Why the NCAA got it right in the Cameron Newton case
There are a lot of people in Athens, Ga., Tuscaloosa, Ala., and Los Angeles, Calif. who are going to get mad at this statement. But here it goes:
Based on what its investigators have determined, the NCAA got it right with Wednesday’s ruling on Cameron Newton.
Early Wednesday afternoon the NCAA announced that Auburn’s quarterback was eligible to play immediately. That statement became necessary because on Monday the NCAA determined that a violation of amateurism rules occured when Newton’s father had conversations with a former Mississippi State player about a possible pay-for-play scheme. The NCAA informed Auburn of this and the school, as it must, declared Newton ineligible on Tuesday (How they kept that secret is amazing). Auburn petitioned the NCAA to reinstate Newton as soon as possible. The NCAA committee that determines these types of things granted that reinstatement on Wednesday.
That was the process.
The NCAA enforcement staff has been investigating this case since last summer. Here are their findings as of Monday:
**–Newton’s father and the owner of a scouting service (various media reports have identified this man as former Mississippi State player Kenny Rogers) had conversations about a possible play-for-pay deal for the son’s services.
**–Cameron Newton had no knowledge his father’s actions.
**–Neither Auburn University nor anyone representing its athletics interests had any involvement in or was aware of the activity between Cecil Newton and Kenny Rogers.
That’s it.
Now if you’re a Georgia fan and you saw A.J. Green lose four games for selling a jersey, you think there is a double standard. Same at Alabama, where Marcell Dareus sat two games for accepting travel expenses to attend that infamous agent’s party in South Florida. At USC they are wondering why they got hammered. From the Trojans’ perspective Reggie Bush’s parents had their hands out just like Cecil Newton. All Cecil Newton got was limited access to the Auburn football program in the future. Big deal.
They are thinking that a high-profile player (Newton) and a high-profile league (SEC) got a pass from the NCAA just three days before a high-profile team (Auburn) played in a high-profile game (SEC championship) that was worth a lot of money to everyone concerned. This also had to get tidied up because the Heisman Trophy is going to be presented a week from Saturday (Dec. 11) and how uncomfortable would it be for the winner not to talk to the media?
I get all that. In the internet age nothing just happens anymore. Nobody just looks at a set of facts and makes a decision. It is always part of a vast conspiracy to keep the rich and powerful in their positions of wealth and power and to keep somebody else down. There are always larger forces at work.
There is a big difference between the three cases above and the Newton case. In those cases there was a finding of FACT that money and extra benefits actually changed hands. Green admitted he received $1,000 for the jersey (whether or not that should be a violation is a different argument). Dareus admitted that somebody paid his way to South Florida. It took a four years but the the NCAA proved, to its satisfaction, that almost $300,000 in benefits went to Bush or his parents.
In the Newton case, the father solicted money either directly or indirectly in his conversations with Rogers and, at this point, there is no evidence that money or extra benefits ever changed hands.
Now a lot of you are simply not going to believe that the kid did not know what the father was up to. A lot of you refuse to believe that Cecil Newton and his contact only solicted money from one school (Mississippi State) which said no. A lot of you believe this ruling just opens the door for parents to sell their sons to the highest bidder–as long as they keep their talented sons in the dark. I can’t tell you how many people told me on Wednesday that this was a “slippery slope.”
Maybe it is. But remember that a slippery slope can slide both ways. If the NCAA punished School A because a father solicted money from School B (and no money changed hands and school A didn’t even know the solicitation took place), now you have another slippery slope where the possibilities are endless. If I’m a recruiter at school B and lost a recruit to school A, when the head coach starts chewing on my butt I can just put it out there that the parent solicited money from me and get school A in trouble and take the heat off me.
The fact is that on Wednesday the NCAA issued a very narrow ruling in an area where there is a gap in its legislation. We know that the mere solicitation is a violation of amateurism rules, which is why Auburn had to suspend Newton on Tuesday. An NCAA representative told me the knowledge, or the lack thereof, of the athlete is a “mitigating factor” in whether or not the athlete is eventually reinstated.
But can you punish a school that is not involved in that solicitation simply because the athlete chose that school? Do you at least have to have evidence that the school did something wrong? Eventually, the NCAA will have to get some clarity on this issue.
