Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on December 01, 2010, 01:29:32 PM
-
GentryEstes247 Gentry Estes
Summing it up: Cam can play, but investigation isn't over. Auburn is in good shape short-term but I actually think worse shape long-term.
DanWetzel Dan Wetzel
by CecilHurt
Newton case is not over. This is just immediate eligibility ruling. An ongoing enforcement staff investigation can lead to more later
schadjoe Joe Schad
NCAAs decision based on "information available at this time."
slmandel Stewart Mandel
If you read between the lines at the end of the release, this violation has been addressed, but the larger investigation likely ongoing.
I guess they missed the part about how no wins are in jeopardy and Cam can play without risk of penalty?
-
BFeldmanESPN Bruce Feldman
Interesting ruling by the NCAA, opening the door for parents to try and cut deals in recruiting as long as the kid isn’t involved. Wow.
-
Fuck them...Douchebags.
-
BFeldmanESPN Bruce Feldman
Interesting ruling by the NCAA, opening the door for parents to try and cut deals in recruiting as long as the kid isn’t involved. Wow.
Really, it has. Not saying this is what happened in the Newton case, but theoretically, as long as a parent could figure out a way to hide the money away, even if the NCAA figured out the kid was shopped around there would be no harm no foul. I would almost bet the NCAA will come out with some specific wording on this in next season's bylaws.
-
It has to.
-
Really, it has. Not saying this is what happened in the Newton case, but theoretically, as long as a parent could figure out a way to hide the money away, even if the NCAA figured out the kid was shopped around there would be no harm no foul. I would almost bet the NCAA will come out with some specific wording on this in next season's bylaws.
Isn't that the case every time?
As long as they can hide the money, they'll get away with it. That applies to every scenario involving a pay for play scheme.
The issue here, and the reason why Auburn and Cam are in the clear, is that not only did no money exchange hands, the player involved and the school that received the player had no involvement in the pay for play request.
This is the same thing as a brother of a recruit going to a school and informing the school that if they provided $100k, he could persuade his brother to commit to them. The schools says, "Piss off," and reports the infraction.
The recruit then commits to another school never knowing what was really going on with his brother.
Why should the NCAA reword the bylaws for that situation?
-
Isn't that the case every time?
As long as they can hide the money, they'll get away with it. That applies to every scenario involving a pay for play scheme.
The issue here, and the reason why Auburn and Cam are in the clear, is that not only did no money exchange hands, the player involved and the school that received the player had no involvement in the pay for play request.
This is the same thing as a brother of a recruit going to a school and informing the school that if they provided $100k, he could persuade his brother to commit to them. The schools says, "Piss off," and reports the infraction.
The recruit then commits to another school never knowing what was really going on with his brother.
Why should the NCAA reword the bylaws for that situation?
From what has been reported publically, this is beyond some kid walking up to a coach and making a simple off the cuff statement. This seems like it was kind of a drawn out thing. I think the NCAA needs to do something to make this sort of infraction have teeth in the future. Otherwise, as that tweet suggested, they are opening a Pandora's box for parents of other athletes to try and cut deals. It sucks that it may ruin a kid's career, but if that parent is trying to solicit money from a school or representative, he's looking at his kid like a gravy train anyway, and jeopardizing that gravy train will make them think twice.
-
http://deadspin.com/5703485/
Explaining The Cam Newton Ruling, As Best We Can
Explaining The Cam Newton Ruling, As Best We CanWe don't know a heck of a lot right now, since the NCAA and Auburn aren't talking. But we can parse the NCAA's statement and try to break down what happened, and what happens next.
Cecil Newton did, in fact, try to get money in exchange for his son's commitment. We all thought that was the only question in play here, but we were wrong. The NCAA concluded that the allegation was true, but won't punish Cam Newton for it.
Newton will play Saturday, and in whichever bowl game the Tigers end up in. It's a done deal. The NCAA has reinstated (very important term) Newton, declared him eligible to play, and that's that for now. Whatever comes next, it's not going to happen before the BCS title game, let alone Heisman voting.
