.

Since they cant prove Cam knew about the soliciting, Cam is eligible. That is the problem... The NCAA is clearly saying its against the rules to solicit as a family member or recruit. They are also drawing a line between the family doing it without the recruit's knowledge, and the recruit knowing about it.

Thats the problem and the reason why everyone is up in arms. The bylaws state Cecil soliciting is illegal. The NCAA is making the case that there IS a difference between the recruit and the family member, when their clearly shouldnt be.

As Pat Haden was told by the NCAA, "the parent is the child." Just not in this case, right?

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Yes - a minor violation .... minor violations happen all the time and corrective actions are made to restore the program in light of them.

It's not just that Cam didn't know about the solicitation ... it's that the solicitation really didn't do anything. It didn't give the player or his family a known benefit, it didn't provide the player to the solicited university and the university involved reported the issue..

I think people are taking the violations they assume are out there and are putting those potential violations into this package ... you just can't do that

Also, Cams amateur status was in violation, suspended and then restored based on the corrective actions of the universities involved.

All parties involved were also cooperative in this matter, which helps.

The issue isn't just about the solicitation and who knew.

The biggest question is going to be the benefit recieved - of which right now there is none.

So how much do you punish a student because his dad and some alumnus of a school cook up a half baked scheme to get you to that school if you have no knowledge of the scheme, you didn't go to that school and the school you do attend never knew about the scheme.

It would be a bad precident to be heavy handed with that fact set, IMO.

Haden is just whining because they got caught doing things with hard evidence.

Only a fool would try to keep a logical line of thought between a player goes to school X, it's determined that a coach from school X is associated with an agent, the agent gives the player & his family known benefits (yes, Bush had some direct benefits - such as the limo ride) ... at the same time school X is also having issues with their basketball program with some known violations

compared to

Players father goes to school X with an alumnus and ask for money in exchange for a commitment ..... school X says no and reports it to the NCAA .... player goes to school Y .... school Y isn't shown to of known of the scheme .... player & his family received no known benefits .... school X & Y both made corrective actions in regards to the players father and the alumnus that satisfied the NCAA

they are night and day different with the known fact set

Also Haden stated that if Reggie had his (hadens) soul that he would return the Heisman ... also USC was quick to disassociate with him ..... which is odd if Reggie didn't do anything wrong

What Haden needs to realize is his issue is different for 2 reasons - benefits received to both the family and directly to the player and a tie between those providing the benefits to the school the player attended

So yes ... the parent is the child .... but neither received a benefit, let alone from the school the child attended .... the parent is now barred from the school his child attends and his business parter is barred from his alma mater and the business partners alma mater blew the whistle on the whole thing

There is a violation and punishment here - it just didn't extend to Cam or his current school at this point

 

[Mr. Boldin]

Soliciting is soliciting, it should be a serious offense. Not saying a player should be suspended x number of games, but its a major problem in college athletics and the NCAA would rather fix minute and obscure recruiting dates and periods than something that has the magnitude to "potentially" stip another heisman winner.

I just dont agree with the NCAA's bylaws in this scenario and I think most would agree with me. If the parent and the recruit are one, fine keep it that way. However, Cam is only going to get in trouble if evidence comes out that Cecil accepted money.

As far as Haden and the Bush case, I agree they are completely different, but I agree with him on the family and recruit are one. It should be that way, and it seems its not exactly that way in this secnario.

Which goes back to my original point....

A family member can solicit and even admit they did so and nothing will happen to the recruit. So as long as the family member does a great job of keeping a hiddne track of how they got the money "if they did", it could take an entire playing season to figure out if any money changed hands. Next, once the season is over the player turns pro and who cares what happens to the program once we are gone.

Meanwhile, the recruit is competing with no consequences rendered.

Again, Cam is eligible to enter the draft this year. Dont you think a Juco parent is watching this go down and saying to themselves, "I could take money, not tell my son/daughter, do a good job of keeping it under wraps, and if it plays out during the course of the season without legit evidence, we are home free."

