Even as this part of CFT is technically called “The Rumor Mill”, we have been doing our best to avoid touching on vague claims made by USA Today‘s Danny Sheridan regarding information he purportedly has on Auburn’s recruitment of Cam Newton. Unfortunately, the NCAA now has an interest, which means we are interested as well.
For those who are unaware, and as a bit of background, Sheridan is, among other things, the odds setter for USA Today and a lifelong resident of Mobile, Alabama. And an unabashed Crimson Tide supporter and alumnus. Over the past couple of/few months, Sheridan has appeared on the nationally-syndicated Paul Finebaum radio show claiming he has inside information from an NCAA source on the name of the individual — the infamous “bag man” — who allegedly paid Newton’s father Cecil to ensure his son signed with Auburn.
During his last Finebaum appearance a week or so ago, and despite a buildup that led listeners to believe he would reveal the name of the Newton “bag man”, Sheridan refused to give the individual’s name out of fear that he would be sued. Or some people’s lives would be ruined. Or something. While he won’t talk publicly about any specifics out of fear of reprisal, he’s now apparently ready to sing to The Association in private.
Both Sheridan and his attorney confirmed to the Birmingham News that the NCAA called on Monday and requested an audience to discuss any relevant information he has or doesn’t have. Sheridan agreed to the request, and will talk with investigators this week.
“I let them know that if they wished to talk to me, I will talk to them on or off the record about subjects of mutual interest,” Sheridan told the News. “I have no idea if the allegations against Auburn are true. I only know that what I reported was exactly what I was told.”
As Gene Chizik is fully aware — “You’ll know when we’re finished, and we’re not finished!” — the NCAA’s investigation into the Auburn football program is still open and ongoing. NCAA president Mark Emmert said as much Tuesday during an appearance on the Dan Patrick Show, stating in very Roe Lach-like fashion that “when they’re closed, they’re closed.”
It should be noted that, while Cecil Newton admitted to soliciting payment — reportedly between $100,000 to $180,000 — from Mississippi State before his son signed with Auburn a short time later, there has been no proof that the father solicited money from AU let alone received a payment from some nefarious booster wrapped in bag man clothing. While it wouldn’t take a Beamon-esque leap in logic to assume that if Cecil Newton attempted to pry money from MSU he did the same with AU, there’s simply no proof we’re aware of that he did.
Whether Sheridan can shed any new light on the situation remains to be seen. I do know one thing: there are many an Auburn fan who hopes Sheridan is as full of it as many, many members of the national media feel he is.
It shouldn’t matter if Cameron’s dad attempted to obtain payment from Auburn. Simply soliciting money from MSU on Cameron’s behalf constituted an NCAA violation, and Cameron Newton should have been declared ineligible.
he was also recruited by kansas st. oklahoma and tennesse, no one else received solicitations. the money talk began because of a rogue recruiter for miss st. that was why cam was ruled eligible. please go away you crimson redneck sheridan.
So, let me get this straight.
Sheridan, a known University of Alabama supporter, has appeared on the nationally-syndicated Paul Finebaum, also a known University of Alabama supporter, radio show claiming he has inside information from an NCAA source on the name of the individual — the infamous “bag man”.
Then,
the NCAA called on Monday and requested an audience to discuss any relevant information he has or doesn’t have.
If Sheridan got his info from an NCAA source why does the NCAA have to speak with Sheridan. Shouldn’t they go talk to themselves, if Sheridan really got his info from them. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
I’m not saying Auburn did or didn’t pay Newton, but this is getting old and to be honest, has there been an allegation of impropriety about the Newton investigation not made by a “Bama supporter”. Everyone should let the NCAA, an unbiased organization, do their investigation. If there is proof of wrongdoing the evidence will come out. If there is no proof then drop it and get on with your lives people. Auburn has just as much right to win a National Championship as Bama does. No matter what some “Bama supporters” may believe.
burntorangehorn:
That’s where you are wrong. I’ll admit I’m an Auburn fan and completely biased, but based on the following from Lae Rach (NCAA Enforcement) on the Miami situation this is truly why Cam was ruled eligible. It really had nothing to do with what he did or didn’t know.
From the article:
If you’ve noticed a loophole the size of a Mack truck, you’re on the right track. Theoretically, a recruit could party it up during his five official visits, but as long as he didn’t sign with any of those schools, he would be in the clear.
