NCAA Comments Further

[ShocksMyBrain 9,419]

“We recognize that many people are outraged at the notion that a parent or anyone else could “shop around” a student-athlete and there would possibly not be repercussions on the student-athlete’s eligibility.

I’m committed to further clarifying and strengthening our recruiting and amateurism rules so they promote appropriate behavior by students, parents, coaches and third parties. We will work aggressively with our members to amend our bylaws so that this type of behavior is not a part of intercollegiate athletics.”

One size does not fit all: Differences between eligibility and investigations

Many in the media and public have drawn comparisons between recent high-profile NCAA decisions while ignoring the important differences among the cases. There is a purposeful distinction between determining student-athlete responsibility through an eligibility decision and university culpability through the infractions process. Universities are accountable for rules violations through the infractions process.

Student-athletes are responsible for rules violations through the eligibility process.

Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete’s involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation.

“The enforcement staff investigates all types of rules violations,” said Julie Roe Lach, NCAA vice president of enforcement. “Some of these investigations affect student-athlete eligibility and others do not. The investigation does not stop with a student-athlete eligibility issue, but school officials must address it as soon as they are aware of the violations.”

The NCAA looks at each student-athlete eligibility decision based on its merits, because no two are identical. In the Cam Newton reinstatement case, there was not sufficient evidence available to establish he had any knowledge of his father’s actions and there was no indication he actually received any impermissible benefit. If a student-athlete does not receive tangible benefits, that is a different situation from a student-athlete or family member who receives cash, housing or other benefits or knowingly competes and is compensated as a professional athlete.

“As the reinstatement staff reviews eligibility cases, we must review each case based on its own merits and the specific facts,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs.

“During the decision, we must examine a number of factors, including guidelines established by our membership for what conditions should be applied based on the nature and scope of the violation. We also carefully consider any mitigating factors presented by the university to determine if relief from the guidelines should be provided.”

While comparisons may be human nature, they should at least be made based on the facts.

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/december/statement+by+ncaa+president+mark+emmert+on+cam+newton+eligibility

[mcgufcm 4,107]

They basically just stated the obvious: the only "loophole" created here is that parents/agents are fully capable of "shopping" a kid, but the moment they actually take something, plausible deniability goes out the door. The kid won't be reinstated.

They also stated the even more obvious point that the rules will be amended going forward if member institutions really think there is a loophole worth closing. That's the way it should be done. You don't set precedent by hammering a kid with a novel rule interpretation. You set precedent by changing the rules with clarity THEN hammering a kid that goes astray.

[Tiltowait_AU 0]

They basically just stated the obvious: the only "loophole" created here is that parents/agents are fully capable of "shopping" a kid, but the moment they actually take something, plausible deniability goes out the door. The kid won't be reinstated.

They also stated the even more obvious point that the rules will be amended going forward if member institutions really think there is a loophole worth closing. That's the way it should be done. You don't set precedent by hammering a kid with a novel rule interpretation. You set precedent by changing the rules with clarity THEN hammering a kid that goes astray.

Well said!

I thought the last line was pleasantly direct: While comparisons may be human nature, they should at least be made based on the facts. But as a wise man recently stated*, the truth doesn't sell.

Should also be noted you can't line a slippery slope with facts, and Pandora's box isn't filled to the brim with facts. So the sensationalists will continue to ignore said facts.

*J. Bynes, esquire

[AUTigerCourt 92]

exactly what I've been saying. This is NOT the same thing as Reggie Bush because there is no evidence 1. that Cam knew about it 2. that there was an exchange of money/benefits.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,419]

Sad thing is, you can argue it until you're blue in the face and people still won't get it. But as long as we know, that's all that should matter.

[IndianTiger 95]

Maybe this will quite all the Talking Heads, then again they get paid to do it, so who knows.

[Mike4AU 1,745]

Quite frankly, this additional comment by the NCAA president is virtually unprecedented. I take comfort in that. I will add that I enjoyed Emmert telling Pat Haden (without naming him, but the message is clear) to get his facts straight before mouthing off. Talk about a zinger!

[Duder 238]

Which means all the bammers and media trying to spin the words and indicate that Cam is still under the gun are, yet again, wrong. Eligibility concludes first because the students culpability is known and they move on with their career. Institutional investigation, in Starkville, continues because the program Is separate from the player. Bush and USC both got hammered because they both knew and he played there the entire time!

Thanks again, NCAA. You've broken a few more hearts today.

"just wait on the FBI!"

