Another ESPN/Pat Forde Cheap Shot at Auburn

[AUBSC76]

1st time poster here... I was ticked off at Pat Forde's unwarranted shot at Auburn in this article yesterday  http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6746255 so I e-mailed him the following:

From: (AUBSC76 name  & address)
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 4:12 PM
To: 'ESPN4D@aol.com'
Subject: Your 7-12-11 Pay For Play Article

Mr. Forde,

Yesterday you wrote:  “We're talking about pay-for-play because Newton's quarterbacking services were offered to at least one school (1) by his father for six figures coming out of junior college.  The alleged asking price: $180,000. Cam said he didn't know he was being sold, Auburn says it didn't pay (2), and Newton survived and thrived amid the controversy on the way to an undefeated season, Heisman Trophy and national title. The 180 grand (3) turned out to be chump change compared to the financial windfall Newton helped bring to the Loveliest Village on the Plains.”

Back in November, you put yourself out on a limb without doing your homework and you can’t get off of it, can you?   No matter how many times and how many ways you spin it, the truth keeps coming back to the fact that the NCAA has investigated Cam Newton’s recruitment for at least a year (assisted by every sports journalist and wanna-be journalist/ sports radio host / blogger with keyboard, microphone, or a website) and concluded that neither he nor his family received any impermissible benefit from either Miss State nor Auburn, nor did they discover evidence of Auburn’s involvement in those discussions in any way.   The president of the NCAA has outlined this conclusion on at least three occasions, yet you write of “The 180 grand” (3) as though it was actually paid.   You write (2) “Auburn says it didn’t pay” but irresponsibly fail to mention “as does the NCAA after examining Cecil’s personal and church financial records”  http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/december/statement+by+ncaa+president+mark+emmert+on+cam+newton+eligibility 
 
You write “at least one school” (1) but, as quoted in an article http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5818428 that you co-wrote, Kenny Rodgers’ attorney says he never had ANY contact with anyone at Auburn concerning Cam:  "Nobody's pointing a finger at Mississippi State for doing anything wrong," Zeit told USA Today. "And Kenny has said, 'I had no discussion with Auburn regarding Cam Newton or anybody affiliated with him.'  He said, 'I don't know if Auburn has or has not done anything wrong.' He's not pointing a finger at them."  Nor do you recall what your ESPN colleague, Joe Schad wrote so I’ll remind you: “Meanwhile, Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops, who also recruited Newton out of Blinn, said he saw "nothing at all" out of the ordinary during that process.  “Our recruitment of Cameron could not have been better, or was just fine," Stoops said. "I didn't notice anything and none of our coaches did as we were recruiting him." http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5786315  Lane Kiffen said the same thing concerning his recruitment of Cam to Tennessee.
 
We have seen that the NCAA acts decisively and deliberately when there’s a case that can be supported by actual evidence – they have looked for a year now, assisted by many, and come up empty.  From your insinuations I can only conclude that you either KNOW something about Cam’s recruitment that the NCAA has not yet discovered – in which case you should step forward and report it if you can produce credible EVIDENCE – or you have another agenda entirely.  Respectfully,

(AUBSC76), Auburn ’76, Huntsville, AL

PS - I’ll agree with you that Auburn received far more in value than the cost of providing Cam’s scholarship but that is true of any collegiate athlete who excels in his sport:  Michael Jordan, Pete Maravich, Herschel Walker, Bo Jackson, and the list goes on.    When in the history of collegiate sports has it not been true that a minority of athletes are net financial gainers who subsidize the net financial losses of carrying the majority of others?     

[JR4AU]

“We're talking about pay-for-play because Newton's quarterbacking services were offered to at least one school (1) by his father for six figures coming out of junior college.  The alleged asking price: $180,000. Cam said he didn't know he was being sold, Auburn says it didn't pay (2), and Newton survived and thrived amid the controversy on the way to an undefeated season, Heisman Trophy and national title. The 180 grand (3) turned out to be chump change compared to the financial windfall Newton helped bring to the Loveliest Village on the Plains.”

Compared to most fucking hacks, that's about as fair an assessment as I've seen by the media.  He uses "alleged" and though he said "to at least one school", which is factually correct, he didn't engage in speculation about anything.

I didn't click the link to read the article for context, but in and of itself, I wouldn't have complained about that statement of facts. 

[AUBSC76]

In the context of his article he implies that if athletes were paid a few thousand (ie: enough to buy a car over the course of a college career) Rodger's solicitation (possibly on Cecil's behalf) never would have arisen and insinuates that Auburn was the highest bidder - "At least one school" and "Auburn says they didn't pay".  That's the SAME story he and his ESPN collegues were spinning last November.  Here we are 8 months later and he makes no attempt to update his story to the factual findings of the NCAA.  I would expect that on TigerDroppings, Finebaum, or an updyke board but not from a national journalist proporting to speak to serious issues.   

I'm sure that ESPN's attornies made sure that he didn't make any outright statements that weren't factual (as you correctly point out) but his omission of more recent facts is intentional and should be called out for what it is.     

[GH2001]

Compared to most fucking hacks, that's about as fair an assessment as I've seen by the media.  He uses "alleged" and though he said "to at least one school", which is factually correct, he didn't engage in speculation about anything.

I didn't click the link to read the article for context, but in and of itself, I wouldn't have complained about that statement of facts.

Just the fact that the asshat is still talking about it is enough for me. Let it go already. He mentions Cam, he mentions Auburn. Fuck him.

[JR4AU]

Just the fact that the asshat is still talking about it is enough for me. Let it go already. He mentions Cam, he mentions Auburn. Fuck him.

If its used in the "since we're talking about paying players, lets mention Auburn"  context...fuck em.

[GH2001]

If its used in the "since we're talking about paying players, lets mention Auburn"  context...fuck em.

Thats exactly what he was doing. He can eat a box of saw blades.