Cam Newton cleared to play by NCAA

• thedynasty1998

  

  jordo212000;584956 wrote:This is an absolute joke. If I was Pat Haden (USC athetic director) , I would be knocking the door down at the NCAA. There really wasn't much difference between what Newton did and what Bush did. Only thing was, it took the NCAA five years to catch Bush, and once they did the investigation, they murdered USC.
  
  Definitely some shenanigans going on by the NCAA. Seems like there is some protecting going on. If Auburn/Newton gets DQed, TCU is next in line for the title. We all know how the BCS conferences feel about non-AQ schools...

  Yes there is. Bush's parents got a house and I believe he actually received money.
  
  The NCAA is saying in this case, that money never changed hands. Completely different.
• jordo212000

  

  I know that is what the NCAA is saying, but I am saying look at the situation
  
  We know Newton wanted to go to Miss State. We know they asked for money. If Auburn didn't give him money, why didn't he just go to Miss State? He is said to have liked it better. Many have already been quoted as saying that Newton told Miss State he wanted to go there but the "money at Auburn is just too good".
  
  You are naive if you think no money changed hands.
• thedynasty1998

  

  jordo212000;584981 wrote:You are naive if you think no money changed hands.

  
  I have no doubt that money changed hands, but that's not what the NCAA is saying. So, because they determined that money did not change hands, it's not even close to the Reggie Bush situation.
• enigmaax

  jordo212000;584981 wrote:I know that is what the NCAA is saying, but I am saying look at the situation
  
  We know Newton wanted to go to Miss State. We know they asked for money. If Auburn didn't give him money, why didn't he just go to Miss State? He is said to have liked it better. Many have already been quoted as saying that Newton told Miss State he wanted to go there but the "money at Auburn is just too good".
  
  You are naive if you think no money changed hands.

  
  Here's why it isn't that cut and dry. Newton's dad had an "in" to Mississippi State with the assistant's former teammate as well as a history with Mullen. He tried to exploit those connections and it failed...and he probably realized he was in way over his head when they shot him down. Knowing there was a bad vibe, knowing he couldn't then save face by saying, "okay, we'll go ahead and go there...we were just playing", and not really having any connection anywhere else, he simply steered Cam somewhere else and dropped the game. Auburn just happened to be the place, but it could have been anywhere.
  
  As for Cam Newton's alleged comment, maybe he said it, maybe he didn't. If you didn't hear it, don't take it as the gospel.
• lhslep134

  

  enigmaax;585107 wrote:Here's why it isn't that cut and dry. Newton's dad had an "in" to Mississippi State with the assistant's former teammate as well as a history with Mullen. He tried to exploit those connections and it failed...and he probably realized he was in way over his head when they shot him down. Knowing there was a bad vibe, knowing he couldn't then save face by saying, "okay, we'll go ahead and go there...we were just playing", and not really having any connection anywhere else, he simply steered Cam somewhere else and dropped the game. Auburn just happened to be the place, but it could have been anywhere.
  
  As for Cam Newton's alleged comment, maybe he said it, maybe he didn't. If you didn't hear it, don't take it as the gospel.

  
  
  
  That's all fun and dandy, but it IS cut and dry.
  
  
  You're not allowed to solicit money, period. Even if no money changed hands, the solicitation in the first place by Newton's father is enough to break NCAA rules.
  
  I would bet that if anything, the NCAA will retroactively make Newton ineligible, but only after the games are played, because of the whole TCU jumping up if Auburn is ineligible. OR if Auburn loses, you could see him losing eligibility sooner, because if Auburn loses it would be the same thing (in regards to TCU) as Newton being ineligible.
• enigmaax

  lhslep134;585144 wrote:That's all fun and dandy, but it IS cut and dry.
  
  
  You're not allowed to solicit money, period. Even if no money changed hands, the solicitation in the first place by Newton's father is enough to break NCAA rules.
  