[TigerHeat 9]

They basically just stated the obvious: the only "loophole" created here is that parents/agents are fully capable of "shopping" a kid, but the moment they actually take something, plausible deniability goes out the door. The kid won't be reinstated.

They also stated the even more obvious point that the rules will be amended going forward if member institutions really think there is a loophole worth closing. That's the way it should be done. You don't set precedent by hammering a kid with a novel rule interpretation. You set precedent by changing the rules with clarity THEN hammering a kid that goes astray.

Just imagine the consequences if the NCAA ruled the other way. Every dirty Bammer booster in the world would be calling every Auburn recruit's parents to offer money to attend Auburn. Then Bama would turn the recruit in to NCAA. Bam. Eligibility gone. Thankfully, NCAA saw this bit of wickedness coming.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

I actually don't think that was a risk either. I fail to see the slope on either side because the facts of this situation are just so... odd. If Cam were ruled ineligible it would've been based on the fact that his father asked for money. Not because money was offered. By most accounts, it wasn't. Whether Cecil initiated the asking or not, I think the consensus is that he was a willing participant. That fact means that you don't have the concern over a rogue booster from another school calling to offer money and costing a player his eligibility. That's only a concern if the player's parent turns around and agrees to solicit the school.

The NCAA's point is: these facts are truly, truly unique. Player without knowledge playing at an uninvolved school that never broke the rules. Parent solicits at one school with the add of an alumnus of that school but doesn't solicit at any other school recruiting the player. No money/benefit ever changes hands. Change ANY fact in that description and I think you get a different result.

This isn't Albert Means because School A didn't pay.

This isn't Reggie Bush because the parent didn't receive any benefits (and there was no finding of fact that an assistant coach had knowledge of the situation... a fact Pat Haden conveniently forgot).

This isn't a situation where the parent had his hand out to every school.

This isn't a situation where the solicitation was done with the player OR parent knowledge.

This isn't a situation where an agent or parent is given free reign to shop the guy because receiving anything changes everything.

Bottom line, we've never seen this weird set of facts before, and we likely won't see it again.

[aucanucktiger 1,818]

I find this rare NCAA "clarification" anything but comforting. It means the NCAA is buckling to gullible, biased public pressure to explain again what had already been explained. It's simply a public relations narrative. Further, we have got to hope they're referring to Miss. State and not Auburn in this line b/c it reiterates this investigation is anything BUT closed.:

"There is a purposeful distinction between determining student-athlete responsibility through an eligibility decision and university culpability through the infractions process. Universities are accountable for rules violations through the infractions process."

Question though, how fair is the EXISTING by-law that says Auburn as an institution is in it deep for playing Cam if Cecil entered INTO a secret AGREEMENT w/ anybody from another SEC school w/out proof Cam or Auburn knew or should have known? That's the plain meaning of the existing by law.

[bigsixfive 336]

I don't see it as buckling. I see it as addressing a USC loudmouth that is comparing one of, if not the most egregious violation to occur in college football to the Newton situation, when the two aren't comparable at all.

1. Reggie Bush received benefits. Cam received no benefit and no evidence exists of him knowing anything improper was occurring.

2. Reggie Bush's parents received benefits. A lot of benefits. Cecil, although unfortunately participated in inappropriate discussions, got squat and wanted squat when all was said and done.

3. Reggie Bush was involved with a professional agent. Cecil Newton was approached by a sleaze with little, if any, legitimate connections.

They had to clarify the ruling in the Newton case because USC is appealing their ruling. Perhaps they learned through all this mess that its better to stop the snowball at the top of the hill rather than letting it turn into a full blown media avalanche.

[Duder 238]

As the NCAA is not investigating Auburn, one would assume they are in fact referring to Mississippi State regarding the ongoing investigation. Auburn has done nothing wrong; State continued recruiting a player they knew they'd have to pay for. There is some program culpability there. State is a member institution and must play by the NCAA's rules.

[Mike4AU 1,745]

Buckling....hardly. Canuck, when is the last time you saw a NCAA prez publicly rebuke the AD of a member institution (USC) for being stupid? Emmert did not have his tail between his leg when he made his statement. He was clearly in full-scale attack mode. Nothing personal, but I think it is not Spockonian to see his strong point.

[Mikey 16,781]

Speaking of talking heads, I saw an ESPN idiot yesterday make this statement: "I can add 2+2 and get four. If money was in play at Mississippi State, it was in play at Auburn and Auburn must have offered more. End of story." See, you can't fight ignorance such as that, all you can do is laugh at it.

Why did Oklahoma and Tennessee say no money was mentioned? If that jerk took the least bit of time to understand the situation, he'd know that of the four schools recruiting Cam Newton, only one had a Kenny Rogers and only one discussed money.

