Started By
Message
A Lengthy Analysis of the Reinstatement Committee and Cam Newton
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:44 am
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:44 am
I've found a lot of the newspaper accounts about Cam Newton's reinstatement to be a) poorly researched, and b) lacking in any kind of grounded analysis. Thus, I decided to review the actual NCAA website on reinstatement for some perspective on this situation. You can find it here, if interested.
Hopefully, this overview will be helpful to anyone who wants more information about what the NCAA reinstatement committee actually does, and what its procedures are. God knows you won't find factual information in the irresponsible "OMG....Auburn is getting away with murder and USC is pissed" columns that are all over newspapers and the internet right now.
What follows is information from the NCAA website, followed by my explanation and/or interpretation of how it applies to the Cam Newton case. My interpolations are, of course, likely flawed, even though I am trying (like many of you) to simply understand the process as best I can. Mostly, I like the idea of furthering debate, but I want it to be based on written statements, not wrong-headed assumptions from the media:
1) What is student-athlete reinstatement?
It is the process schools must use to restore the lost eligibility of student-athletes involved in NCAA rules violations. On average, the NCAA receives more than 1,000 reinstatement requests annually, and nearly 99 percent of these requests result in the student-athlete being reinstated.
Note that initial statistic - "nearly 99% of the requests result in the student-athlete being reinstated." As other people have noted, this is because the reinstatement committee is NOT related to the investigative arm of the NCAA. The reinstatement committee exists primarily to let universities 1) self-report violations committed by their athletes, 2) let the university suggest the method(s) by which restitution can be achieved, and 3) essentially offer a quick and (relatively) simple path to resolving issues that regularly crop up in athletic departments.
If, later, the NCAA infractions committee decides that important facts were purposefully left out of the university's report to the reinstatement committee, the situation naturally becomes much more problematic.
2) How does it work?
When a school discovers a student-athlete has been involved in a violation, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible, investigate the violation, and forward its report with a request for the student-athlete's eligibility to be reinstated to the national office staff.
Let's break this part down, because it is important.
First, the obvious: a university is obligated to report a violation to the reinstatement committee once they discover that it has occurred.
Technically, this gives any university the opportunity to employ what I'll call the "USC defense." From how I understand the USC situation (and I hope people will correct me if I'm wrong), USC officials stuck their heads in the sand and pretended they knew absolutely nothing about Lloyd Lake's gifts to Bush and Mayo. By employing this defense, USC could have gotten away without penalty... if they had cooperated more transparently with the NCAA and, most importantly, it hadn't been proven that running backs coach Todd McNair knew what was happening with Bush.
So, if Auburn wanted to follow USC, they could blissfully ignore the entire controversy. But, as everyone knows, Kenny Rogers directly implicated Cam Newton's father on a Dallas radio station on Nov. 11, indicating that some kind of a violation occurred. This suddenly put Kenny Rogers in a similar role to Lloyd Lake.
In my opinion, then, Auburn's decision to report the "violation" is a wise move. If the NCAA is ultimately unable to uncover anything more than a tenuous connection between Kenny Rogers, Cam's father, and a failed attempt at getting money from Mississippi State, Auburn has theoretically covered their butts on this one issue.
Why it took Auburn 18 days to report the incident to the NCAA, however, is the most problematic aspect of this particular reinstatement procedure. Why didn¡¦t Auburn suspend Newton on November 12 and begin their appeal to the reinstatement committee immediately afterwards? Are we supposed to believe that Auburn only found out about the possible violation on Monday, November 29? On that one date, was Auburn really able to declare Cam Newton ineligible, avoid wikileaks, investigate the entire matter in literally minutes, and instantly send off their report to the NCAA? Why hasn't the NCAA held their feet to the fire over the 18 day lapse?
It is equally troubling that the NCAA responded to this single request within 24 hours, when their stated policy is to "allow three weeks for staff review." (See NCAA Powerpoint for more information.) Even in the most optimistic timeframe, the NCAA says that "most requests for reinstatement are resolved in about a week after the school has provided a complete request and the reinstatement staff has all the necessary information."
According to the NCAA, it is possible to request an "URGENT" status on any reinstatement, and cases are prioritized by the "date of the next contest." Nonetheless, other requests (A.J. Green, for instance) have not been accorded this same impressive level of urgency. That fact understandably fuels speculation that something collusive is happening between Auburn and the NCAA.
3) Who makes the decisions on reinstatement cases?
The NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff makes the initial decision regarding reinstatement of a student-athlete's eligibility. The staff has been given this authority by the NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement. The committee is comprised of representatives from NCAA schools and conferences. It has final authority for all reinstatement decision appeals.
I was curious about who exactly sits on the reinstatement committee, but couldn¡¦t locate any information on the NCAA website.