Now could the facts on the ground change? Could there be evidence uncovered in the future that contradicts the current findings of the NCAA enforcement staff? Of course.
But the NCAA can only make its ruling based on what it knows today. Because of the unique nature of this case, the NCAA owed it to everybody involved to get some kind of resolution if it was possible. Thus, Newton is eligible to play on Saturday against South Carolina.
One more thing. A number of you sent me this rule from the SEC’s bylaws:
14.01.3.3. Financial Aid. If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or
any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in
addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete
may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student-athlete
shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of
his/her college career.
I checked with the SEC and the rule above does not apply in the Newton case. That’s because the key passage is: “AGREES to receive, directly or indirectly.” In this case there is evidence that Cecil Newton, directly or indirectly, SOLICITED extra benefits. There is no evidence, at this point, that there was an agreement (such as a handshake agreement) by one party to pay and another party to receive an extra benefit.
If it is ever proven that Cecil Newton agreed to receive money instead of just talking about it, then we have a whole new ball game. But until that day comes, the NCAA has to apply the rules as written. Stuff like this is why the NCAA bylaws look like a copy of the Manhattan phone book. Those rules are going to have to grow in order to account for this case. And until it does, the kid gets to play.
Please follow me on Twitter:
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
872 comments Add your comment
georgia87
December 2nd, 2010
9:50 am
Murphy – The speed of the ruling is exactly my point as a Georgia fan. We requested a ruling before the first game of the season and didn’t get it until after the South Carolina game. The facts in the Green case were a whole lot less murky than in the Newton case. That difference makes me think that the pressure of the money is causing the NCAA to buckle.
Joey Rizk
December 2nd, 2010
9:51 am
What Mr Barnhart left out is Cam Newton had conversations with folks in his inner circle to which he said the MONEY WAS BETTER at Auburn. Come on Tony, I understand you make a living off the SEC so its hard to look thru any other glasses. If you expect anyone with a brain to believe this was done with no knowledge from Cam please let me sell you some the ol’ beach front property in Arizona.
Fred
December 2nd, 2010
9:52 am
And, Tony, you could be wrong.
winterDawg
December 2nd, 2010
9:52 am
Well, I say he has to play unless there is direct evidence. If there was a payment it will come out in the future. If not, then they are thus far the best team in the conference and country for this week.
API_Fan
December 2nd, 2010
9:52 am
It ain’t so great to be an Auburn Tiger today. The SEC and the NCAA my be holding a curtain up around us, but we know in our hearts that we got caught with our pants down.
Oh well… At least we won some ballgames in the process. It was fun while it lasted.
DC
December 2nd, 2010
9:53 am
b/c thats generally how an investigation is performed..heck if they spoke to MSU then they spoke to this “mysterious 3rd person” since its assumed its an Asst coach that Cam spoke to..
Atlanta Gator
December 2nd, 2010
9:53 am
FSU Tiger—-
That’s actually a pretty short time line, from late November 2009 to early January 2010, when Cecil Newton purportedly solicited two MSU coaches to when Cam signed with Auburn and MSU reported the matter to the SEC home office. Given the holidays, it’s an even shorter 5 weeks or so.
By all accounts, MSU’s recruiters told Cecil “no.” If anything, MSU recruiters are guilty of hoping that Cam would sign with MSU without any payments to Cecil, not knowing that the solicitation itself made Cam ineligible to ever play for MSU. That’s may show ignorance of the NCAA eligibility rules in the given circumstances, but not evidence of their intention to pay Cecil or screw Auburn after the fact.
MURPHY
December 2nd, 2010
9:54 am
georgia87,
Money is an issue but I believe the real pressure came for Slive and the SEC
BAMA dude
December 2nd, 2010
9:54 am
DC
December 2nd, 2010
9:41 am
murphy..honestly there will be no black eye unless AU has to forfeit the wins..if we keep things the way they are..its all good..
I dunno, dude. That’s a pretty naive way to look at this. I think any reaonable person, Aubies included though they’d never admit it, believe that Cam knew what was going on. This isn’t an absentee father situation- read the SI article about Cam’s journey and you’ll get some insight from the Newtons about the closeness of their relationship. Most people are going to believe that the Newtons tried collectively to get paid but got out on a technicality by saying “Cam didn’t know.” Right or wrong, that’s how it is.
