re: A Lengthy Analysis of the Reinstatement Committee and Cam Newton

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!