  I would bet that if anything, the NCAA will retroactively make Newton ineligible, but only after the games are played, because of the whole TCU jumping up if Auburn is ineligible. OR if Auburn loses, you could see him losing eligibility sooner, because if Auburn loses it would be the same thing (in regards to TCU) as Newton being ineligible.

  
  Yeah, maybe all that happens, but you are making a big stretch there assuming there is some grand conspiracy to keep TCU out of the national championship game. As I said earlier, clearly there is something those who really want to see Auburn/Newton fail are interpreting that isn't how the NCAA intreprets its own rule. The rule is you aren't allowed to solicit money and no one is allowed to solicit it FOR YOU. The NCAA has (so far) determined that nobody solicited money FOR CAM NEWTON because CAM NEWTON didn't know anything about it.
  
  I do think there will be more to come, but I don't necessarily think it is to keep TCU out of the title game. If I understand this correctly, Auburn declared him ineligible and then immediately filed for reinstatement. This forced the NCAA's hand. And AT THIS TIME, they can't tie Cam Newton to anything so they had to rule the way they did.
  
  But we're still talking about two different things. One point of contention is whether Cam Newton, himself, was involved. The other is whether Auburn was involved - and this is where I'm not so quick to assume that since they solicited from Mississippi State they must have solicited from Auburn.
• lhslep134

  

  Enigmaax we're both in agreeance here for the most part. I believe the TCU conspiracy because I distrust political organizational entities (such as the NCAA), and you're not so quick to believe it, that's fine.
  
  In reference to your 2 different things, here's what I believe:
  
  1. It doesn't matter if money changed hands
  2. It doesn't matter if Cam Newton knew about it
  3. It doesn't matter if Auburn is involved
  
  The way I see the rule to be interpreted is that once anyone connected to a player solicits money for that person's performance, he or she immediately becomes ineligible.
  
  Back to my 3 beliefs. If Mr. Newton indeed asked MSU for money then Cam should immediately be ineligible no matter where he ends up, so I can understand why the NCAA would be leery about punishing Auburn (no money trail, yet), but....
  
  I have no freaking clue why Newton isn't ineligible yet, because it is known to the NCAA Mr. Newton DID solicit money, which is why this whole situation screams politics to me.
• enigmaax

  Just to be sure, I don't entirely discard the theory. I defintely think there is an interest to protect with Auburn at the top, just maybe not specifically related to TCU (they just happen to be the next team in line). There's a lot of cash and a lot of image on the line with your top team and top player. I know people are going to say it will be worse if they have another Bush-like situation where they have to strip everyone after the fact, but it has the potential to be so much worse for them if they rush to a judgment, cost Newton and Auburn their shots, never get the evidence they need and get sued after the fact.
• elbuckeye28

  Here are a few things that confuse me about this decision in relation to other decisions made by the NCAA recently. Obviously the NCAA feels that these infractions are much more serious than Cam's father(his decision maker) shopping him around for $100,000+.
  
  1. AJ Green was suspended 4 games because he sold HIS jersey.
  
  2. Dez Bryant was suspended a whole season because he failed to tell the NCAA about his interactions with Deion because he thought he broke a rule in which he actually did not.
  
  3. Dillon Baxter from USC was suspended by USC because he rode on a golf cart ON USC's campus that was operated by another student who was registered as an agent. Now I know NCAA did not suspend him and USC is probably extra careful to not make any mistakes, but this seems so minor in comparison to the Cam Newton situation.
• enigmaax

  elbuckeye28;585224 wrote:Here are a few things that confuse me about this decision in relation to other decisions made by the NCAA recently. Obviously the NCAA feels that these infractions are much more serious than Cam's father(his decision maker) shopping him around for $100,000+.
  
  1. AJ Green was suspended 4 games because he sold HIS jersey.
  
  2. Dez Bryant was suspended a whole season because he failed to tell the NCAA about his interactions with Deion because he thought he broke a rule in which he actually did not.
  
