NEW NCAA President talks about the Cam Newton Case

[Godfather]

INDIANAPOLIS -- NCAA president Mark Emmert said in an interview Tuesday that emergency legislation could be put in place during the January convention to avoid a repeat of the Cam Newton pay-for-play case.

Speaking in a wide-ranging interview with nine reporters from various media outlets, Emmert said the main question the NCAA must tackle is whether a player should be culpable for the actions of a relative even if no evidence is found that he or she knew about those actions. The NCAA recently ruled that quarterback Cam Newton's father tried to get Mississippi State to pay for Newton to play for the Bulldogs. The NCAA found no evidence that Cam Newton knew what his father did or that Auburn was involved, so he was allowed to keep playing.

The new NCAA chief said the backlash against the organization's decision to clear Newton to play would have been worse if he were prevented from competing based on the evidence against him. At the same time, he acknowledged it's a complex legal and ethical issue.

"I was not surprised by the volume or the vitriolic nature, but had we made a different decision, I do think it would have been worse," Emmert said. "There was no evidence that Auburn University had anything to do with that or the student-athlete had anything to do with that, and under the rules that exist today, he could play ball."

Emmert, the former University of Washington president who succeeds interim president Jim Isch (who followed the late Myles Brand), said legislation to deal with a Newton-like case is on his mind.

"Who is an agent and who is a third party and how do you define that?" Emmert said. "Is it a registered agent? A financial adviser? A counselor, an uncle, an AAU coach? Who is representing you? The reason the backlash didn't surprise me is that the face of the case seemed straight forward but we had to deal with the reality of the facts that were known."

Meanwhile, Emmert said he wouldn't get into specifics over the men's basketball probe at Tennessee. The school and the SEC already have handed down penalties to coach Bruce Pearl, who misled NCAA investigators over recruiting violations, and his coaching staff. The notice of NCAA allegations is due soon in Knoxville, and once the Vols are in front of the committee on infractions, they will learn their fate. The school already limited Pearl and members of his staff from recruiting for upward of a year and docked Pearl's salary $1.5 million over five years. SEC commissioner Mike Slive suspended Pearl for the first eight SEC game days, beginning in January.

"We certainly want to uphold the standards for coaches since they are the teachers and the authoritative figures in that relationship and should be held to the same standards as our students," Emmert said.

Among the other hot-button issues Emmert discussed during the lengthy interview:

• Emmert said he has not spoken to the NBA Players' Association representatives but has been in touch with NBA commissioner David Stern about the NBA draft rule that calls players to be at least one year out of high school and 19 years old before they can be drafted. He said he has no authority in a collective bargaining agreement, even though it affects the NCAA. But he's in favor of anything that will keep players in college longer (he mentioned three seasons). The NBA and the NBPA are negotiating a new CBA after the current one expires next year.

• Emmert said he is in favor of the 68-team model for the NCAA tournament and expects it to be in place for a long time. He said having three more teams in the tournament and the event all at one site in Dayton, Ohio, should be a win for the NCAA and the teams.

• Emmert said there is a growing movement to eliminate July recruiting for men's basketball but something has to be offered up in its place. "I know something will fill it, and we may not like what fills it," he said.

• Emmert reiterated that he is against paying college athletes.

"We can never move to a place where we are paying players to play for us," Emmert said. "We let them hone their skills at the highest level."

• The NCAA controls every collegiate championship except for major college football. Emmert doesn't see that changing -- in the form of a playoff run by the NCAA.

"We don't have anything to do with the bowl games," said Emmert, who added that the NCAA does get an annual share of $400,000 overall from all of the bowl games, a pittance of funds compared to the millions that are brought in and shared by only the schools and conferences that participate in the bowl system. The entire NCAA membership shares in the 14-year, $10.8 billion men's basketball tournament television deal with CBS/Turner.

"We are heavily involved in the rules in which the game is played and the way football is operated but we don't manage the media revenue for the conferences or the championship," Emmert said. "We never controlled the championship. We never had one. There's never been a I-A football championship in American history. It's easy to forget that the BCS was an attempt to create one."

• Emmert also addressed the unknown future of the NCAA with the threat this past summer of super conferences emerging. New Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott, whom Emmert helped hire while president at Washington, tried to get six Big 12 schools, including Texas, to form a Pac-16. Texas stayed, and Scott added only Colorado out of the Big 12 and Utah from the Mountain West, preventing a seismic shift in college athletics. The Big Ten added Nebraska to go to 12, and there were other moves, mostly between the MWC and the WAC, as well as TCU going to the Big East.