If you dont think at least one person is thinking that, watching this mess unfold, then I dont know what to say. That is exactly what this case is proving. You can do that under the right circumstances and as long as the season is over, who cares.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

How did they not keep it that way?

The schools involved had to take corrective action in order for Cam Newton to have his eligibility restored

Your hypotheticals are quite frankly pointless and further conversation on this topic is worthless

You keep creating these scenarios where benefits are acheived .... in THIS CASE there is ZERO evidence that auburn was solicited or that they even considered or knew of a plot

In THIS CASE the school that was solicited reported the violation and opened themselves up to investigation

Coming up with cloak & dagger hypotheticals where benefits are exchanged and players/universities/parents can hide everything

This type of stuff is going on as it is and very well may be the case with Newton & Auburn ... this is under investigation

However, to believe that there is a precident under your scenarios you must believe the taking of the money and arrangement that happens and is discovered during the course of the season (like this one was discovered without any benefits exchanged and from a university that didn't receive the commitment) that both the university & player would get off despite that paper trail because they could claim they didn't know.

Do you honestly believe the NCAA wouldn't suspend newton and sanction auburn if they had evidence in hand that auburn paid the newtons - regardless of whether cam knew about the payment or not?

Do you honestly believe any school/player could get away with such a plea - again with real benefits exchanged from the university that gained the services of the player regardless of whether or not the player knew, if this information was gained during a season

It just defies logic

 

[Russ Smith]

I think people are taking the violations they assume are out there and are putting those potential violations into this package ... you just can't do that

Also, Cams amateur status was in violation, suspended and then restored based on the corrective actions of the universities involved.

All parties involved were also cooperative in this matter, which helps.

Totally agree with most of what you said, 3 points above.

The reason I think people are assuming violations happened is obvious, because everything else the sources claimed happened so far has been found true. They said they were approached about Newton, they said the father was involved, they said pay for play was discussed, the NCAA and now Auburn have agreed to all of that. So why wouldn't we believe that Newton told MSU sorry the money from Auburn was too much to pass on? Everything else they said was true, why would we not believe that part too?

On the 2nd point the Newton's did NOT cooperate, at least not publicly, the father openly denied having done ANYTHING, and he also repeatedly said anybody talking to MSU about pay for play for Cam Newton was acting on their own, not in conjunction with the Newton family. Clearly that's not true since the NCAA said the father was involved.

The distinction again is someone was smart enough to tell Cam Newton to shut his mouth and not say a word. So unlike in the past when Sidney or Dez Bryant were suspended for lying to the NCAA, Cam Newton wasn't because it was his dad, not him, who lied. To be fair, I'm assuming Cecil Newton gave the same answers to the NCAA he gave to the media, that might not have been true.

WHat bugs me is as you said there is so much smoke about this being something SMU like that I just don't get why the NCAA didn't err on the side of caution and rule him ineligible. How stupid are they going to look X months from now when the story comes out he took money from some Auburn booster and their appearance in the BCS title game is voided? What if they beat Oregon? How unfair will that be to the rest of the teams that got dropped down one peg because Auburn used an ineligible player?

USC was told to disassociate Bush by the NCAA, it was a condition of the punishment they got. They had to do it by a certain date.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Russ - i think they are going to end up looking stupid regardless

a really tough situation as pretty much everything points to there probably being something going on ........ but at this point there is absolutely no real evidence of anything going on

it's hard to dump a schools program & season based on a "seems like there is something larger"

I honestly don't think the NCAA really has the means or the teeth to crack all the layers on this and they are going to be very reliant on the federal investigation ... again, this is only my opinion

I think they may also frame that as their out .... they couldn't get at this information and at that time they couldn't make a ruling, but in light of information provided through the federal investigation they'll drop the hammer

these things often take years to unravel though

I just think it's hard, given what is known at this time, to dump a teams season - they either need to find meatier violations or let him play IMO