The term used was "reinstated" rather than "cleared" for two important reasons. First is more of a procedural issue that sounds sexy, but isn't: Newton was technically declared ineligible to play yesterday, by Auburn rather than the NCAA. On Monday, this stage of the NCAA's investigation concluded that an amateurism violation had occurred (the solicitation of pay-for-play), and as per their rules, Auburn was forced to declare Newton ineligible. They immediately requested his reinstatement, and today, it was granted.
This doesn't mean it took investigators months to find wrongdoing, and just a day to reverse their decision. The NCAA has been in constant contact with Auburn officials throughout the process, and the university was likely told what their options were if the rules violation was found to have occurred. They would have, in turn, informed the NCAA that they would immediately appeal for Newton's reinstatement, so both sides came in to this week totally prepared. It would surprise me if this outcome hadn't been decided before Monday.
The second reason the NCAA's statement doesn't use the word "cleared" is because Newton isn't. From the NCAA's VP of academic and membership affairs, emphasis mine: "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."
They know (and believe they can prove) that Cecil Newton demanded money for Cam's commitment, thanks to the Mississippi State evidence. They cannot prove that he made the same demand of Auburn, or that Cam was aware of his father's pay-for-play schemes. This sounds as believable as a hooker not knowing she's being pimped out, but it's not about what probably happened. It's about what can be proven, and as of this moment, it cannot be proven that Cam Newton or Auburn did anything against the rules.
Which doesn't mean that's the way it will stay. The NCAA's statement makes clear that "reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation," and the boilerplate caveat that they will not comment on "current, pending or potential investigations." Evidence could emerge at any time that would incriminate Newton and Auburn (although neither side would have any motivation to come forward with anything), and the NCAA could find Newton ineligible. This could happen five years from now, and Auburn's wins and Newton's records and maybe even his awards could be vacated.
It's a dangerous precedent for the NCAA to set: keep the kids in the dark when you're shopping them around. But right now, there's simply not enough evidence on which to act. So Cam Newton plays on, eligible but not "cleared."
Send an email to Barry Petchesky, the author of this post, at barryp@deadspin.com.
-
Really, it has. Not saying this is what happened in the Newton case, but theoretically, as long as a parent could figure out a way to hide the money away, even if the NCAA figured out the kid was shopped around there would be no harm no foul. I would almost bet the NCAA will come out with some specific wording on this in next season's bylaws.
Maybe, but the fact is (as of now I guess), that no money changed hands, and that the team in which Cecil talked about money with, didn't sign Cam.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Ditto ea.....
-
:bod:
-
It hasn't "opened the doors"....if money had changed hands Cam would've been ruled ineligible. If Cam would've signed with MSU, even though money wasn't passed, he would've been ruled ineligible
-
It hasn't "opened the doors"....if money had changed hands Cam would've been ruled ineligible. If Cam would've signed with MSU, even though money wasn't passed, he would've been ruled ineligible
It's like you read my mind...
Or my post just above here...
-
It's like you read my mind...
Or my post just above here...
The skreets are exposed.
-
It's like you read my mind...
Or my post just above here...
I was driving down 20/59, so I didn't feel like reading everyone's response. Sounds like you and I, along with all the levelheaded people realize that what you posted and what I posted is the truth.
-
Maybe, but the fact is (as of now I guess), that no money changed hands, and that the team in which Cecil talked about money with, didn't sign Cam.
I can't, for the life of me, get why these are such difficult concepts to grasp for some people.
I don't give a flying shit what the wording of the release says, the fact that A: Cam nor his dad received any extra benefits, and B: Cam didn't sign with the program where this is alleged to have taken place is paramount in all this.
Players who have actually received benefits are reinstated all the time. Players who have brushes with agents are cleared to play all the time. Albert Means was bought and sold, and played football after the facts were known to the NCAA.
THE NCAA WASN'T GOING TO PUNISH AUBURN WHERE THEY HAD NO INVOLVEMENT, AND THOUGH THEY'D LIKE TO PUNISH CAM'S DAD, THEY CAN'T.
It's plausible that Cam knew nothing about it. I'd venture to say even likely.