Roe Lach admitted there could be an opening “if the student-athlete is savvy in gaming the system and being an open party to recruiting violations.” But she countered that the resulting paperwork from chasing every recruiting violation at every school wouldn’t exactly enhance the NCAA’s image.
“It almost would be a bureaucratic mess if all those violations are going to affect a prospect’s eligibility at every school,” Roe Lach said.
Here’s the shortened url link to article at CBS Sports for the above quote: http://bit.ly/oOavi5
I’m one of those who believes Cecil wouldn’t have demanded six figures from MSU, then given Cam to Auburn for free after one visit. Cam may have been recruited by other schools, but MSU was his top choice based on his prior relationship with Dan Mullen. Suddenly Auburn came out of nowhere and signed him in a snap. That just seems unlikely.
However …
Even I wouldn’t put any stock in Sheridan’s comments–and I’m a Bama fan. As I just posted on another thread, the SEC has a long history of infighting, with supporters of its schools trying to sink their rivals. If Sheridan had verifiable information, he would have released it months ago. Sounds like he’s just trying to stir the pot against Auburn and keep himself in the headlines. If anything concrete came out of his conversation with the NCAA, I’d be flabbergasted. The good news is they’re calling his bluff, so now maybe he’ll shut up.
Who is paying you and these people to keep these absolutely stupid rumors going?
I mean, my God. At what point do we just wait until something ACTUALLY COMES OUT before we start this ridiculous speculation?
What else would you have us do?
The reason the constant speculation occurs is because everyone who has half-way followed the Newton story knows in their heart and mind that he was bought. As a previous poster said, you don’t try to sell your son for $180k to his first choice school, and then send him somewhere he had almost no interest in for free all of a sudden. If you are trying to sell that narrative, you may as well spit in peoples’ faces and tell them they are idiots.
There is an obvious hole in this story. Sheridan claims to know the name of the bag man because of a source he has within the NCAA. He has stated as much in all his radio interviews. If his source for the bag man is within the NCAA then why does the NCAA need to talk to him? Danny Sheridan is likely full of it.
Regardless Cam violated SEC bylaws and should have been ineligible.
14.01.3.2 Financial Aid.
If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or ANY MEMBER OF HIS/HER FAMILY receives or AGREES TO RECEIVE, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student-athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career.
@thompgk …
You owe JT an apology. Who is paying him? Do you even read the flipping article before posting something like that? Like me, JT thinks Sheridan has ZERO credibility, and he said so. But once the NCAA (heard of them?) bring the guy in for an interview, he can’t just ignore the story. JT ripped his own beloved Ohio State and his favorite coach over a ridiculous tattoo scandal. You think he’s going to give you barners a pass on an ongoing pay-for-play investigation? Gee, you don’t want much, do you?
No, right now there is no concrete evidence that the Newtons received money from Auburn. But you would have to be brain dead to imagine they solicited six figures from their friends at MSU but gave the kid to strangers at Auburn for nothing. And Romulus, the definition of solicited is that the Newtons asked for the money. So don’t go blaming the recruiter for something Cecil confessed to doing. According to NCAA bylaws, the mere act of soliciting should have gotten him ruled ineligible. You were given a gift when he was allowed to play. As far as I’m concerned, you earned your wins on the field, but stop looking that gift horse in the mouth.
thompgk, the story won’t go away because of Cecil’s confession. He’s the guy you want to be pissed at. Don’t slur JT because Cam’s dad is a pimp. If Sheridan’s testimony reveals nothing–which I think will be the case, JT will report that, too.
Please. This guy is a joke and “Auburngate” is old. Get over it.
@Spencer
I am sure in 2009 USC fans thought 2006 reports of Reggie Bush receiving gifts were old news. It remains to be seen whether or not something will come of this. The NCAA is quite phlegmatic in taking action.
“we have been doing our best to avoid touching on vague claims made by USA Today‘s Danny Sheridan regarding information he purportedly has on Auburn’s recruitment of Cam Newton.”
However, in the case of Ohio State we’ll be happy to pass along the vague claims made by Pat Forde, Sports Illustrated, and Matt Hinton.
@yuckygeo …
CFT’s role is to pass along news and rumors from other sources flavored with the writers’ opinions. Most people recognize Sports Illustrated as a serious source for sporting news, so it would be idiotic for CFT to ignore events and issues SI is covering. Sheridan is a partisan rival who’s been spreading gossip for months and providing no sources to back it. You can’t compare the two. John has covered legitimate news on Newton, and has said he personally believes Auburn paid Newton. The guy is an OSU diehard fan, so it wasn’t fun for him to report that story. But the story was real. It happened. Tressel confessed to his wrongdoing. Stop blaming the messenger.