FSUTiger
December 2nd, 2010
9:55 am
I’m right there with you BAMA dude…Why in the world would the NCAA speak to a reporter like Joe Schad?! This guy carefully scripts his stories so they sound as blasphemous as possible as evidenced by his rewording the Friday before the Auburn-UGA game. When reporting on Auburn’s “no comment” regarding whether Newton would play in the game, he added and removed facts three separate times in 30 minutes! He’s worse than Kenny Rogers, and isn’t even part of the story…
FSUTiger
December 2nd, 2010
9:55 am
Plus, have you really ever watched/listened to Joe Schad? The guy is the ultimate tool bag. I’m surprised he even has a job with ESPN…
JB
December 2nd, 2010
9:56 am
Real world thinking:…………….Good morning Mr. Chizik……I see you’ve been in sales 25 years. “that’s correct”….. I see in your last job, they moved you to Iowa. ” That’s correct”….I see you were sales manager and you took that territory from 3rd worst to worst. ” that’s correct”…..Well, I think we have found our man at ACME sales company ! When can you start?…………….Yea, right……..This Stinks !
connect the dots!!!!
December 2nd, 2010
9:56 am
JB –
Exactly. I mean, what more evidence do you need to realize that Auburn stinks to the high heavens. We’re supposed to believe a nobody coach that couldn’t even go .500 at Iowa St. was magically able to woo the pants off more than a handful of the best players in the nation? LOL!!!! Anybody that even entertains that as a realistic possibility needs their head examined. Like you said, Mr. 5-19 at Iowa St. managed to out recruit Meyer, Saban, Miles and Richt with his own charm and nothing else? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight………………
API_Fan
December 2nd, 2010
9:56 am
@DC
It was Coach Mullen’s wife. This is widely known by insiders, but not yet publicly reported.
Bman
December 2nd, 2010
9:56 am
Tony,
I am pleased the the SEC and NCAA have agreed that parents can solicit money
from schools or middle men to direct their children to a particular school as
long as the child doesn’t know- and that the parent is willing to be
disassociated from the school.
Thanks for this clarification.
I will be discussing this with my two boys.
DC
December 2nd, 2010
9:57 am
He is the only person in the media that has said that cam new about the money…he works for ESPN.com which is a very credible company…he at least deserves to be interviewed to get that insight..
FSUTiger
December 2nd, 2010
9:57 am
I’m surprised no one has commented on my earlier post concerning the Albert Means case…It guess it makes too much sense.
BAMA dude
December 2nd, 2010
9:57 am
FSUTiger
December 2nd, 2010
9:55 am
I’m right there with you BAMA dude…Why in the world would the NCAA speak to a reporter like Joe Schad?!
I don’t really know much about him. My point was that a) He is vehemently standing behind his story and b) The NCAA is not going to the media for an investigation. A good reporter would never reveal his sources anyway.
BAMA dude
December 2nd, 2010
9:58 am
DC, it just doesn’t work like that.
DC
December 2nd, 2010
9:58 am
Mullen’s wife? really??
connect the dots!!!!
December 2nd, 2010
9:58 am
Joey Rizk,
Actually Joey, conveniently enough the conservations with Cam himself were the only “rumors” that the NCAA didn’t find to be accurate. But oddly enough EVERYTHING else was true to a ‘T.’ Pretty funny, ehh?
DC
December 2nd, 2010
9:59 am
so you’re saying that they have only interviewed 3 groups for this past month?
FSUTiger
December 2nd, 2010
9:59 am
DC, Thayer Evans works for foxsports.com and his “reporting” of Cam’s cheating allegations at UF from a “source” was simply an attempt at character assassination. Reference the AJC regarding Richard Jewell if you believe the media “sources” are always correct.
jim8307
December 2nd, 2010
10:00 am
So the NCAA and SEC believe Cecil pimped his son without his son’s knowledge! BS! College football is sorely lacking ethics, integrity, and a courage. Cheat away and remain silent is the lesson here as it pays off in the end. Hypocrisy at its best! Another athlete like Eric Ramsey would do wonders to clear up this situation, and Cecil needs a refresher course in the 10 commandments.
