The Cam Newton strangeness

If I'm a Georgia fan, I'm really upset right now.

My best player, A.J. Green, had to sit four games earlier this year for selling a jersey. My team lost three of those games and now sits 6-6.

Auburn's best player, and the best player in the country, was being shopped by his father during the recruiting process. And he is deemed ineligible for, what, 15 minutes?

From the outside looking in, I would assume this is definitely not over. The NCAA continues to investigate, as does the FBI.

But the NCAA's ruling doesn't make much sense to this observer. All along, I thought there was no way the NCAA would not issue a harsh penalty because of the unmistakable precedent that would be set, allowing for a canyon-sized loophole to be exploited in the future during the recruitment of high-level athletes.

Tony Barnhart weighs in and says the NCAA got it right, but I do not understand the logic presented in the following passage:

If the NCAA punished School A because a father solicted money from School B (and no money changed hands and school A didn’t even know the solicitation took place), now you have another slippery slope where the possibilities are endless. If I’m a recruiter at school B and lost a recruit to school A, when the head coach starts chewing on my butt I can just put it out there that the parent solicited money from me and get school A in trouble and take the heat off me.

Dowhatnow?

Apparently it escapes Mr. Barnhart that these were not mere allegations. It has been established as fact that Cecil Newton, with the aid of some dude from a scouting service -- a dude who has ties with an agent -- was shopping his son to Mississippi State.

It has not been proven that any money changed hands. So I guess we're supposed to just accept that Cecil Newton was asking for big bucks from Mississippi State (unbeknownst to his son, of course), and then chose Auburn in exchange for nothing more than an education, books and room and board.

Since no actual payments or extra benefits have been discovered, we cannot compare this to the Reggie Bush situation ... yet. Bush was living the life of a rock star on and off the field during his days in SoCal. But Trojans AD Pat Haden had it right when he said the parent has always been viewed as an extension of the child in the eyes of the NCAA.

"I was always told the parent is the child. That's what we've been telling our kids. If the parent does something inappropriate, the child suffers the consequences."

There is simply no other way to look at it if NCAA enforcement is to be viewed as having any strength or credibility. The stakes in college football have never been higher, and that's how you get coaching staffs who make rule-bending an overt part of their philosophy (see: Auburn under Gene Chizik and Tennessee under Lane Kiffin).

The ruling on Newton is drawing criticism from some heavy hitters, including Big Ten commish Jim Delany and Pac 10 commish Larry Scott.

Delany, a former N.C.A.A. investigator who is familiar with its nuances, said in a telephone interview that the N.C.A.A. “missed an opportunity to stand up.” Scott, in his first year at the Pac-10, said his office had heard from numerous universities in the conference that had concerns about Wednesday’s decision.

Delany said he had told the N.C.A.A. his thoughts, adding that the theory behind the decision set a worrisome precedent.

“What I would say on any third-party issue is that the analysis in my view, whether you’re an assistant coach, president or a booster or a parent, is that there ought to be accountability,” Delany said. “There ought to be consequences.”

And later:

“Here, who is closer to a player than the parent?” Delany said. “If that person is found to be shopping that player, I think the rule-of-agency principle could easily apply. I would argue in the environment we’re in that it should apply.”

Delany said the case was a reason for continuing concern about the N.C.A.A.’s ability to manage the recruiting process.

“We’ve gone to the board of directors to create bright lines, to encourage the N.C.A.A. to take creative risks to get everyone on a more level playing field,” he said. “This was an opportunity to apply a very reasonable concept. They chose to go with a very high standard instead of what’s more of a reasonable application given the facts and reality that we’re dealing with.”

Chris Dufresne of the L.A. Times with some typically clever turns of phrase on the Newton situation.

The NCAA on Wednesday cleared Auburn quarterback Cam Newton for pay. … Sorry, make that play!

This Alabama columnist says he's still voting Newton for the Heisman.

Oh yeah. That Heisman thing. My ballot is sitting in front of me, and you could say I'm conflicted but leaning in the direction of voting for Newton.

Thoughts?



LW