Emmert said the conferences have to recognize that they need balance and strength across the sport of football to support 35 bowls. "You need 70 teams so you have to worry about the health of other conferences," Emmert said. "It can't be every man for himself."

Emmert already has streamlined his national office by cutting back on the number of vice presidents and putting all championships except major college football under one person, Greg Shaheen.

"Most of the issues I can't change with a pen but I can impact them," Emmert said. "If I felt impotent on these issues, I wouldn't have taken the job. I'm not interested in just going around and giving speeches."

Andy Katz is a senior writer at ESPN.com.

[djsimp]

But but but, this investigation is not over. Auburn will cease to exist.

It certainly sounds over to me but even with the NCAA President speaking on the matter, we will still hear there is just too much smoke. Yes, they have not come out and said that it was over but when do they ever do that.

"There was no evidence that Auburn University had anything to do with that or the student-athlete had anything to do with that, and under the rules that exist today, he could play ball."

[Godfather]

It certainly sounds over to me but even with the NCAA President speaking on the matter, we will still hear there is just too much smoke. Yes, they have not come out and said that it was over but when do they ever do that.

It's been over.  Think about this, you think CGM stays at Auburn if they were worried?  He would have been HC at Vandy faster than you could shake a stick.

[djsimp]

It's been over.  Think about this, you think CGM stays at Auburn if they were worried?  He would have been HC at Vandy faster than you could shake a stick.

I totally agree. Malzahn staying with Auburn spoke volumes to those with common sense. You know though that many tried to read b/w the lines to try and keep this thing alive. Its like they have to keep their false hopes breathing. Dumb asses. I think I will stoke the fire a little bit on woopig. Those guys have 56 page thread dedicated to Cam Newton.

You know, you said in another thread about Cam and Fairley staying next year; I realize that was hope but imagine what kind of statement that would make. BOOM!

[Townhallsavoy]

But do we have no worries about our wins prior to Auburn declaring Cam ineligible (for a day) being vacated?

[Godfather]

But do we have no worries about our wins prior to Auburn declaring Cam ineligible (for a day) being vacated?

I don't

[djsimp]

But do we have no worries about our wins prior to Auburn declaring Cam ineligible (for a day) being vacated?

No, because it was my understanding that since the beginning of the season the Auburn NCAA Compliance office were contacting the NCAA weekly to get the green light. I may be wrong in saying that this is what I remember. Regardless, I'm not worried either.

[Token]

Ok, here is the first article that really doesn't make sense to me.  If the NCAA has solid proof that Cam is eligible and they absolutely made the right decision based on information compared to the rules in place, why might they have an emergency legislation to avoid "rules not broken" from taking place again?

If no rules were broken, why must something change to ensure this doesn't happen again?  Do they now plan to punish every athlete in Cam's position in the future?  If so, how is it justified to punish those players then, but not punish Cam now? 

I don't see the point in saying it's not illegal this time, but we must change it so it will be illegal in the future.  In my opinion, they are setting themselves up for more ridicule in the future.

[djsimp]

Ok, here is the first article that really doesn't make sense to me.  If the NCAA has solid proof that Cam is eligible and they absolutely made the right decision based on information compared to the rules in place, why might they have an emergency legislation put into to avoid "rules not broken" from taking place again?

If no rules were broken, why must something change to ensure this doesn't happen again?  Do they now plan to punish every athlete in Cam's position in the future?  If so, how is it justified to punish those players then, but not punish Cam now? 

I don't see the point in saying it's not illegal this time, but we must change it so it will be illegal in the future.  In my opinion, they are setting themselves up for more ridicule in the future.

One, I think this is a reaction to the response they received from their ruling on Cam. Two, with no rule in place , they can't punish Cam. Three, they see a loophole that needs to be plugged for future instances.

[Token]

One, I think this is a reaction to the response they received from their ruling on Cam. Two, with no rule in place , they can't punish Cam. Three, they see a loophole that needs to be plugged for future instances.

1.  If this was in response to the reaction they received, he made it sound as though they decided to take the path of least resistance.

