NCAA Rules Cam Newton Eligible
The NCAA, displaying uncharacteristic swiftness, has ruled Cameron Newton fully eligible to play. I can only assume it moved this quickly because of how much is on the line at this point: Auburn's undefeated season, the SEC title, and a berth in the BCS National Championship Game.
Let's pull out some key pieces from the release.
Auburn University football student-athlete Cam 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. 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.
This part means that the NCAA formally decided yesterday that it had enough evidence to sit Newton down. Today, the reinstatement committee lived up to its name by reinstating him. To all those who though he'd be declared ineligible: you're right. He was. To those who thought he'd never miss a game: you're also right. He won't. Everyone's right!
Anyway, the bylaw that the NCAA says was crossed is about representing a player. It was not about the actual receipt of benefits. That indicates that right now, the NCAA doesn't believe that Cecil Newton received money from anyone.
Newton was reinstated without any conditions.
At the moment, Newton is unequivocally eligible to play. Period.
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.
This is the first we've seen that has anyone at Auburn agreeing to the fact that something fishy went on with Newton's recruitment. We now have three separate institutions (Mississippi State, Auburn, and the NCAA) all agreeing that Cecil Newton shopped his son. The unnamed owner of the scouting service is, of course, Kenny Rogers.
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.
As of now, these are the only penalties being handed out. Cecil Newton has limited access to the program, which probably means something along the lines of him being able to attend games and talk to his son but not much else. Rogers is now disassociated with Mississippi State, which basically means that he can no longer have any contact with anyone at the school.
"The conduct of Cam Newton's father and the involved individual is unacceptable and has no place in the SEC or in intercollegiate athletics," said Mike Slive, Southeastern Conference Commissioner. "The actions taken by Auburn University and Mississippi State University make it clear this behavior will not be tolerated in the SEC."
Loosely translated: "I'm mad as hell that this incident has brought up the specter of cheating around my conference, especially because I swore I'd clean up the league." Of note is that he praised Auburn's actions and not just those of the whistleblowers in Starkville. Perhaps that means he's just glad that Auburn complied with all of the NCAA investigators' requests, but to me it sounds like he doesn't believe Auburn did anything wrong through the entire chain of events.
Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs [said,] "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. ... the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible."
I did some editing here to cut down on legalese, but the meaning is intact. The NCAA ruled that because neither Cam Newton nor Auburn knew that Cecil and Rogers were shopping Cam's services, Cam is clear to play. It also says that Cam hasn't played while ineligible, which means no wins are currently on the hook for being vacated.
Note the caveats though: "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." That wording indicates that the overall investigation is not done. In fact, two paragraphs later, the NCAA drops a serious hint that we haven't heard the last of this one:
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.
I can't see anything in the release that suggests that this reinstatement ruling will be overturned. The NCAA sounds pretty confident that Cam Newton is and has always been eligible (aside from the 24 hour window of ineligibility from yesterday to today).
I'm not an NCAA insider, so I don't know how the rest of this plays out. Could the enforcement staff still be waiting on information from the FBI? I guess that's possible.
It also could be deliberating on how both Mississippi State and Auburn handled this case. For instance, Rogers says that MSU coaches first heard requests for money from him and Cecil Newton the day before last year's Egg Bowl. MSU didn't report anything to the SEC until January, and it didn't fulfill the conference's request for more information until July.
So while we no longer have to worry about Cam Newton being declared ineligible, the story isn't over yet.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think this is the best possible conclusion for all parties.
I think this also makes Cam a lock for the heisman and prevents any Reggie Bush repeat fears. This should be good for college football all around. An amazing athlete is allowed to continue competing at the highest levels and possibly bring his team to the national championship.
This is going to be Legen...wait for it....Dary!-Barney Stinson
by Jalakin on Dec 1, 2010 2:23 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I can't tell
if you’re being sarcastic or not.
How is this good for college football?
by knowshon loves legos on Dec 1, 2010 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
That the universities slapped it down
Instead of looking the other way?
by PalmettoTiger on Dec 1, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not being sarcastic
I believe it is good for college football in that we will still see one of the best players continueing to compete instead of suspended. It also doesn’t vacate any of auburns wins, yet at least, which is good for auburn and the sec. Secondly it is still showing that Auburn and State coopperated with the NCAA at least as far as we know. That is a good thing for the SEC and the respective schools so far. Finally the NCAA is saying basically that the only reason Cam is allowed to play is that they have found no evidence of payments and Auburn was not approached. This to me says to future potential violaters that this behavior won’t be tolerated and that is why Cecil is restricted in contact, and that only because there is no evidence of any payments.