Scoob
December 2nd, 2010
10:00 am
UGADawg83: It’s so funny to hear that you actually are against Cam Newton. I would be too, if I were a UGA fan. With half of your team arrested for various things, and all of them still playing, it would appear that you are a little bit biased.
hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 2nd, 2010
10:00 am
Guys, you are missing the point. The NCAA basically said that Auburn allows borderline braindead athletes on campus since they are seriously trying to tell us that Cam was totally oblivious to his father’s dealings.
hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 2nd, 2010
10:01 am
Good one Scoob!!!
Boneheaded traffic violations compared to federally illegal academic shakedowns. Good one!!!!
FSUTiger
December 2nd, 2010
10:01 am
I find it hard to believe everyone on here knows more than the NCAA. Remember, this committee could care less what happens when money is involved at whatever institution, see USC.
BAMA dude
December 2nd, 2010
10:02 am
DC, we don’t know what they have done. We don’t even know if they have concluded their investigation (not saying they haven’t). All we know is that they ruled in favor of Cam’s reinstatement based on the evidence Aubie turned over to them. This is very similar to the Julio/Ingram fishing trip. Bama found out about it, ruled them ineligible, the NCAA investigated the evidence bama presented, and made a ruling. They didn’t act as swiftly on that because it was the offseason, but it’s largely the same scenario.
ARdawg
December 2nd, 2010
10:02 am
MURPH
The past Tuesday. It says resigned but, wasn’t really
http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=372807
Tony B was once credible
December 2nd, 2010
10:03 am
Now he’s whizzing in my boot and trying to tell me that it’s raining.
CFB is dead. Long live CFB!!!
Sigh…
Bill
December 2nd, 2010
10:03 am
Connetc the dot, the college landscape is full of coaches who are being successful at their current school who weren’t so successful other places. Not just at AU. And clearly Chizik was so willing to go cheat for AU that he agreed to have a clause in his contract that cost him $1.5M if AU cheats on his watch. Put down the bitter pills. They’ll eat you up.
wballs1977
December 2nd, 2010
10:03 am
Bitter SEC fans (most notably UGA and Bama) will continue to sidestep admission of defeat by thinking Auburn fans are all nuts for actually believing the investigations carried out by two independant parties were duff. If it makes you feel better, yes, I guess we are idiots for believing Cam knew nothing about what his father was doing. You got us. We also believe, based again on facts, that Auburn successfully defeated every team this year – including your lovable Dawgs and Crimson (Wave) Tide. It’s quite hypocrital (and pathetic in its own right) for you to continue on with these remarks when the ink from your own benefit scandals have only recently dried.
Ncaa battlezone - Page 13 - SoWal Beaches Forum
December 2nd, 2010
10:04 am
[...] Why the NCAA got it right in the Cameron Newton case | Mr. College Football Why the NCAA got it right in the Cameron Newton case 6:41 am December 2, 2010, by Tony Barnhart …There is a big difference between the three cases above (Green, Bush and Dareus) and the Newton case. In those cases there was a finding of FACT that money and extra benefits actually changed hands. Green admitted he received $1,000 for the jersey (whether or not that should be a violation is a different argument). Dareus admitted that somebody paid his way to South Florida. It took a four years but the the NCAA proved, to its satisfaction, that almost $300,000 in benefits went to Bush or his parents. … remember that a slippery slope can slide both ways. If the NCAA punished School A because a father solicted money from School B (and no money changed hands and school A didn’t even know the solicitation took place), now you have another slippery slope where the possibilities are endless. If I’m a recruiter at school B and lost a recruit to school A, when the head coach starts chewing on my butt I can just put it out there that the parent solicited money from me and get school A in trouble and take the heat off me. [...]
producewiz
December 2nd, 2010
10:04 am
with the inter net and blogs, anybody at anytime can start any rumor they wish.Society we live in today
S GA AU FAN
December 2nd, 2010
10:05 am
Bman,
You can discuss it as long as you don’t go through with it so what is the motive?
Cecil obviously had a change of heart somewhere in the process.
ATL XMAN
December 2nd, 2010
10:05 am
why ask okl or tenn for money when cam doesnt want to go there at all. it was down to two schools aub and miss st.
albert
December 2nd, 2010
10:05 am
You make a very strong argument connect the dots. I had forgotten all about the mysterious Chizik hire to begin with and how nobody connected with Auburn saw the sense in it. And you guys are right, there is no way a guy with a pathetically humiliating record at Iowa St. is going to waltz right into the lion’s den of the SEC and start out recruiting the best coaches in the country without some major help.
