I have to give the NCAA credit for one thing. They obviously could not care less what other people think of them.
Announcing that Cam Newton was eligible for both the SEC title game and Auburn's bowl game, while making it okay for Heisman voters to cast their votes for the young quarterback, was considered a huge positive for college football. At least I assume that was the behind-the-door reasoning that came to this poor decision. If the decision was not based on helping the sport's television ratings, then what was it based on? Common sense? No way. The NCAA found evidence that Cecil Newton offered his son's services through a peddling agent to Mississippi State. But they ruled that since there was no evidence that Cam knew about the deal, nor that Auburn did anything wrong, they are ruling him eligible and slapping the dad on the wrist. Auburn can go ahead and continue their charmed season.
The reasons this is a stupid ruling are myriad. For one thing, your father is an extension of you when it comes to recruiting. All decisions are made by the family together and the onus should have been on Cam to prove that he did not know anything about pay-for-play offers. Secondly, we have to assume that Cecil also shopped his son to Auburn. That is what everyone outside of southern Alabama thinks. Is the NCAA already finished investigating Auburn? If so, that was rather quick and will not assure fans of the sport that the NCAA exhausted all avenues in this regard.
But my biggest problem with this ruling is the message sent to players, their families and schools/boosters that cheat. The NCAA came down hard on Dez Bryant to not only punish the receiver (and cynics will say ensure Texas's undefeated regular season) but send a message to players: do not lie to the NCAA. Then this summer the NCAA dropped the hammer on USC. The message: establish your program in a way that makes compliance, not cheating, easy. So now they can make a statement about the selling of star players to colleges. But despite finding evidence that Cam was offered to MSU, the NCAA dropped the ball. The message: continue to sell your kid to programs but keep him ignorant of the situation and keep the number of people in the know about the offer to a minimum.
This is a ridiculous ruling.
The NCAA's decision on Newton completely discredits the organization. How can they be taken seriously when they throw the book at USC for similar violations and let Newton and Auburn walk away scot-free? This type of selective punishment will only encourage schools to turn a blind eye to violations. Schools will now employ the Casablanca defense: I'm shocked, shocked that an agent illegally recruited my player.
ReplyDeleteThis only vindicates my argument that the NCAA had it out for USC.
They are failing with consistency. I have no problem with them being tough on USC if they are then going to be tough on everyone. This just smells of a desire to get Auburn in the BCS Title game for television purposes and then they may suddenly find some violations in the spring and slap the wrist a little harder. Of course, by then Newton will be on the Raiders and will find all of this a bit funny.
ReplyDeleteI must say I agree with the above comments from both contributors. The NCAA's unwillingness to discipline the Tigers stinks of hypocrisy. They made the right decision with USC, and made a terribly wrong decision with Auburn. They obviously wanted the biggest-name schools to play for it all, despite their phony assertions that the process is democratic. I guess they're worried since they know Oregon is not much of a TV draw anyway, and coupled with the possibility of TCU as its opponent, they were running downright scared. As I write this, Auburn gets ready to take on South Carolina for the SEC title momentarily, so maybe there is still a glimmer of hope for fairness. If Steve Spurrier's Gamecocks can clock Cam Newton and company, the NCAA would have failed, anyway. That would please a lot of us fans who have always advocated truth, fairness, and justice ... like myself. By the way, who is "anonymous?" Great Scott, is it possible Trojan warlords are stalking the blog??!
ReplyDelete