2/3.  So they really think Cam should have been punished in this situation, but because of a loophole, they couldn't enforce any punishment?  In the future, they are going to punish any athlete in this situation?

To acknowledge that rules must be changed to prevent this from happening again, is to admit that something wrong took place.  Basically, they are saying one person gets to slide but everyone else will be punished.   If that's not what he meant, that's how it's going to be perceived.

If they are the law, (and they are in collegiate sports) there is no need in contradictions.  They can simply say no rules were broken, and that's the end of it.  No rules broken.  No loopholes.  End of statement.

[Snaggletiger]

1.  If this was in response to the reaction they received, he made it sound as though they decided to take the path of least resistance.

2/3.  So they really think Cam should have been punished in this situation, but because of a loophole, they couldn't enforce any punishment?  In the future, they are going to punish any athlete in this situation?

To acknowledge that rules must be changed to prevent this from happening again, is to admit that something wrong took place.  Basically, they are saying one person gets to slide but everyone else will be punished.   If that's not what he meant, that's how it's going to be perceived.

If they are the law, (and they are in collegiate sports) there is no need in contradictions.  They can simply say no rules were broken, and that's the end of it.  No rules broken.  No loopholes.  End of statement.

Based on the wording in their rules, there's no way they could have punished Newton as the repurcussions would have been an instant lawsuit that they could never win. In the general, the law states that any ambiguities in the wording are construed against the writer.  In other words, if it's not clear on it's face, the Court rules against the maker of the contract or whoever wrote it.  They're saying we'd spend millions defending a high profile case we'd never win.

What concerns me is this is not anything new.  And Token, I'm not using this as a rip on Bama.  But in general, the entire case is very similar to the Albert Means situation.  Even though there was solicitation by someone who may or may not have been deemed to be an agent (High school coach) it was never proven that he knew (At least that's how I recall it).  Ultimately, Means was allowed to play at a school where none of the pay-for-play shenanigans went on.  Again, this "loophole" has been in place for years but I guess it was never questioned in the Means case and they surely never imagined such a high profile case like this would bring it to light.

[Token]

Means' mother went on record saying she was supposed to receive some of the cash from the $200,000.  AND, Means admitted to having some other kid take test for him so he could be eligible.  The NCAA still allowed him to play at Memphis.

That is my point.  The NCAA doesn't answer to anyone other than themselves.  Why go on record saying they are possibly going to change the rules so Cecilgate doesn't happen again?  Why admit there is a loophole?  Why not just release an official statement saying ______________________, so the case is closed? 

For a president to admit they went in the direction that would bring the least amount of backlash, why open a new can of worms by admitting that Cam slipped through a loophole?  The story has all but died anyway.

[Snaggletiger]

But CAM didn't slip through any loophole.  The bottom line is that for a player to be ineligible, there has to be at least some evidence of involvement or knowledge on his part.  There just isn't in this case.  What it comes down to is the only thing ever to come out of this case from the standpoint of "evidence" is that a guy who may or may not be deemed to be considered an agent, had discussions with Big Fig Newton about scoring some green if son signed in Starkvegas. Nothing else.  It's dad and "agent" trying to cut a deal with MSU for their own benefit.

The loophole and what everyone seems to be screaming about is why shouldn't Mini Fig be punished for their transgressions?  The NCAA is admitting that their own wording doesn't allow them to say for 100% certain they could do that and they realize fighting the ensuing litigation would be fruitless.  Lesser of two evils.  The emergency legislation will be to close that loophole and say from this point forward, if money changes hands or is solicited on a players behalf, by ANYONE, regardless of knowledge by the player, said player is going down.

[Godfather]

See...I am with both of you.  My problem is that I don't see a fucking loophole.  Assuming all information is out and everything we know is the truth.  What fucking loophole is there?

That you could call up a school say what will you pay me for my son to play here, not accept any money, then send your son to a totally different school.  Exactly who does that benefit and why would you do it? 

[Townhallsavoy]

See...I am with both of you.  My problem is that I don't see a fucking loophole.  Assuming all information is out and everything we know is the truth.  What fucking loophole is there?

That you could call up a school say what will you pay me for my son to play here, not accept any money, then send your son to a totally different school.  Exactly who does that benefit and why would you do it?

Because it would be easy to ask the question.

"Will you pay $200k for my son?"

"No." 

"Ok, well we'll go somewhere else."

