re: NCAA not expected to pass legislation on the Newton loophole at

You realize the NCAA was in Georgia investigating just a couple of weeks ago, right? And that it's not really over with, right? Just because you hope it's over, doesn't mean it is. It's not time to move along. This thing will drag out for some time to come.

A lot of you are assuming that the NCAA has to abide by some legal burden of proof...they don't.

They could have said "Cecil Newton solicited extra benefits from Mississippi State University. In doing so he was acting as Cam Newton's agent. This is not allowed under NCAA rules. The player is permanently inneligible in college athletics due to a loss of amateur status."

ANy question dealing with the players knowledge of the arrangement would be explained as "the NCAA makes no distinction between a player and his parents regarding these rules. They are one and the same entity."

Auburn could have played with legal definitions to their hearts content and it wouldn't have mattered.

Its a closed system where they interpret their own rules. They don't have to consider a legal definition at all. Look no further than the USC ruling. That ruling was harsh because i think they thought the program was dirty. The ruling they actually made and the basis of it was virtually made up from nothing. They made up a new rule, "high profile athletes require high profile management and compliance", and then penalized them for violating it. They can do whatever they want.

quote:

---

I was very pleased with how that whole issue was handled. Our staff and enforcement did a great investigation, did it quickly and got to the facts as best we could find them…The fact of the matter is, as we got to the facts that we could uncover, they led to the right conclusion and it was that there is no evidence there was anything inappropriate with this young man and with that institution had occurred…The burden of proof for the NCAA is a little deeper than the burden of proof for a blogger.

---

I don't know if it is over or not, but he didn't use the at this time languange in this interview.

quote:

---

A lot of you are assuming that the NCAA has to abide by some legal burden of proof...they don't.

---

As a Bama fan.. don't I know it.

quote:

---

Its a closed system where they interpret their own rules. They don't have to consider a legal definition at all.

---

100% correct.

quote:

---

You realize the NCAA was in Georgia investigating just a couple of weeks ago, right? And that it's not really over with, right? Just because you hope it's over, doesn't mean it is. It's not time to move along. This thing will drag out for some time to come.

---

The investigation isn't fully over because it never centered on Cam, it centered on Rogers and Bonds. That's what most people have never figured out. Mike Slive has commented that he believes the investigation is over but it is up to the NCAA to say so, the NCAA president came out and said Cam was cleared to play at Auburn.

If they find something out then they will go back and could retroactively make Cam ineligible. I personally doubt it considering all that is out there. I've said before I've never worried about the investigation, after talking with multiple people I am very confident Auburn is in the clear but even if we weren't it would make public the guilty would be fired and the program would be clean. So either way the outcome is good for me.

I will say I've never seen people want something to be true when all evidence out in public is to the contrary. Some of the things people have said I do wonder if they have tin foil hats and RF paint at home. This is my last post on this whole Newton mess as I'm simply tired of people who will believe anything bad about another program. For people who talk about ITAT they are making them look sane.

quote:

---

Explain NCAA investigators in Georgia right before Christmas asking contractors questions then, if the investigation isn't continuing?

---

Where did you get that info?

Also, like I said, I don't know if it is over or not, but Emmert's statements make it seem like it is over.

quote:

---

You have to take 15 leaps of faith to even comprehend the way he thinks this played out.

---

This thread has nothing to do with how I think it played out or how it probably played out. It is about the proof the NCAA is requiring before it will take action and the reasons they are likely requiring that proof. It has to do with how agency is defined and treated under the law, IMO. Also, it is about if and when the NCAA changes its rules to avoid this type of scenario.

quote:

---

Burden of proof and assumptions are not equal. Most of the "haters" made the assumption that if he shopped Cam to Miss St, he did the same at Auburn. Now they have to find a way to show that it happened. Is Cam or Cecil going to say that, that leaves someone at Auburn admitting it happen. I am sorry but you are still chasing shadows.

---

They don't need someone from Au to admit it happens. They could find independent evidence with needing corroboration from an Auburn coach, or booster or Cecil. They also don't need a money trail. They simply have to have enough evidence to show that it was very likely that Cam knew. And with the history of Cam leaving things up to his dad, there isn't too much more they'll need to find.