Will any Auburn fan give me an answer to this?!?

Your own Senior AD for Compliance stated in early November (BEFORE Cecil admitted to being involved):

"If a person, in this case Kenny Rogers, was acting on behalf of the school, then it's the school's problem. If that person acted on behalf of the family without their knowledge then the player is eligible. If the person acted on behalf OF the family and ANYBODY in the family had knowledge of the action then there is a problem. As we have said, the Newton family, his dad, and Cam himself have said there was no contact."

- Rich McGlynn, Senior Athletic Director for Compliance

This statement was made by YOUR head of compliance BEFORE Cecil eventually changed course and admitted guilt.

Now, let's compare this with the NCAA's statements:

"According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete’s father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment to attend college and play football."

- NCAA Press Release


SUMMARY: Auburn's Sr. AD over compliance states that IF Cecil knew then there would be a problem. But AU didn't have to worry because he had no contact. Cecil later admits HE WAS actively involved. NCAA confirms Cecil's guilt.

So if your Compliance Director said you'd only have a problem if Cecil knew, and Cecil knew, then why is there no problem now?

Any explanation would be helpful.....