 

[Russ Smith]

Russ - i think they are going to end up looking stupid regardless

a really tough situation as pretty much everything points to there probably being something going on ........ but at this point there is absolutely no real evidence of anything going on

it's hard to dump a schools program & season based on a "seems like there is something larger"

I honestly don't think the NCAA really has the means or the teeth to crack all the layers on this and they are going to be very reliant on the federal investigation ... again, this is only my opinion

I think they may also frame that as their out .... they couldn't get at this information and at that time they couldn't make a ruling, but in light of information provided through the federal investigation they'll drop the hammer

these things often take years to unravel though

I just think it's hard, given what is known at this time, to dump a teams season - they either need to find meatier violations or let him play IMO

I agree but here's my point, the NCAA does not require proof to suspend a player, they suspended Sidney for a season for lying and half of that suspension occurred while they were still investigating and had just rumor. That was the fallout of Rose and Mayo, the burden of proof shifted to the athlete.

The Newton thing just seems so obvious, today they are saying there are still pictures and possibly video of Cam Newton on the sideline of several Miss State games last year(when he was a Juco player). So not only was there a pay for play discussion with MSU, he was so fond of Mullen(from his Florida days) he was actually on the sideline at multiple games. And yet he signed with Auburn?

Does anybody believe a kid who was that close to Mullen and whose dad was asking for money, would pick Auburn if no money changed hands?

 

[Mr. Boldin]

However, to believe that there is a precident under your scenarios you must believe the taking of the money and arrangement that happens and is discovered during the course of the season (like this one was discovered without any benefits exchanged and from a university that didn't receive the commitment) that both the university & player would get off despite that paper trail because they could claim they didn't know.

Look, you are completely missing what im saying. The precedent is that soliciting without the recruit knowing is only punishable by keeping the family member away from the program and has nothing to do with the actual recruit . Therefore the precedent is, under this exact scenario that Newton is going though, the recruit is eligible to play without being punished at all, unless there is proof money changed hands. Finally the recruit and father are not one in this scenario, which is fine by me if they want to leave it like that, but they better be aware of the consequences.

Essentially, Parents can ask, because thats a minor violation and doesnt involve the recruit. Even if they do receive money, which is still relevant and pending in this case, as long as the NCAA doesnt find out until after the playing season is over the family received money, the recruit is free and clear. Sure they may have to give back an award and the program will be punished. However, how big of a deal would it had been to Reggie Bush if he hadnt won the Heisman? How about another recruit who's family receives benefits and ends up making millions in the NFL before the ruling even comes?

Like I said, Cam is a JUCO and can declare for the draft. What would he, his father, or any other potential recruit care about what happens to the program after they are gone?

That is the whole point, it is relevant, and it is a problem everyone should be worried about until the NCAA changes its bylaws.

Do you honestly believe the NCAA wouldn't suspend newton and sanction auburn if they had evidence in hand that auburn paid the newtons - regardless of whether cam knew about the payment or not?

Do you honestly believe any school/player could get away with such a plea - again with real benefits exchanged from the university that gained the services of the player regardless of whether or not the player knew, if this information was gained during a season

It just defies logic

NO I DONT! That is exactly what im saying. They would suspend him, no kidding. You are obviously missing my point, because that has nothing to do with what ive been saying.

Look, its obvious you arent getting what im saying and that neither of us are going to agree. I think its clearly a precedent, granted one that will be changed as soon as possible, because the NCAA realizes the ramifications of soliciting, and you see otherwise. Fine im willing to leave it at that, but calling my comments pointless when you are responding to the opposite of what im saying is silly.

 

[Southpaw]

Courtesy of ESPN Page 2;

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Russ Smith]

Courtesy of ESPN Page 2;

You must be registered for see images attach

That's awesome.