NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > Seriously...
December 1, 2010, 10:22 PM
Ok, first off let me make sure I make this point. I have no problem with Newton being eligible. The fact that his old man appears to be a scumbag who was looking to cash in is not his fault. Assuming auburn hasn't paid anything, they should not really be punished either. Now if down the road it's proven that ANYONE paid the Newtons anything, will be interesting to see how they handle it. That being said...

No freakin way will anyone convince me that we (for those of you who don't know my team is USC) should be held to the penalties we are currently under. The fact remains NO PROOF is anywhere that our school, or a booster paid the Bush family anything. I hold the Bush parents, in the same regard as I do Cecil Newton. How the ncaa can look itself in the face after this decision is beyond me. We get 2 years and 30 scholarships revoked based on something a family member got involved with another scumbag who has NO ties to the school?!?!?!?!

If the reports I have read are correct the ncaa rules state that if ANY potential athlete, or member of an athletes family solicits anyone from any school for extra benefits, that athlete is ineligible. Well it's been proven by the ncaa that Cecil did exactly that. Like I said, assuming at this point Cam didn't know, I am ok with him being able to play. If you guys think the collection plates at Cecils church don't have extra cash in them, you are living in dreamland.

If the ncaa denies our appeal, and punishes our school for the actions of people outside of it, sorry but it's a complete hypocrisy. Buncha absolute horsesheet. Ok, I am done.
December 1, 2010  10:34 PM ET

Because I agree with the Reggie ruling, I must admit that I think it's BS that Cam is eligible. WHY? Because like you said, the rule speaks about the family. Whether Cam knew or not is irrelevant.
According to sources, Bowden didn't know about the things going on there, and they still punished him.

I dunno. Seems a bit screwy. Could it be that it was much easier and convenient to punish USC when Reggie was out, as to not cause any drama? And punishing Newton now would just cause drama and they'd lose moeny, etc.... I dunno.

December 1, 2010  11:51 PM ET

Lotta conspiracy theories on this one Ms G. From the ncaa wont punish aub being an sec school, who is on the verge of playing in the NCG. Throwing espn in the mix because they give the sec so much hype. A few others I have heard which are a little nutso.

Like you said though, how can they punish SC and not Newton??? If they don't punish either Newton or aub, or whomever, how can they justify the harsh stance against us??? Absolutely horrible if our punishment stand up under appeal. I can't honestly think of good reasoning for it after this has gone down. We shall see.

Comment #3 has been removed
December 2, 2010  12:31 AM ET

Apparently the NCAA's Infractions Committee doesn't have any members of Auburn's rivals on it's inforcement staff.

December 2, 2010  12:58 AM ET

ICEnSoCal, I agree with you. Based on the way the rule is written, Newton should be ineligible.

I'm not totally familiar with the USC ruling. Wasn't one of the knocks against them the so-called "lack of institutional control"? The idea that USC should have known that this had taken place? IMO that's the most bogus part of all, but it might be the excuse they're using to give Auburn a pass.

December 2, 2010  01:13 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

ICEnSoCal, I agree with you. Based on the way the rule is written, Newton should be ineligible. I'm not totally familiar with the USC ruling. Wasn't one of the knocks against them the so-called "lack of institutional control"? The idea that USC should have known that this had taken place? IMO that's the most bogus part of all, but it might be the excuse they're using to give Auburn a pass.

Just a quickie for you on our ruling. The "lack of institutional control" term was thrown around loosely based on the old smu days. With them they got the hammer dropped on them because numerous boosters were paying players directly.

On our front, with all the talk of OJ Mayo taking money from some dirtbag looking to cash in on his future, same thing with Reggie's family. On both cases, no proof that anyone from the school, be it someone on staff or a booster, paid either of those guys a penny. The jackass head of the committe just happened to be a guy from the u, who with his cronies decided to really go overboard with our punishment.

My stance comes back to this, in Newtons case they have proof that someone connected to him solicited money (which is a big no-no), that broke one of their written rules, yet no punishment was handed down. In our case they have no proof that our school broke any rules, yet we get absolutely hammered with lost scholly's and bowl bans. Absolutely ridiculous.

December 2, 2010  01:44 AM ET

Totally agree with you here SoCal.

I'm a Pac-10 homer, so I'm biased, but if USC gets punished for something that there is no solid proof of, how come Auburn AND Cam Newton get off with nothing for something that there IS proof of.

I will never understand the east coast bias. How do people actually think this is fair?

December 2, 2010  01:45 AM ET

Pac-10 and the Next Best 3 Blog, Week 14/Conf Champ Week

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/767025-pac-10-and-the-next-best-3 -week-14

December 2, 2010  02:11 AM ET

1. It was reported on a couple other threads that a quirk of NCAA rules allows that a solicitation violation at one school (MSST) does not transfer to another (AUB). If true, Cam would be eligible at Auburn provided no money was solicited there. The NCAA says they got nothing on that, but based on their thoroughness at USC one would hope they're just a little curious where the money came from to fix up Cecil's church. I'm assuming that shoe has yet to drop.