@yuckygeo …
One more thing … those guys at PFT slant their stories all over the place just to get page clicks. John and Ben don’t do that, which is why I defend them. Be glad Ohio State is a university and not an NFL team because CFT handled the story ethically. I can tell you from personal experience, if it were an NFL team, PFT would have eviscerated you guys based on rumors alone just to get the page hits … and they would have enjoyed it … even if OSU were their own team.
Alumnus = singular
Alumni = plural
Probably important when writing about college sports….so you don’t sound….you know….like an SEC “graduate”.
In case you need to refer to female reporters that are college graduates: Alumna = feminine form
@Deb
Where did you get the idea that I was blaming anyone other than Tressel, Pryor, or any of the other Tat 5 for the mess OSU is in?
The point of my above comment was that CFT is taking articles from “reputable” organizations at face value and passing them along, and yet questioning other sources because they allegedly have an agenda. George Dohrmann from SI and Pat Forde (and especially Matt Hinton) are no more reliable than Danny Sheridan.
I have no idea why you’re giving us all unnecessary grammar lessons, paperlions, but the SEC reference simply proves you’re an ignorant ass as well as an arrogant ass. Can’t imagine why anyone in his right mind would want to sound like such a blithering idiot.
@yuckygeo …
Umm … I don’t know a polite way to tell you you’re nuts. You actually think George Dohrmann and Danny Sheridan are from the same universe? Seriously? One is a Pulitzer Prize-winning sports journalist and investigative reporter working for probably the best sports magazine in the country. The other is an odds setter for a newspaper founded on the principle that you should be able to finish an entire article during a quick poop.
Dohrmann, Forde, and even Hinton are sports reporters. Sheridan is not. If he were, he would have reported the story months ago instead of using it as capital to get attention. This kind of muckraking is common practice in the SEC. We Southerners take our feuds to extremes. I’ll be shocked if Sheridan can actually produce anything substantive. But if he can, hey, it works for me. I’m a Bama fan.
How many middle school credits do we get for reading paperlion’s grammar lessons?
So, let me see if I can follow your, uh, logic Deb because, you know, I’m nuts – job titles and prizes make you reliable. That about it?
@yuckygeo …
Now you’re just being childish. This site is a repository for news about college football. It’s reasonable for the writers to pull material from respected news sites, from highly regarded journalists who write articles that are sourced, who’ve been working in the industry for years. And yeah, a Pulitzer Prize is a big deal. They don’t just hand them out in boxes of Cracker Jack.
On the other hand, Sheridan is an odds setter. He’s not a journalist. He doesn’t go out and dig up material. He’s an Alabama fan. He has a dog in this hunt. He wants to be the guy at the center of the Cam story. He’s not trying to uncover the news, he’s trying to be the news.
If you’re willing to admit you don’t have the IQ to understand the difference just so you can be stubborn on a football blog, fine.
Calling me childish? Questioning my IQ? I’m being “stubborn” because I don’t see things your way? Because I refuse to see Dorhmann, Forde and Hinton as some sort of paragons of journalistic integrity? I’m nuts because I’m not in awe of a Pulitzer Prize?
What’s next? Idiot?
@yuckygeo …
You’re entitled to your opinion about Dohrmann, Forde, Hinton, and Sheridan. But you can’t change what is. John’s job is to check sports news sources. Dohrmann, Forde, and Hinton are sports journalists. Sheridan is an odds setter. To argue that they’re all the same is to argue that your plumber does the same work as your electrician. If you don’t understand that reporters and odds setters are not synoymous–and that the Pulitzer is the journalism equivalent of the Heisman–yes, I’m afraid you are an idiot. So sorry.
Insults are the last refuge of those without an argument.
I wasn’t insulting you, yuckygeo. You asked if you were being an idiot, and I had to tell the truth. I hope someday you’re able to figure it all out
You’re really confused Deb.
No, I’m hanging onto my equilibrium, yucky. But I expect confusion is a perpetual state for most of the people who spend significant amounts of time with you
Haha, clever Deb, clever. The everything-you-say-bounces-off-me-and-sticks-to-you retort. I used that in the first grade too.
So … how are you enjoying second grade