Cecil: "Cam, you screwed up Florida (**thinking to himself and maybe your whole career including the NFL, and I want some money for your ass**), you let me handle your recruitment this time, you stay at Blinn and play football and stay your ass out of trouble!"
Cam: "Yes daddy".
-
I was driving down 20/59, so I didn't feel like reading everyone's response. Sounds like you and I, along with all the levelheaded people realize that what you posted and what I posted is the truth.
Are you calling War Eagle a fucking idiot?
-
Are you calling War Eagle a fucking idiot?
haha.....
-
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5871003
What a cocksucker...
He really really wants this shit to drag out so that he can keep being invited on air to appear "relevant".
"It says right here in the statement the reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation, what you don't see in this statement is any indication from the NCAA that the investigation into whether or not Cecil Newton was successful in getting money for his son's services is complete, so it's my understanding that this investigation is not complete."
Are you fucking ignorant, or just that stubborn?
If they say the reinstatement occurs at the close of an investigation that means it's pretty much fucking over. You say that yourself in support of an argument that the investigation is not complete? How can you lack the cognitive capacity to interpret that the way he (and others in the media) have chosen to? It defies logic.
-
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5871003
What a cocksucker...
He really really wants this shit to drag out so that he can keep being invited on air to appear "relevant".
"It says right here in the statement the reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation, what you don't see in this statement is any indication from the NCAA that the investigation into whether or not Cecil Newton was successful in getting money for his son's services is complete, so it's my understanding that this investigation is not complete."
Are you fucking ignorant, or just that stubborn?
If they say the reinstatement occurs at the close of an investigation that means it's pretty much fucking over. You say that yourself in support of an argument that the investigation is not complete? How can you lack the cognitive capacity to interpret that the way he (and others in the media) have chosen to? It defies logic.
I think the Cam Newton part of the investigation is over, as far as whether he had any involvement in it or not. That is pretty clear by the NCAA's statement. As far as the status of the overall investigation, I think you're seeing what you want to see a bit on the wording.
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.
All that says is.....well, what it says. It doesn't say the decision is made at the close of the investigation. It doesn't say that when the investigation is close to over they make an eligibility decision. All it's saying is that eligibility is likely to be decided sometime prior to the close of an investigation. FWIW, I think the AU part of this is over. Maybe that's what you're trying to say. But I doubt the investigation overall is close to being over. I would imagine the NCAA is going to be going over alot of MSU's recruiting shit the past few years with a fine toothed comb. The idea to start paying recruits at MSU had to start at some point in time. Was Newton the start of that idea, or just one in a long line of players? I think that's what the NCAA will want to find out.
-
These are the things that keep going through my mind.....
1) The investigation is not over. There are still being allegations investigated and there may be some stiff shit that comes down from the findings.
2) The ongoing investigation is not of Auburn. Nothing should or will happen to Auburn. MSU on the other hand had best hope that their ducks are in a row.
3) By virtue of them clearing Cam to play they have said Auburn has done nothing wrong. You can't have one without the other in this case.
-
These are the things that keep going through my mind.....
1) The investigation is not over. There are still being allegations investigated and there may be some stiff shit that comes down from the findings.
2) The ongoing investigation is not of Auburn. Nothing should or will happen to Auburn. MSU on the other hand had best hope that their ducks are in a row.
3) By virtue of them clearing Cam to play they have said Auburn has done nothing wrong. You can't have one without the other in this case.
[/b]
BINGO! All of that, double that for #3. Had there been a shred of doubt that Auburn was clean, the NCAA would have done nothing.
It should also be noted that the NCAA didn't have to rule anything now. Cam was playing, and had been playing...if hey needed more time, they would have taken it. They have ALL the facts currently available. If something new comes up, they'll revisit it, but I doubt they're doing anything now other than going through Cecil's financial info with a fine toothed comb. Absent a money trail this is over, and likely even over for MSU.
Bank on this, the bammers are going to hang their collective hat on the language in the ruling saying the investigation isn't over. They'll cling to it, and rub their dicks on it to get a nut, and they'll shout from the highest rooftop that the hammer is still going to fall on Auburn. They believe it...they want that.