Started By
Message
re: The NCAA's handling of Cam Newton's situation vs. UNC player(s)
Posted on 12/10/10 at 9:55 am to lowspark12
Posted on 12/10/10 at 9:55 am to lowspark12
quote:
I swear some on here are completely brain-dead... Robert Quinn receiving extra benefits and was punished... Cecil or Cam recieved nothing and have not been punished.
thousands of dollars in jewelry > $0.... who would've thought it... that NCAA is Crazy, I tell ya.
We can argue about loopholes and things of that nature, but to sit here and compare other situations to Cam/Cecil's is apples to oranges... unique to say the least.
Are you blind or just stupid...
Right now the wheels are in motion at Kentucky to not just appeal a ruling on an inelgible basketball player...
But to REFILE the dang thing from the beginning. WHy...because the rules have changed.
Kentucky has a basketball player whose parents received money that was reimbursement money for expenses incurred by the player while he was on the Turkish national team. These reimbursements are ALLOWED but the money exceeded the dollar amount allowed by the NCAA. The player had no idea this amount was too much and is as innocent of any wrong-doing as can be.
THE NCAA RULED HIM PERMANENTLY INELIGIBLE.
Kentucky is REFILING THE CASE because the NCAA has now said this in the Cam ruling:
“In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete’s eligibility, we must consider the young person’s responsibility. 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, which led to his reinstatement."
There is NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT WHAT WAS RECEIVED. Only that the players knowledge of it is important.
Major universities don't REFILE cases unless something VERY MAJOR changes.
UNC is not ticked because they got punished for kids taking stuff. They are ticked because they did EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO in declaring kids ineligible and waiting for a ruling. Their cooperation got them a LOOOOOOONG wait on a ruling and more grief. Auburn seems to have AT BEST gotten to work all this out behind the scenes and then declare Newton ineligible for a mere few hours and an expidited process. At worst they played hide and seek with the facts until they got thru their schedule and some breathing room.
NOT to mention there is a bit of a problem when you have:
Cam Newton's dad soliciting almost $200,000 grand from a college to have his son play for them...
Which gets ZERO PENALTIES.
compared to....
Deunta Williams PAYS WITH HIS OWN MONEY TO TAKE a trip to Los Angleles to visit a former UNC player. During this trip THAT HE PAID FOR WITH HIS OWN MONEY he slept at the guys house for two nights. THAT WAS HIS VIOLATION. He slept at the dudes house...
Which gets him suspended for FOUR GAMES.
So yeah...i think their are gonna be some schools that have some issues with this stuff.
2
Posted on 12/10/10 at 10:20 am to tigersruledude
quote:
Kentucky has a basketball player whose parents received money that was reimbursement money for expenses incurred by the player while he was on the Turkish national team. These reimbursements are ALLOWED but the money exceeded the dollar amount allowed by the NCAA. The player had no idea this amount was too much and is as innocent of any wrong-doing as can be.
Money changed hands, that's the difference in the two situations. No money ever changed hands in Newton's incident, Cecil was approached in a pay for play at MSU he agreed to it, later Cam went to another program and no money or talks happened with Auburn. Had money changed hands with MSU he'd likely be ineligible to this day.
The NCAA may change things if the player does pay the cash back but at present if money changes hands tough nookies.
As far as UNC situation, again not even close. You had an assistant coach involved in paying players to stay another year. You had other players involved in getting players to go to parties and accept gifts. Money and benefits changed hands to equate the two is just nuts.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 10:24 am to kbro
Now y'all get to see the NCAA's operations as the Bama fans have been seeing them for years. They are inconsistent as hell in their enforcement, and their actions lend themselves to ideas of conspiracies and favoritism.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 10:26 am to RollTigers
Does everybody notice how the Aub posters jump into every thread that mentions the Newton's, or even if the title contains the words "NCAA", and go into defense mode?