Thankfully, Kentucky basketball fans are quite well-versed in the affairs of NCAA investigations. Here is a list of the six people who are representatives.
I find it interesting that there is actually a "student-athlete representative." Seems like a pretty big task, considering that there were "approximately 1500 reinstatement requests and 400 waiver requests" during a single academic year (2003-2004). See link. Considering that the reinstatement committee green-lights 99% of the cases, though, I seriously doubt that many of the cases are thoroughly considered.
To be continued...
Hopefully, this overview will be helpful to anyone who wants more information about what the NCAA reinstatement committee actually does, and what its procedures are. God knows you won't find factual information in the irresponsible "OMG....Auburn is getting away with murder and USC is pissed" columns that are all over newspapers and the internet right now.
What follows is information from the NCAA website, followed by my explanation and/or interpretation of how it applies to the Cam Newton case. My interpolations are, of course, likely flawed, even though I am trying (like many of you) to simply understand the process as best I can. Mostly, I like the idea of furthering debate, but I want it to be based on written statements, not wrong-headed assumptions from the media:
1) What is student-athlete reinstatement?
It is the process schools must use to restore the lost eligibility of student-athletes involved in NCAA rules violations. On average, the NCAA receives more than 1,000 reinstatement requests annually, and nearly 99 percent of these requests result in the student-athlete being reinstated.
Note that initial statistic - "nearly 99% of the requests result in the student-athlete being reinstated." As other people have noted, this is because the reinstatement committee is NOT related to the investigative arm of the NCAA. The reinstatement committee exists primarily to let universities 1) self-report violations committed by their athletes, 2) let the university suggest the method(s) by which restitution can be achieved, and 3) essentially offer a quick and (relatively) simple path to resolving issues that regularly crop up in athletic departments.
If, later, the NCAA infractions committee decides that important facts were purposefully left out of the university's report to the reinstatement committee, the situation naturally becomes much more problematic.
2) How does it work?
When a school discovers a student-athlete has been involved in a violation, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible, investigate the violation, and forward its report with a request for the student-athlete's eligibility to be reinstated to the national office staff.
Let's break this part down, because it is important.
First, the obvious: a university is obligated to report a violation to the reinstatement committee once they discover that it has occurred.
Technically, this gives any university the opportunity to employ what I'll call the "USC defense." From how I understand the USC situation (and I hope people will correct me if I'm wrong), USC officials stuck their heads in the sand and pretended they knew absolutely nothing about Lloyd Lake's gifts to Bush and Mayo. By employing this defense, USC could have gotten away without penalty... if they had cooperated more transparently with the NCAA and, most importantly, it hadn't been proven that running backs coach Todd McNair knew what was happening with Bush.
So, if Auburn wanted to follow USC, they could blissfully ignore the entire controversy. But, as everyone knows, Kenny Rogers directly implicated Cam Newton's father on a Dallas radio station on Nov. 11, indicating that some kind of a violation occurred. This suddenly put Kenny Rogers in a similar role to Lloyd Lake.
In my opinion, then, Auburn's decision to report the "violation" is a wise move. If the NCAA is ultimately unable to uncover anything more than a tenuous connection between Kenny Rogers, Cam's father, and a failed attempt at getting money from Mississippi State, Auburn has theoretically covered their butts on this one issue.
Why it took Auburn 18 days to report the incident to the NCAA, however, is the most problematic aspect of this particular reinstatement procedure. Why didn¡¦t Auburn suspend Newton on November 12 and begin their appeal to the reinstatement committee immediately afterwards? Are we supposed to believe that Auburn only found out about the possible violation on Monday, November 29? On that one date, was Auburn really able to declare Cam Newton ineligible, avoid wikileaks, investigate the entire matter in literally minutes, and instantly send off their report to the NCAA? Why hasn't the NCAA held their feet to the fire over the 18 day lapse?
It is equally troubling that the NCAA responded to this single request within 24 hours, when their stated policy is to "allow three weeks for staff review." (See NCAA Powerpoint for more information.) Even in the most optimistic timeframe, the NCAA says that "most requests for reinstatement are resolved in about a week after the school has provided a complete request and the reinstatement staff has all the necessary information."
According to the NCAA, it is possible to request an "URGENT" status on any reinstatement, and cases are prioritized by the "date of the next contest." Nonetheless, other requests (A.J. Green, for instance) have not been accorded this same impressive level of urgency. That fact understandably fuels speculation that something collusive is happening between Auburn and the NCAA.
3) Who makes the decisions on reinstatement cases?
The NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff makes the initial decision regarding reinstatement of a student-athlete's eligibility. The staff has been given this authority by the NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement. The committee is comprised of representatives from NCAA schools and conferences. It has final authority for all reinstatement decision appeals.