2. According to the NCAA, USC should have found out about some of Bush's nefarious activities with a little due diligence in monitoring the job he got through the athletic department working for a sports agent (not the ones taking care of mom and dad). The job was legit, but USC never made an effort to check to see if he actually went to work, etc. The NCAA thought that Carroll's openness policy should have called for a more stringent effort at compliance, yet USC did little or nothing in that area. The NCAA was especially dismayed that even after the investigation was ongoing, USC stuck with the position that their compliance efforts were adequate and a stricter policy just wasn't needed. In short, the NCAA thought USC was telling them to screw off.

3. It wasn't just about compliance. According to the NCAA, USC assistant coach McNair lied in the investigation and knew of Bush's involvement with the agents. This cost McNair his job. USC can't fight the NCAA in court, but McNair as a citizen could sue them for the damage to his career and reputation. If he's not fighting, it's hard to believe the NCAA did him wrong. When McNair was dumped by USC he made no alibis or tried to share the blame by pointing fingers at other coaches or staff. He may have been rogue and the only USC employee who knew, but for the NCAA that was a "gotcha" on USC.

Anyway, I don't see much to compare between Newton and Bush. At least not yet.

December 2, 2010  02:18 AM ET

Thanks SoCal and Troy, I have a much better understanding of what went on at USC now. This too shall pass, and the Trojans will be back.

December 2, 2010  04:45 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

I will never understand the east coast bias. How do people actually think this is fair?

sounds like you have a bit of wet coast bias going on there

Comment #12 has been removed
December 2, 2010  08:32 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

1. It was reported on a couple other threads that a quirk of NCAA rules allows that a solicitation violation at one school (MSST) does not transfer to another (AUB). If true, Cam would be eligible at Auburn provided no money was solicited there. The NCAA says they got nothing on that, but based on their thoroughness at USC one would hope they're just a little curious where the money came from to fix up Cecil's church. I'm assuming that shoe has yet to drop. 2. According to the NCAA, USC should have found out about some of Bush's nefarious activities with a little due diligence in monitoring the job he got through the athletic department working for a sports agent (not the ones taking care of mom and dad). The job was legit, but USC never made an effort to check to see if he actually went to work, etc. The NCAA thought that Carroll's openness policy should have called for a more stringent effort at compliance, yet USC did little or nothing in that area. The NCAA was especially dismayed that even after the investigation was ongoing, USC stuck with the position that their compliance efforts were adequate and a stricter policy just wasn't needed. In short, the NCAA thought USC was telling them to screw off. 3. It wasn't just about compliance. According to the NCAA, USC assistant coach McNair lied in the investigation and knew of Bush's involvement with the agents. This cost McNair his job. USC can't fight the NCAA in court, but McNair as a citizen could sue them for the damage to his career and reputation. If he's not fighting, it's hard to believe the NCAA did him wrong. When McNair was dumped by USC he made no alibis or tried to share the blame by pointing fingers at other coaches or staff. He may have been rogue and the only USC employee who knew, but for the NCAA that was a "gotcha" on USC. Anyway, I don't see much to compare between Newton and Bush. At least not yet.

1. I think the "quirk" in the NCAA ruling should be changed so that the player is ineligilbe for ANY school in the same classification...so that he could go down to FCS and play, but not in FBS.
2. I also wonder where Cecil got the money to fix the church...could have been Auburn booster, could have been someone who is an Auburn fan....could have been one hell of a fund-raiser by the church, but do we punish Auburn and Cam on this basis at this time? Do we think he should be ruled ineligible, not allowed to play, and then find that he and Auburn are innocent? That really doesn't sound fair.
3. don't know all the goings-on with Bush and SC like you do, but that the school and Bush would return the Heisman awards without much "fighting" would tend one to lean towards something went on there? Just IMHO

December 2, 2010  08:41 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

1. I think the "quirk" in the NCAA ruling should be changed so that the player is ineligilbe for ANY school in the same classification...so that he could go down to FCS and play, but not in FBS.2. I also wonder where Cecil got the money to fix the church...could have been Auburn booster, could have been someone who is an Auburn fan....could have been one hell of a fund-raiser by the church, but do we punish Auburn and Cam on this basis at this time? Do we think he should be ruled ineligible, not allowed to play, and then find that he and Auburn are innocent? That really doesn't sound fair.3. don't know all the goings-on with Bush and SC like you do, but that the school and Bush would return the Heisman awards without much "fighting" would tend one to lean towards something went on there? Just IMHO

+1 Good Summary D2.

I agree with your view in section 2. However, I fear that something is bound to show up about payments to Cecil or his church in the next few years. This may not be over for a couple years.