Posted on 12/10/10 at 10:27 am to rangers911
quote:
As far as UNC situation, again not even close. You had an assistant coach involved in paying players to stay another year. You had other players involved in getting players to go to parties and accept gifts. Money and benefits changed hands to equate the two is just nuts
You can't take the entire UNC situation as a whole and try to compare it.
Look at each individual player, what they did wrong and the penalties they received. Some of them (ie. Deunta Williams) were ridiculously minor yet these players ALL missed games. Williams missed 4 games for essentially doing nothing.
Cecil shopped his kid to MSU for $ 180K. That is a violation, but the NCAA says NO PROBLEMO, he's eligible.
Maybe AU pays big time down the road if the dots get connected on the money trail, who knows?
This post was edited on 12/10/10 at 10:29 am
Posted on 12/10/10 at 10:35 am to kbro
quote:The situations are still completely different because of the culpability of the player, as opposed to a third party. I am not saying the NCAA is consistent or right, just that the comparisons are tough to make because of the uniqueness of the Cecil situation (assuming Cam was in the dark and no $ changed hands).
kbro
Frankly, I think most people don't like the NCAA decision with Cam, not because of the actual decision, but because they don't believe (1) that Cam really didn't know or (2) that money really never changed hands.
If you could be convinced that those 2 things are absolutely true (and I am not saying it is reasonable to be convinced of these things), would you have a problem with the NCAA's decision?
This post was edited on 12/10/10 at 10:40 am
Posted on 12/10/10 at 10:41 am to tigersruledude
quote:
Cam Newton's dad soliciting almost $200,000 grand from a college to have his son play for them...
Which gets ZERO PENALTIES.
NCAA makes no sense. ^^^ This gets 0 penalties, but LSU buys a recuit lunch at Burger King and get probation for a year.
This post was edited on 12/10/10 at 10:45 am
Posted on 12/10/10 at 10:44 am to rangers911
quote:
Money changed hands, that's the difference in the two situations. No money ever changed hands in Newton's incident, Cecil was approached in a pay for play at MSU he agreed to it, later Cam went to another program and no money or talks happened with Auburn. Had money changed hands with MSU he'd likely be ineligible to this day.
The difference is not about money changing hands.
Difference between the 2 situations: 1 is allowed per the NCAA (but not in the amount reimbursed) and the other is not permissable by the NCAA.
Why is it allowed for money to change hands regarding Green and his jersey, but he was suspended 4 games?
The problem is the NCAA enforeces different penalties for similar situations.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 10:48 am to kbro
quote:
You can't take the entire UNC situation as a whole and try to compare it.
Look at each individual player, what they did wrong and the penalties they received. Some of them (ie. Deunta Williams) were ridiculously minor yet these players ALL missed games. Williams missed 4 games for essentially doing nothing.
Cecil shopped his kid to MSU for $ 180K. That is a violation, but the NCAA says NO PROBLEMO, he's eligible.
Maybe AU pays big time down the road if the dots get connected on the money trail, who knows?
UNC is in very hot water. You have an assistant coach who was a bag man, several players recruiting other players for agents to speak with and give benefits to, the NCAA came down hard on the program as a whole. Cam's situation was isolated in that his father was approached and agreed to it. No money changed hands.
UNC got hit hard as the NCAA is really focused on cracking down on the agent issue, on a player by player basis I'm certain some were hit hard but the NCAA took the entire situation as a whole.
Also look at some of Bama's players who were given a minor suspension due to money changing hands but due to them being open and honest the NCAA went pretty light. Others that lied like UGA's receiver Greene he was hit hard.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 11:00 am to WDE24
quote:
I think most people don't like the NCAA decision with Cam, not because of the actual decision, but because they don't believe (1) that Cam really didn't know or (2) that money really never changed hands.
I agree with this - that people smell a rat and don't believe that Cam didn't know or that money didn't change hands.
That said, the fact that his father admits he shopped his son to an SEC school that he ultimately didn't sign with should cost the player SOME type of disciplinary action. (even if it had been ONE frickin game - something)
The precedent it sets is horrible.