I was curious about who exactly sits on the reinstatement committee, but couldn¡¦t locate any information on the NCAA website.
Thankfully, Kentucky basketball fans are quite well-versed in the affairs of NCAA investigations. Here is a list of the six people who are representatives.
I find it interesting that there is actually a "student-athlete representative." Seems like a pretty big task, considering that there were "approximately 1500 reinstatement requests and 400 waiver requests" during a single academic year (2003-2004). See link. Considering that the reinstatement committee green-lights 99% of the cases, though, I seriously doubt that many of the cases are thoroughly considered.
To be continued...
This post was edited on 12/2/10 at 11:04 am
6
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:46 am to MikeyFL
4) What does the staff consider when reaching its decision?
The staff considers a number of factors when deciding each case. These include the nature and seriousness of the violation; any impermissible benefits received by the student-athlete; the student-athlete¡¦s level of responsibility; any mitigating factors presented by the school; applicable NCAA guidelines; and any relevant case precedent. It is rare that the facts of two cases are identical.
Honestly, if Auburn presented their argument clearly, logically, and simply (without divulging any significant information tying problems to Auburn), I can understand why Cam would be exonerated at this early stage of the process. Taking the points one by one - the violation could be serious, but there is not presently a money trail linked with Auburn. We don't know if Cam received "impermissible benefits" as a result of his father's dealings. And, as long as Auburn selectively and carefully reported the Kenny Rogers radio incident, Cam's involvement is currently zero.
5) What are the possible outcomes in reinstatement decisions?
Student-athlete reinstatement decisions result in one of three possible outcomes. The staff may reinstate a student-athlete's eligibility without any conditions. A student-athlete may have his or her eligibility reinstated with conditions on the student-athlete, such as sitting out a specific number of contests or donating the amount of any impermissible benefits received to a charity. Or the student athlete could lose all remaining eligibility, which is extremely rare.
Well, we know what happened here... Cam is eligible. But, the conditions are revealing. Auburn must have gone out of their way to spin this whole situation as a "father problem." That is why "Auburn University has limited the access Newton's father has to the athletics program," as a condition of reinstatement.
6) How is the information gathered to determine reinstatement decisions?
Student-athlete reinstatement decisions are based on an evaluation of the information provided to the staff by the involved school, given the NCAA reinstatement staff's role is not investigatory in nature. While the student-athlete reinstatement staff may ask additional questions related to the reinstatement request, it is the school¡¦s responsibility to provide all necessary information for the staff to consider.
This is very important! Auburn, alone, is responsible for reporting all of the facts and circumstances concerning a violation. Nothing else matters. Thus, the university has complete control over what the reinstatement committee is reading when they make their decision. If Auburn goes on record as saying that "Cam Newton had no knowledge of the pay-for-play scheme initiated by his father," the committee HAS to accept that statement as fact during their deliberation process.
Note the wording on the statement by Kevin Lennon, NCAA VP for academic and membership affairs:
"Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity."
The committee fully knows that their information may, or may not, be complete.
Conclusions:
1) The reinstatement committee is a tool of convenience and is almost never the NCAA's enforcement body.
2) Despite what's being reported in the media, this ruling by the reinstatement committee is not setting precedent, nor is it creating a massive loophole that allows parents to market their sons and daughters. The infractions committee can, and likely will, still weigh in.
3) Auburn is rightfully using the reinstatement committee so that they can isolate the statements by Kenny Rogers, tie them to Cam's father, and keep Cam eligible for the immediate future.
4) How on earth Auburn managed to wait until the end of the regular season to report to the reinstatement committee, then receive a judgment within 24 hours, is, in my opinion, mind-boggling. If people want to criticize the NCAA, they should focus on how Auburn seems to have eluded the time problems that plague other universities when dealing with the same process.
5) Pat Haden needs to get a grip. If USC had undergone the same reinstatement committee process with Bush, there is a "99% chance" he would've been temporarily cleared too.
Anyway, that is all!
The staff considers a number of factors when deciding each case. These include the nature and seriousness of the violation; any impermissible benefits received by the student-athlete; the student-athlete¡¦s level of responsibility; any mitigating factors presented by the school; applicable NCAA guidelines; and any relevant case precedent. It is rare that the facts of two cases are identical.
Honestly, if Auburn presented their argument clearly, logically, and simply (without divulging any significant information tying problems to Auburn), I can understand why Cam would be exonerated at this early stage of the process. Taking the points one by one - the violation could be serious, but there is not presently a money trail linked with Auburn. We don't know if Cam received "impermissible benefits" as a result of his father's dealings. And, as long as Auburn selectively and carefully reported the Kenny Rogers radio incident, Cam's involvement is currently zero.
5) What are the possible outcomes in reinstatement decisions?