This is going to be Legen...wait for it....Dary!-Barney Stinson
by Jalakin on Dec 1, 2010 4:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
well it doesnt say that part about Cam
what it says is that he didn’t know about it, not that there’s no evidence of money exchanging hands.. in fact, that’s probably the only reason this case is still open, to make sure AU didn’t pay.
They basically let ppl shop their kids now as long as the kids don’t know (wink), and that’s NOT good for college football
by knowshon loves legos on Dec 1, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
Even so
They still have to cover up any payments. If the NCAA had proof of a payment from someone representing Auburn, this would be a whole different story.
And I’m not saying that Auburn did pay; there’s not been any evidence of that of yet.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
Just because money didn't change hands...
Doesn’t make it right.
Cecil Newton tried to break the rules, but was unsuccessful. The NCAA should not allow people to even to shop their services regardless of whether someone paid for Cam or not.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
oh, don't get me wrong
I don’t think anyone will ever prove if any money ever changed hands… IF that even happened.
I just think that’s probably what they’re looking for now, the reason this case is still open. Why else would it be?
by knowshon loves legos on Dec 1, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
They could be still deciding whether all parties did what they were supposed to do when they were supposed to do it. They could be reviewing the paperwork. There could be other deliberations on the picky little elements of the rules in question that lawyers love to do so much.
Nearly two years passed between the eligibility ruling and the enforcement ruling in the Alabama textbook case. I’m not saying the particulars of the two cases are comparable; I only bring it up as an example of how big the lag time between the rulings can be.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
Posted by hailtogeorgia on Dawg Sports
I was paraphrasing, but here’s the rule SEC Bylaw Section 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.
A solicitation is a request or encouragement of another to perform an act, which, in Cam’s case (where his father was shopping him as a pay-for-play situation) would be agreeing to receive improper benefits. Since Auburn did, indeed, rule Cam ineligible yesterday, it would certainly seem that they agree with that conclusion. Right now, his saving grace must be his (alleged) ignorance of his father’s unethical behavior.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
I agree with this sentiment...
They are really playing up the ignorance by Cam; however, the rule clearly states that a player can’t “indirectly” receive or agree to receive benefits. It appears from this SEC rule that even asking to be paid is wrong, and Cam doesn’t have to directly ask to violate the rule…
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
if anyone can pull of the 'ol ingnorance plea
cam can do it
by knowshon loves legos on Dec 1, 2010 5:09 PM EST up reply actions
also, there's precidence for this type of thing
and it didn’t end well
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/95-suspended-star-didnt-know-of-dad-benefits-29294
by knowshon loves legos on Dec 1, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
Right...
Once again, the NCAA is doing everything it can to keep Cam eligible. It’s just not right.
And yes, I am not a fan of Auburn, but I am not a fan of Florida, either; however, I never had a problem with them winning championships since Tebow wasn’t a cheater.
Cam’s been a cheater before, and even if he didn’t know that his father was shopping him around (hard to believe), it’s still wrong. End of story.
Except it isn’t. Cam was ruled eligible by a biased NCAA. I don’t know what is in it for the NCAA, but I get the feeling that if Auburn wasn’t 11-0 and on its way to a potential mNC, he would be forced to sit for more than one day.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
The key words
“receives or agrees to receive”
There’s no evidence showing that the Newtons received anything, so the first half is a no go. It takes two to make an agreement, and MSU turned Cecil and Rogers down. We have no evidence of Auburn making a deal either. That makes the second half a no go.
Cecil Newton violated the spirit of the rule and even wanted to violate if he could have, but because no one gave him anything or agreed to give him anything, he technically didn’t violate the letter of it.
I think that’s an awfully big loophole (and I expect it to be closed soon), but you can’t just say, “well that’s a loophole and we’re going to issue a punishment based on if it had been closed.” I don’t know how much discretion Slive has as commissioner to issue punishments as he sees fit, but I don’t think he can’t do one based solely on this rule.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
Good points.
And yes, the NCAA knows its rules better than I do.
I just don’t like it ;-)
It’s a fun topic to debate regardless. Later.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
All About the Benjamins.
A friend made this argument to me, and I agree:
If the NCAA wasn’t afraid of a potential TCU v. Oregon matchup in the mNC, that Auburn and Cam would have a different outcome.
The NCAA is all about the benjamins, and an Auburn v. Oregon game would be a larger draw and more hyped than the aforesaid TCU v. Ducks matchup. Truth. Heck, even I would enjoy that game more.
If this same situation had happened to Toledo, you bet there would’ve been a suspension.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
Um
The NCAA is not a party to the BCS contracts; the conferences, bowls, ESPN, and Notre Dame are. The NCAA makes no money off of the BCS games because it’s not a part of the TV contracts.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
by Year2 on Dec 1, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, but its members are.
