The outrage was swift and, in some cases, it was venomous.
The NCAA announced Wednesday that Auburn quarterback Cam Newton “is immediately eligible to compete” after he was briefly declared ineligible by the school on Tuesday. The NCAA had determined the day before his eligibility was “stripped” by AU that “a violation of amateurism [had] occurred.” It was that violation that sent those in and around college football into a panties-bunching frenzy.
According to the NCAA’s release, and “according to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete’s father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment to attend college and play football.” Translation? The father attempted to pimp out his son’s talents. And the son was still eligible to compete, based on the fact that, as determined by the information available to NCAA investigators, neither Newton nor Auburn was aware of the sins of the father.
It was at that point that the venom was cued and the wailing and gnashing of teeth reached a fever pitch.
Recognizing the criticism that was raining down on them from all corners that don’t answer to shouts of “War Eagle!”, the NCAA released another statement this evening that served as both a defense of Wednesday’s decision and a slap at those who, in the governing body’s eyes, might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding how the process is playing out.
To the NCAA’s “credit”, they recognize that there’s the perception out there that a significant and logic-defying loophole has been exposed raw for any and all to take advantage of -- solicit money in exchange for athletic talent, deny that said talent had any knowledge of the solicitation, talent remains eligible while the solicitor is slapped on the wrist by the program or programs. In his statement, NCAA president Mark Emmert acknowledged the outrage and professed determination in closing the loophole this situation has exposed.“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.”The NCAA in their statement made it clear that there is a difference in a player’s eligibility and a university being responsible for rules violations, and appears to intimate that people are confusing, among others, the resolution of the USC case involving Reggie Bush with an eligibility decision related to a case that’s still active and open.
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.It was also reiterated in the NCAA’s latest release that, based on the facts at the disposal of the NCAA at this time, there is no “sufficient evidence” that Newton knew what the NCAA had determined his father was involved in.
The bottom line in all of this at this time? Cam Newton is eligible, and the NCAA investigation is still open, active and ongoing. Oh, and Auburn had better hope and pray that lack of “sufficient evidence” remains the status quo. Can’t forget that, what with the probe still ongoing and all.