As pointed out by Bhelm, read between the lines. Just like some jumped to conclusions that the news that would break this week, which by the way it did, would be him being inelligible, which he was for 24 hrs, so it wasn't completely incorrect, don't jump to the conclusion that this thing is over with. I admit I was one that was under the impression that his ineligibility would be announced this week. But I was wrong.
Pat Haden the AD at USC was actually shocked with this decision. He stated that the NCAA had made it clear, "That the parent was the child." Of course in the Reggie Bush case the Parent took the benefits. So he see's a double standard. Shows how much latitude the NCAA works under, that even at the hint of impropriety, they sit some and others win Heismans.
True, but still this isn't how I thought this would go down. I was just listening to the local ESPN radio and they are all over the angle that this is a cover up. That due to the money involved, and not having a viable replacement for AU from the SEC to make it to the MNC that the NCAA is sitting on this till a later date. These guys were saying that because the SEC brings in more money than most other conferences to the BCS bowls that the NCAA and the SEC stand to lose too much money by not having and SEC team in the MNC. That given the option of keeping AU on course to make the MNC is more beneficial to them at this point. That by allowing AU to go ahead and play in the BCSNCG the NCAA and the SEC get to make the BCS money, and can still smack AU/Cam later. I found it a pretty interesting take on the whole thing.
Who knows what is going to happen, if anything. Just remember, the NCAA may not be in control of this “investigation”. I seem to recall there were some rumored allegations and rumored investigations of misuse of TARP funds by some bank supposedly controlled by a member or members of the AU Board (I think ATM cards, etc. for AU players and some loan improprieties were mentioned in some of the rumors). If the Feds are involved in an investigation and it is intertwined with or just has some minimal involvement with the situation with Cam’s father, the Feds would control the show. If this is the case, the Feds would make sure everything is pushed back until they are ready to go public with the results of their investigation. When it comes to white collar crime, the Feds can make the NCAA look like speed demons. ldskule:
but see basically they ruled that Cam's father had shopped him, but Cam had no knowledge of it. Which really doesn't matter, I think one of the NCAA rules is that if any family member profits than that player is ruled ineligible regardless of knowledge. Basically they are setting a very dangerous precedent here, so once again, if you have a kid that is a bad ass athlete, shop him or her around, just don't tell them. You get paid, they get to play.
The one thing I do know for sure is it ain't over with. If it was the NCAA wouldn't be interviewing Rogers next week on Dec 9th. It may not be about AU, but it will still be about Cecil and Cam. [ame="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5867868"]Ex-Mississippi State player Kenny Rogers to meet with Sec. of State officials - ESPN@@AMEPARAM@@http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5867438@@AMEPARAM@@5867438[/ame]
What they are saying is they are following protocol when a player is ruled ineligible and apply for reinstatement. They are saying that Cecil shopped him to MSU and they do not have any concrete evidence yet that Cam or AU knew about this or if it occurred at AU as well. That is why the investigation is still ongoing and at the very early stages to find out if Cam had knowledge, AU had knowledge, and if AU and Cam did anything in violation of NCAA rules. I mentioned in this thread a while back after ESPN interviewed a former NCAA investigator that it is still possible for a student-athlete to be eligible if there is no knowledge of the violations. That isn't likely in this case IMO but the NCAA has to protect itself until they have completed the investigation and have concrete evidence.
Bhelm I tend to agree with you, especially since many of the articles relating to this story, since the initial one, are all pretty much saying that Cam and AU are in the clear "for now". And the media is ripping the NCAA apart for the precedence it is setting.
1. The intent of the legislation. "Based on my research the league's intent when it added this bylaw was to ensure that if an athlete participated in an NCAA investigation that he wasn't able to transfer to another institution within our own conference. Essentially to keep one institution from getting into trouble and then have an individual attend another school in the same conference," Slive said. Slive continued, "You could read this bylaw expansively to conclude that an athlete is ineligible at all institutions for receiving a hamburger. I did not believe and do not believe that was the intent of the rule." 2. The legislative history of the bylaw "The league added that bylaw in 1985," Slive told me. "That's a long time ago and since that time it has never been applied by me as commissioner to rule someone ineligible and I don't believe any of my predecessors have ever applied it to make someone ineligible either. That was significant." 3. The uniqueness of this case. "This was a case of first impression," Slive said. (A case of first impression has no existing precedent). "The SEC had to determine whether it violated SEC bylaws for an individual's family member to solicit funds from an institution that is different from the one he attended. Ultimately," Slive said, "I had to determine what the appropriate league response was after balancing all of these factors and after considering all of that I did not believe that he had violated our bylaws." As a result, Cam Newton, ruled ineligible Tuesday, is now eligible to play under NCAA rules. With a win in the SEC championship game an undefeated Auburn would advance to Glendale, Ariz., and play for the BCS title. Asked if he was concerned that the NCAA's ruling and the SEC's acquiescence to that ruling without further punishment opened a large loophole in NCAA rules, Slive acknowledged that he was concerned by the precedent set in the Cam Newton case -- that family members may solicit benefits from one university while remaining eligible at another. As a result Slive said the SEC would sponsor and send legislation to the NCAA to close the Cam Newton loophole and prevent future instances such as this from occurring. "To the extent that the current legislation is not thorough enough, we are going to work to get national legislation passed to close this loophole," Slive said.