I agree the initial post is a bit tin-hat, but it’s disingenuous to say that the NCAA is completely disconnected from the money in college football.
SEC Pigskin Podcast with Barney Able and Dorsey Hill
http://www.secpigskinpodcast.com/
by aproposdenada on Dec 1, 2010 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
It's not
But it makes no direct money off of the BCS. March Madness is its big money maker.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
To the tune of over 90% of its budget
If I recall correctly.
by PalmettoTiger on Dec 1, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
Really?
Like the above poster said, I was being a bit over-the-top, but you think that the NCAA is 100% neutral in these types of decisions? You really think that the NCAA doesn’t favor teams like Alabama, Auburn, and USC over teams like SMU, Miami (OH), and IUPUI?
For example, it’s the Florida State Seminoles and the IUPUI Indians. Scratch that. IUPUI’s name was considered hostile, and they had to change to the Jaguars. Yet, FSU is still the Seminoles. Hmmm…Interesting. That’s just one example.
"You can't print what I said, but they have to catch us." - Chipper Jones
FSU gets to keep the Seminoles name because it worked out a deal with the actual Seminole Tribe. You can’t keep “Indians” or “Redmen” because it’s generic. “Seminoles” is specific, and the real Seminoles say it’s okay.
By comparison, Illinois got to keep the “Illini” name because it can refer to citizens of the state of Illinois, but it had give up the Native American mascot and logos that it had used.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
funny you should bring up toledo. the university of toledo had a cheating scandal in football and basketball this decade.
Why do canadians stick together? The same reason why Chris Horodecki turned his body and face around in his first WEC fight.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Dec 1, 2010 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
Hanlon's Razor likely applies here.
As reporter Gentry Estes noted in his Twitter feed, this is an eligibility ruling, not an enforcement ruling. The NCAA has basically said, "We know that Cecil shopped Cam around. We believe that Cam was unaware. We don’t know whether Cecil was successful. We’ve told you about Cam; we haven’t said a thing about Auburn. Yet."
That said, I think the facts may reveal that Hanlon’s Razor applies here: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Cecil shopped his son via the clearly incompetent and truth-challenged Kenny Rogers, got nowhere with it and gave up. Granted, it’s still unclear how all those church repairs were financed, so the FBI may prove me wrong.
SEC Pigskin Podcast with Barney Able and Dorsey Hill
http://www.secpigskinpodcast.com/
Open Invitation to Cheat
The NCAA might as well disband now. They’ve just handed every elite athlete and every school that is interested in paying for them an engraved invitation to corruption. All you have to do is say, “I didn’t know what Daddy (uncle, cousin, high school sweetheart, coach, etc.) was doing” and you can play no matter how much money changes hands.
Good thing $cam Newton didn’t get a $1.49 textbook. Then the NCAA hammer would have been unleashed in all its fury.
Story's not over
First of all, the NCAA says it has no proof that money changed hands. If a payment had been made, more bylaws would have come into play. I tried to highlight that above: this is about solicitation of money, not the receipt of money.
Second, the investigation is not over. We don’t know what the final penalties will be.
Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2
It’s a little bit trickier than that. They have to be unable to prove that you knew. And if you actually get anything from it, that becomes monumentally harder.
Moreover, it’s quite common for organizations to go “Someone did this thing before, which we didn’t like but wasn’t against the rules. We fixed the rules.” As the FanShot now at the top of TSK says, Slive wants to do just that.
I can tell you one thing: the grass in Tiger Stadium tastes the best.
The Oregon Ducks once took a delay of game penalty, just to see how it felt.
Well thank goodness Cam didn't sell his jersey to someone he didn't know was an agent.
That would have really been bad!
he unknownly sold his talents to his dad (agent?)
i guess he should be glad talent isn’t tangible.
by knowshon loves legos on Dec 1, 2010 5:00 PM EST up reply actions
Wow!! Isnt it great Cecil can attend the BIG GAME?
I mean we wouldn’t want to let anything get in the way of the BIG GAME, would we?
And I’m very relieved to hear that Mississippi State has disassociated itself from a bad guy like Rogers! Whew! That was close! I mean when MSU’s kicking TSUN’s butt, ya wouldnt want to actually, you know, punish them for not scraping enough cash to pay Cecil, would ya? That’d be SO UNFAIR!!!!!
Isnt it great to know the NCAA can move this fast when the BIG GAME is at stake!!!!! Who wouldn’t be proud of ‘em! I mean MILLIONS were riding on the right outcome. Dont sweat the integrity stuff – that’s for chumps. Just think how much bigger your 2010 payout will be so long as Cam gets to play in the BIG GAME!
They wore garnet helmets.

by 