[AU! 0]

I actually don't think that was a risk either. I fail to see the slope on either side because the facts of this situation are just so... odd. If Cam were ruled ineligible it would've been based on the fact that his father asked for money. Not because money was offered. By most accounts, it wasn't. Whether Cecil initiated the asking or not, I think the consensus is that he was a willing participant. That fact means that you don't have the concern over a rogue booster from another school calling to offer money and costing a player his eligibility. That's only a concern if the player's parent turns around and agrees to solicit the school.

The NCAA's point is: these facts are truly, truly unique. Player without knowledge playing at an uninvolved school that never broke the rules. Parent solicits at one school with the add of an alumnus of that school but doesn't solicit at any other school recruiting the player. No money/benefit ever changes hands. Change ANY fact in that description and I think you get a different result.

This isn't Albert Means because School A didn't pay.

This isn't Reggie Bush because the parent didn't receive any benefits (and there was no finding of fact that an assistant coach had knowledge of the situation... a fact Pat Haden conveniently forgot).

This isn't a situation where the parent had his hand out to every school.

This isn't a situation where the solicitation was done with the player OR parent knowledge.

This isn't a situation where an agent or parent is given free reign to shop the guy because receiving anything changes everything.

Bottom line, we've never seen this weird set of facts before, and we likely won't see it again.

I disagree. It doesn't always have to be a father, if a recruit has an estranged uncle, high school coach or teacher, or even cousin that is financial trouble, it would be easy enough for a booster to get them to agree to a payment, turn them down later claiming that the school didnt agree to the terms, and then report it all to the ncaa if the kid wont attend anyway. They could essentially make a kid ineligible to ever play college ball unless he agrees to go to their school.

If you put in punishment for the player, you must also instate punishment for the school to keep boosters from taking advantage.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

The more tenuous the connection to the player, the less likely the NCAA is going to punish the kid. There is an easy distinction between an uncle and a father.

[AU! 0]

The more tenuous the connection to the player, the less likely the NCAA is going to punish the kid. There is an easy distinction between an uncle and a father.

Wasnt the Means case his high school coach? And if its about the connection to the player, whats to stop a player from hiring an agent with the understanding that as long as the agent claims the kid was never involved, he'll give the agent X% of the payout? The only risk for the agent is disassociation. Even better, replace the agent with a family friend that has nothing to lose over disassociation.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

But again, the Means case is different because the coach actually got paid. If Cecil had gotten paid, Cam would not be playing.

[AwesomeDave 1]

The more tenuous the connection to the player, the less likely the NCAA is going to punish the kid. There is an easy distinction between an uncle and a father.

So a kid with a bad father gets punished and a kid with a bad uncle does not? Doesn't seem fair, especially since the former has already had to live his life with a bad father.

[Mikey 16,781]

But again, the Means case is different because the coach actually got paid. If Cecil had gotten paid, Cam would not be playing.

I'd have to say that if Cecil had been paid by an MSU person, Cam wouldn't be playing at MSU. I don't think it would have changed things at any school but MSU. See the Means case.

[AwesomeDave 1]

But again, the Means case is different because the coach actually got paid. If Cecil had gotten paid, Cam would not be playing.

I thought Means did play at Memphis. If Cecil got money from MSU boosters, Cam should still be able to play at Auburn. Memphis = Auburn (only for purposes of this analogy of course).

[mcgufcm 4,107]

Mikey, I'll just say I think you're wrong. I don't think Cam's reinstatement would've been resolved as quickly, and quite frankly, I don't think it would've turned out the way we wanted.

Also, if Cecil had accepted money, he would've been in direct violation of SEC Bylaws, which make an athlete ineligible at all member institutions if benefits were accepted at any other member institutions. Thus, Albert Means had to play at Memphis (not in the SEC), and Auburn would've been playing an ineligible player.

The only way this case works for us is if the facts are exactly as they are in this case.

[Mikey 16,781]

Mikey, I'll just say I think you're wrong. I don't think Cam's reinstatement would've been resolved as quickly, and quite frankly, I don't think it would've turned out the way we wanted.

Also, if Cecil had accepted money, he would've been in direct violation of SEC Bylaws, which make an athlete ineligible at all member institutions if benefits were accepted at any other member institutions. Thus, Albert Means had to play at Memphis (not in the SEC), and Auburn would've been playing an ineligible player.

The only way this case works for us is if the facts are exactly as they are in this case.

I knew if I kept at this long enough I'd be wrong about something. Forgot about the SEC rule. You got me!