"We won't tell anybody about this conversation if he commits to us."


And in the NCAA's mind, the answer could easily go from "no" to "yes" if a school was willing.

[Snaggletiger]

I understand the loophole and in one sense, it does open the proverbial can of worms because THS's example is the way it would be.  What I have a problem with is making the player accountable, which is exactly what the world outside the AU Nation has been screaming for.  You don't police it by holding someone accountable who didn't participate and/or had no knowledge.  You approach it from the criminal aspect of the issue.  Typical of the NCAA though.  Punish anyone and everyone who had nothing to do with it.   

[Token]

But CAM didn't slip through any loophole.  The bottom line is that for a player to be ineligible, there has to be at least some evidence of involvement or knowledge on his part.  There just isn't in this case.  What it comes down to is the only thing ever to come out of this case from the standpoint of "evidence" is that a guy who may or may not be deemed to be considered an agent, had discussions with Big Fig Newton about scoring some green if son signed in Starkvegas. Nothing else.  It's dad and "agent" trying to cut a deal with MSU for their own benefit.

The loophole and what everyone seems to be screaming about is why shouldn't Mini Fig be punished for their transgressions?  The NCAA is admitting that their own wording doesn't allow them to say for 100% certain they could do that and they realize fighting the ensuing litigation would be fruitless.  Lesser of two evils.  The emergency legislation will be to close that loophole and say from this point forward, if money changes hands or is solicited on a players behalf, by ANYONE, regardless of knowledge by the player, said player is going down.

Damn it, snaggle.  Your lawyer jargon is making my head hurt.

The NCAA is admitting that their own wording didn't allow them to punish Cam.  So they are going to call an emergency legislation to amend that wording and say from this point forward, if money changes hands or is solicited on a players behalf, by ANYONE, regardless of knowledge by the player, said player is going down? 

But Cam didn't slide through a loophole?

It seems like double talk to me.  And double talk makes people look like assholes.  The pres shouldn't have said anything until the NCAA was releasing an official statement saying the investigation was over and no wrong doing to be found on Cam Newton's behalf.  End of story.  By going on record with talks of an emergency legislation to keep Cecilgate from happening again, they make it look like Cecil and Cam beat the system.  When people beat the system, like it or not, they are still perceived by many to be cheaters. 

[Godfather]

Because it would be easy to ask the question.

"Will you pay $200k for my son?"

"No." 

"Ok, well we'll go somewhere else."

"We won't tell anybody about this conversation if he commits to us."


And in the NCAA's mind, the answer could easily go from "no" to "yes" if a school was willing.

Thats not a loophole though...the moment someone says yes...it is a violation and player is done.  Again I ask the question, what would be the benefit to do this?

[Token]

Thats not a loophole though...the moment someone says yes...it is a violation and player is done.  Again I ask the question, what would be the benefit to do this?

Agreed.  So again, I don't see the point in announcing an emergency legislation in this case.  Just officially close the Newton investigation and be finished.  No reason for anything else.

[Snaggletiger]

No loophole...unless there is.  I understand what you're saying but what I perceive is that by having this emergency legislation, the NCAA is ultimately giving in to pressure from a bunch of fucking crybabies.  At the end of the day, what the world outside of the Auburn fanbase wants...is blood.  They want Cam Newton and Auburn's head on a platter because of the transgressions of his father and Kenny Rogers.  What I'm saying is the NCAA's rules are not set up to do that.  If Cam and AU did not participate and/or had no knowledge, they can't be held accountable. 

Questions: SHOULD it have been set up that way?  Should persons and institutions who aren't guilty be punished?

Well, that's exactly what people want.  And that's exactly what the NCAA is about to give them.  People around the nation don't give two fucks and fiddle about Cecil Newton or Kenny Rogers or what may or may not happen to them.  Believe it or not, outside of some point and laugh material, people didn't care what happened to Logan Young.  They wanted Bama to get skewered.  Nobody gave a shit about Reggie Bush's parents or the agent or any laws they may have broken.  They wanted mighty USC to get fucked in the ass.  Not the same circumstances but the same mentality with this situation.   Even though the rules don't...and SHOULDN'T allow punishment of innocent parties, the world wishes otherwise.

There's one area of the rule that does need to be amended which deals with the actual solicitation but holding innocent parties liable is typical NCAA bullshit.