This post was edited on 12/10/10 at 11:01 am
Posted on 12/10/10 at 11:02 am to kbro
quote:Not really IMO, as long as the hammer drops if and when $ changes hands (regardless of knowledge).
The precedent it sets is horrible.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 11:06 am to WDE24
Fair enough, but if the FBI/NCAA do end up connecting the dots on the money trail between AU and the Newtons, the fact that the NCAA had fair warning from the MSU situation yet let Cam play will not reflect well on them.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 11:11 am to kbro
I agree, I just don't think it will happen. Despite what you read on message boards, it appears that the FBI's involvement was more related to the unscrupulous agent issue, than anything else. Also, I don't think the NCAA would have made a decision right now if they thought there was a money trail to find.
I am not naive enough to think it isn't possible, just not likely IMO.
I am not naive enough to think it isn't possible, just not likely IMO.
This post was edited on 12/10/10 at 11:12 am
Posted on 12/10/10 at 12:12 pm to piggidyphish
Cam is the low hanging fruit for the NCAA to investigate. Now the NCAA might be waiting to see what the FBI finds and then give your school of choice (AU) the death penalty.
Posted on 12/10/10 at 12:31 pm to Born to be a Tiger
kbro
I agree whole-heartedly. My first thoughts when I read about Cam being declared eligible went directly to what you mentioned...
I wondered about universities, such as UNC, that have the reputation of being clean programs...at what point do they start to complain about these goings on.
PS...see you are a Duke fan. One of my former players played football at Duke...another program I have alot of respect for...even without all the W's
I agree whole-heartedly. My first thoughts when I read about Cam being declared eligible went directly to what you mentioned...
I wondered about universities, such as UNC, that have the reputation of being clean programs...at what point do they start to complain about these goings on.
PS...see you are a Duke fan. One of my former players played football at Duke...another program I have alot of respect for...even without all the W's
Posted on 12/10/10 at 3:55 pm to rangers911
quote:
Money changed hands, that's the difference in the two situations. No money ever changed hands in Newton's incident, Cecil was approached in a pay for play at MSU he agreed to it, later Cam went to another program and no money or talks happened with Auburn. Had money changed hands with MSU he'd likely be ineligible to this day
The NCAA ruling was based on a violation of the rule that states that a player may not have representation. It's the only rule stated in the ruling. The NCAA said that the rule was violated but since the player was unaware he is eligible with no penalties.
The UK case is not exactly the case but consider some things:
- The player was on a Turkish national team and it is ALLOWED by the NCAA for him to be re-imbursed for expenses.
- The player was not handling or processing any of these bills or payments and at no time knew of there amounts.
- The parents of the player made a mistake in interpretation of the rules for how much they were allowed to take for re-imbursements. There was no attempt to do anything but follow the rules.
Quote from a Sporting News Article:
quote:
Enes Kanter might be permanently ineligible because his family, thousands of miles and a culture or two removed from NCAA regulations, did not properly interpret what their son would be allowed to accept from a club while he practiced and competed. Kanter was only 16 years old when all this began, and yet he is being held strictly liable for how his family managed his eligibility.
compared to (same article)...
quote:
Cam Newton will be permitted to play the remainder of his college football career, whether it’s two more games or through the 2011 season. His family had every reason to fully understand NCAA rules, because Newton already had gone through the recruiting process once and played two seasons at the University of Florida. And yet Cecil Newton has acknowledged attempting to arrange for a payment from Mississippi State in exchange for getting his son to sign there last winter. Cam Newton is being excused on the grounds he did not know about that pursuit.
One family purposefully does wrong, shredding the NCAA’s most obvious rule, and the son prospers and excels.
One family mistakenly stumbles outside the more ambiguous pages of the NCAA’s rulebook, and the son sits with the weight of permanent ineligibility draped across his shoulders.
This kind of stuff makes it painfully obvious that the NCAA just flatly decided to let this go because it was high profile.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News