Student-athlete reinstatement decisions result in one of three possible outcomes. The staff may reinstate a student-athlete's eligibility without any conditions. A student-athlete may have his or her eligibility reinstated with conditions on the student-athlete, such as sitting out a specific number of contests or donating the amount of any impermissible benefits received to a charity. Or the student athlete could lose all remaining eligibility, which is extremely rare.
Well, we know what happened here... Cam is eligible. But, the conditions are revealing. Auburn must have gone out of their way to spin this whole situation as a "father problem." That is why "Auburn University has limited the access Newton's father has to the athletics program," as a condition of reinstatement.
6) How is the information gathered to determine reinstatement decisions?
Student-athlete reinstatement decisions are based on an evaluation of the information provided to the staff by the involved school, given the NCAA reinstatement staff's role is not investigatory in nature. While the student-athlete reinstatement staff may ask additional questions related to the reinstatement request, it is the school¡¦s responsibility to provide all necessary information for the staff to consider.
This is very important! Auburn, alone, is responsible for reporting all of the facts and circumstances concerning a violation. Nothing else matters. Thus, the university has complete control over what the reinstatement committee is reading when they make their decision. If Auburn goes on record as saying that "Cam Newton had no knowledge of the pay-for-play scheme initiated by his father," the committee HAS to accept that statement as fact during their deliberation process.
Note the wording on the statement by Kevin Lennon, NCAA VP for academic and membership affairs:
"Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity."
The committee fully knows that their information may, or may not, be complete.
Conclusions:
1) The reinstatement committee is a tool of convenience and is almost never the NCAA's enforcement body.
2) Despite what's being reported in the media, this ruling by the reinstatement committee is not setting precedent, nor is it creating a massive loophole that allows parents to market their sons and daughters. The infractions committee can, and likely will, still weigh in.
3) Auburn is rightfully using the reinstatement committee so that they can isolate the statements by Kenny Rogers, tie them to Cam's father, and keep Cam eligible for the immediate future.
4) How on earth Auburn managed to wait until the end of the regular season to report to the reinstatement committee, then receive a judgment within 24 hours, is, in my opinion, mind-boggling. If people want to criticize the NCAA, they should focus on how Auburn seems to have eluded the time problems that plague other universities when dealing with the same process.
5) Pat Haden needs to get a grip. If USC had undergone the same reinstatement committee process with Bush, there is a "99% chance" he would've been temporarily cleared too.
Anyway, that is all!
This post was edited on 12/2/10 at 11:14 am
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:46 am to MikeyFL
just what we needed, another "lengthy" analysis
Posted on 12/2/10 at 10:46 am to MikeyFL
quote:
Note that initial statistic - "nearly 99% of the requests result in the student-athlete being reinstated." As other people have noted, this is because the reinstatement committee is NOT related to the investigative arm of the NCAA. The reinstatement committee exists primarily to let universities 1) self-report violations committed by their athletes, 2) let the university suggest the method(s) by which restitution can be achieved, and 3) essentially offer a quick and (relatively) simple path to resolving issues that regularly crop up in athletic departments.
BOOM!
Posted on 12/2/10 at 11:10 am to MikeyFL
quote:
That fact understandably fuels speculation that something collusive is happening between Auburn and the NCAA.
shite, even Stevie Wonder could see that and that's what's so fricked up about the situation. What's even worse is that nobody in the press or the SEC besides the SEC office, the Barn and the NCAA knew Cam was ineligible on Tuesday. No leak no nothing. Then presto, by magic it was all cleared up.
Nevermind the SEC knew about this shite since January and even told the Barn about it in July.
The whole shite pile stinks and everybody in the country knows it.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 11:17 am to MikeyFL
Thanks for the write up. I think that explains the situation well and I only wish some of the idiots starting the "see, I told you nothing would happen" threads would read (and understand) this.
The recent ruling means nothing as far as the overall investigation is concerned. Anything could still happen. Auburn may get off scot-free or get hammered with crippling sanctions. We'll see.
The recent ruling means nothing as far as the overall investigation is concerned. Anything could still happen. Auburn may get off scot-free or get hammered with crippling sanctions. We'll see.
Posted on 12/2/10 at 11:49 am to MikeyFL
Excellent analysis that further backs up what I posted yesterday. I addressed the fact that the NCAA Reinstatement Committee is not an investigatory body and all information it uses to reinstate or not reinstate athletes comes from the university in question.
No one seemed to read what I said and it was MUCH shorter than what you posted.
I don't know why the media is going ape shite on this. It is clearly not over. The ruling made by the Reinstatement Committee yesterday is so insignificant to the investigation that it is not even funny.
No one seemed to read what I said and it was MUCH shorter than what you posted.
I don't know why the media is going ape shite on this. It is clearly not over. The ruling made by the Reinstatement Committee yesterday is so insignificant to the investigation that it is not even funny.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News