  3. Dillon Baxter from USC was suspended by USC because he rode on a golf cart ON USC's campus that was operated by another student who was registered as an agent. Now I know NCAA did not suspend him and USC is probably extra careful to not make any mistakes, but this seems so minor in comparison to the Cam Newton situation.

  
  Bold text is where you are making an assumption that you can not prove. And that has a lot to do with the NCAA's stance at the moment. If Cam's father was using his son to try and get money for his church, does that make his son guilty? A father can certainly be an influential figure without being perfect or honest or whatever.
  
  As for your other points:
  
  1. Directly involved and made money (As of now, the NCAA has said Cam Newton WAS NOT involved and didn't make any money.)
  2. Lied to investigators (Reports have been that the Newtons were forthcoming with information.)
  3. You answered your own question. The NCAA didn't suspend him.
  
  And I think I'm going to quit talking about this topic because it seems like I keep defending Cam Newton and really, I wish much ill will upon him and Auburn. Just trying to show there can be more than one side.
• jordo212000

  

  I agree with lep, there's a rule that says you can't whore yourself out for money. The Newtons did and the rules say he should be ineligible. What gives? He should be ineligible right now.
  
  I also heard on the radio today that the NCAA has not demanded to see Newton's financial records or the church he attends financial records. There are two smoking guns there that can make this whole process end in, oh about 10 minutes. Just kind of funny that the church was about to be condemned and then 2 weeks later it is completely renovated, all in the same time frame as the cash demands.
• elbuckeye28

  enigmaax;585264 wrote:Bold text is where you are making an assumption that you can not prove. And that has a lot to do with the NCAA's stance at the moment. If Cam's father was using his son to try and get money for his church, does that make his son guilty? A father can certainly be an influential figure without being perfect or honest or whatever.
  
  As for your other points:
  
  1. Directly involved and made money (As of now, the NCAA has said Cam Newton WAS NOT involved and didn't make any money.)
  2. Lied to investigators (Reports have been that the Newtons were forthcoming with information.)
  3. You answered your own question. The NCAA didn't suspend him.
  
  And I think I'm going to quit talking about this topic because it seems like I keep defending Cam Newton and really, I wish much ill will upon him and Auburn. Just trying to show there can be more than one side.

  
  I'm not making an assumption that Cam's father shopped him around. The NCAA directly said that Cam's father and an agent were trying to solicit money for his commitment.
• FatHobbit

  

  jordo212000;585491 wrote:I also heard on the radio today that the NCAA has not demanded to see Newton's financial records or the church he attends financial records. There are two smoking guns there that can make this whole process end in, oh about 10 minutes. Just kind of funny that the church was about to be condemned and then 2 weeks later it is completely renovated, all in the same time frame as the cash demands.

  
  I agree that's shady, but I don't think the NCAA has the ability to force anyone to share their financial records.
• ytownfootball

  

  FatHobbit;586357 wrote:I agree that's shady, but I don't think the NCAA has the ability to force anyone to share their financial records.

  
  Nope. No subpoena power.
• vball10set

  you're correct, they don't, but I was under the impression that the FBI was involved in this--and they sure do
• bigkahuna

  vball10set;586420 wrote:you're correct, they don't, but I was under the impression that the FBI was involved in this--and they sure do

  
  This.
  
  Also, the whole flood gates thing, Kentucky is resubmitting the eligibility of Kanter (Their big Center from Turkey) because he "Didn't know he was breaking an amateur rules by the NCAA." They said something the affect that he didn't know because he could have went and made millions in the Euro Leagues, but he wanted to get a college education in the U.S., so why would he intentionally break the amateur rules?
  
  To me, Kentucky makes a good case as to why their guy should be eligible based on the Cam Newton ruling
• krambman

  

  vball10set;586420 wrote:you're correct, they don't, but I was under the impression that the FBI was involved in this--and they sure do

  The FBI is involved but it's also an on-going investigation which means they can't say anything. Only once the investigation is closed will the NCAA know what the FBI has found.