December 2, 2010  10:53 AM ET
QUOTE(#12):

ICE, I remain convinced that 'SC got its head handed to it on a platter largely because y'all's AD thoroughly pissed off the NCAA investigating committee. I'm not saying that's right, or fair, or whatever. But I still think that was a much bigger factor than they let on.Google's spell check doesn't like " y'all's ". Must have been programmed by a Yankee.

I absolutely agree with you JRM. While the football team was doing it's thing, Garrett was even more of a pompous **** (if thats possible) than he normally is. He knew he was untouchable because he hired Pete, and he acted that way. Problem is he acted the same way with the ncaa and it bit us in the **** big time.

Given the way the ncaa has handled this case though, our penalties should be significantly (if not totally) reduced. If it stands, its a complete double standard.

December 2, 2010  11:19 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

1. It was reported on a couple other threads that a quirk of NCAA rules allows that a solicitation violation at one school (MSST) does not transfer to another (AUB). If true, Cam would be eligible at Auburn provided no money was solicited there. The NCAA says they got nothing on that, but based on their thoroughness at USC one would hope they're just a little curious where the money came from to fix up Cecil's church. I'm assuming that shoe has yet to drop.

So, according to that rule, if CN had gone ahead and played for Miss St, but there was no evidence of Miss St or anyone paying anything to anybody, when this all came out Miss St and CN would have gotten whacked. Correct?

December 2, 2010  11:24 AM ET

The part that doesn't make sense to me ... is timing ...

Look, if the rule is that "if a representative of a student solicits money or benefits, then he is ineligible" then Cam was / should have been ineligible all year long. He is ineligible from the time of the infraction to the time of being reinstated. That is why UNC didn't play people, and why A.J. Green didn't play, etc etc etc. So then Auburn is 0-0 this year, having vacated all the wins with Cam Newton.

OR, if Cam didn't do anything wrong, then he never should have been ruled ineligible by Auburn and never needed to be reinstated by the NCAA. If nothing bad happened that involved Cam, then he should never have been ruled ineligible.

There is NOTHING that Cam did between the end of the Iron Bowl and Wednesday morning that warranted being ruled ineligible. In nothing else at the NCAA does the time of ineligibility start when the investigation is complete, or worse yet, a section of the investigation complete.

To go back one more time to the Reggie Bush Mess. If we applied the Newton/Auburn time line to Bush/USC mess ... Reggie would have been ruled ineligible sometime this summer, after he had already played several years in the NFL. USC gets back all of their games and the BCSNCG because Reggie was eligible at the time (the investigation was not complete just like Newton). Reggie gets back his Heisman, because he was eligible all the time of the year he won it. But that is NOT the time line that the NCAA is using in the Bush case. In the Bush Case, they said the ineligible started at the time of the infraction. If you apply that (the Bush Time Line) to the Newton case, he is ineligible the whole year. Why the different time lines?

Either Newton did nothing wrong and should not have been ruled ineligible even for 1 hour or 1 second, OR Newton should have been ruled ineligible from the time of the infraction to the time he is ruled re-eligible by the NCAA. But not this weird half and half baloney!

December 2, 2010  11:26 AM ET

Just a quick note on "facts". Before anyone posts the story about Means and Alabama and get the facts wrong. They never proved Alabama or a booster paid Means, just that the atmosphere was there in which it could take place, and we got hammered. They also proved that two guys shopped Means around.

One of the big problems Alabama fans have with the Means case was that the SEC (Roy Kramer) notified everyone BUT Alabama that there were issues surrounding Albert Means.

This will be the first time a player can be shopped around and yet nothing come from it.

December 2, 2010  11:28 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

There is NOTHING that Cam did between the end of the Iron Bowl and Wednesday morning that warranted being ruled ineligible. In nothing else at the NCAA does the time of ineligibility start when the investigation is complete, or worse yet, a section of the investigation complete.

Very good point. They had all this information before Thanksgiving weekend and they sat on it until after the Iron Bowl. Pretty pahtetic, if you ask me.

 
December 2, 2010  11:33 AM ET

I agree that this in the same year that they sanctioned USC looks bad. The fact that the investigation is going on still and the timing of the ruling makes me wonder. If there wasn't a likley chance that if Auburn lost TCU would play in the title game would this announcment have came out? Would Newton be inelligible? Is the NCAA saying that they would rather possibly vacate a title than give TCU a shot?

I just hope USCe beats Auburn and takes away the possibility of a vacated title.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    3467
    Comments
    928
  2. 2
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    5326
    Comments
    334
  3. 3
    Lightning may be swept aside
    Views
    1051
    Comments
    95
  4. 4
    Leonsis leaves coach, GM twisting
    Views
    1226
    Comments
    80
  5. 5
    Manning eager to get started all over again
    Views
    6891
    Comments
    74

SI.com

SI Photos