Maybe that’s why the investigation is taking so long? Maybe, like you said, it stretches back years instead of just months?
TigerFan
December 2nd, 2010
10:06 am
There is a precedence here look up the Albert Means case. I am not bringing this up solely because it has Alabama implications but it shows that a student athlete can play at another school even if they took money from another school. BTW UT and OU stood up and said they were never approached by Cecil for money for play. As much as I find it fascinating that Auburn seems to be the best cheaters in the land OU and UT aren’t angels, but they stated they didn’t have any conversations about money. So they are lying too? Also at one point there was a report of txt msgs that showed a payment plan I have to believe the SEC and/or the NCAA would have jumped on that and the 14.01.3.3 rule would have been play but low and behold it wasn’t so I guess that in the end wasn’t a fact> I would love to see a site put up all the allegations and the outcome of said allegations. Also the NCAA wouldn’t rule a player eligible regard of who or what they represent unless they were certain they had done their due-diligence. Also the additional investigation might be for MSU not Auburn I mean come on even after the pay for play talk they still pursued Cam…
GStateBen
December 2nd, 2010
10:06 am
If Auburn was 7-5 and preparing for the Gator Bowl this would not only get the same coverage, it would not elicit the same levels of emotion on either side.
georgia87
December 2nd, 2010
10:07 am
Murphy – I don’t disagree with you. I am sure that it did. The disappointment I would have is that the NCAA let themselves get pushed around.
FSUTiger – I did read that post with great interest. However, I am not familiar enough with that case to comment. If it is true, it would be a very interesting precedent. It still wouldn’t answer my objection to the NCAA’s explanation of why it reinstated Cam, i.e. “he didn’t know” vs. its treatment of Green. But it would give legal precedent, if they had referenced it and it is true.
hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 2nd, 2010
10:07 am
Bill, show us proof of this clause. What’s that? You can’t? Didn’t think so!!! Now get back on your knees praying that Lowder covered all his bases, LOL!!!
rednilla
December 2nd, 2010
10:08 am
@ No, it can’t:
Yeah, actually, it can. You see, Cam is at the top of the hill. Now, either way he goes, he will go down, but they are opposite directions. Stick to physics and leave the logic to more aptly trained parties.
DC
December 2nd, 2010
10:08 am
I’m not saying he is correct..not at all…just saying if someone claims something from a nationally credible source as ESPN..people should listen…
UGA SUCKS
December 2nd, 2010
10:08 am
49-31. Stop whining already.
Justice
December 2nd, 2010
10:08 am
Just my two cents, but in weighing credibility, methinks that the folks at MSU became much more credible in yesterday’s announcement. The allegation that he was shopped which was ultimately agreed to by both the NCAA and AU. I’m not saying those guys are saints by any means, but their allegation was true. That being the case, and considering motives of self-preservation, I’d tend to believe what they say and not the Newtons. This all still begs the question about the reported call from Cam after he signed with AU saying the money was too much.
Another Lesson
December 2nd, 2010
10:09 am
87, there were two legal experts on BHam radio this morning. Their statement about why this is different from the Green situation is that there is no credible evidence in this case that benefits were exchanged. In Green’s case, he received money. I also hears someone say yesterday on the radio that Green was not initially hones with the NCAA, but I don’t know if that is true. In any case, the lawyers argued this is different because of the “exchange of benefits” issue.
BadgerFan
December 2nd, 2010
10:09 am
a·gree·ment [ ə grmənt ]
formal contract: a contract or arrangement, either written or verbal and sometimes enforceable by law
situation or act of consent: the state of having come to the same opinion or having made the same decision as somebody else, or an expression of this state
consensus of opinion: a situation in which everyone accepts the same terms or has the same opinion
———————————————–
…..and NCAA rules can’t validly be compared to principals of criminal law
BAMA dude
December 2nd, 2010
10:10 am
FSUTiger, I went and found your post re: Albert Means since you mentioned it. Three differences: 1- Means would NOT have been eligible at any other SEC school per conference bylaws 2- Means didn’t step on the field for two years after the scandal 3- Here’s the biggie: Means and his family were never going to be the recipients of the money. Cecil is Cam’s daddy, which changes the game a bit.
rednilla
December 2nd, 2010
10:10 am
@hahaha
Bill was being sarcastic.