<p>^ There is a difference between the two cases. </p>
<p>Unlike Newton, the Bush case did not involve any payments to (or promises to pay) Bush or his family by USC or any other college football program. The offending payments/benefits came from an outside, third party; an independent sports agent who enriched Bush’s parents at their residence 2 hours south in San Diego. Further, the allegation that USC <em>knew</em> anything about the payments/benefits is based on extremely weak to non-exsitent evidence, including merely that USC <em>should</em> have known about it. USC is appealing this finding.</p>
<p>In my mind, it is more egregious that Newton’s proposed payments were to come directly from the universit(ies?) his father was negotiating with, and the idea that Newton (and possibly Auburn) had no knowledge of his father’s panderings is not credible.</p>
<p>At this point, the conclusions you list are the NCAA’s findings, they are not facts established by a court of law. I’d say the facts in both cases are still in dispute.</p>
<p>*But we don’t know if he actually did anything yet. He probably did, given that his father did break some violations, but Newton himself has not broken any rules as far as we know. *</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter whether Cam knew or not. the rules do not allow for relatives to take money, but the student doesn’t know so it’s kosher.</p>
<p>Re…Cam knowing…</p>
<p>There’s arguments that support each way…Cecil may not have told his son to prevent his son from accidentally spilling the beans after having a couple of beers, and/or to prevent his son for asking for a share of the money. </p>
<p>But, then there’s the argument that Cam had to know because here was this “almost 21 year old” kid allowing his dad to choose the college that he was going to play for. Very odd!!!</p>
<p>However, the scuttlebutt is that an Auburn booster paid the contractor who remodeled Cecil’s broken down church building. </p>
<p>And…yes…I do think that the NCAA (and maybe the SEC) wanted the truth to come out later because so much money is being made in the meantime. </p>
<p>Or…maybe hard evidence isn’t “there” yet, so they needed to let Auburn proceed with Newton with the knowledge that penalties can be handed down later.</p>
<p>However, no matter what, I really doubt that Cam will be at Auburn next semester. I think that after the BCS bowl game he will announce that he’s going pro. So, in a rather rare situation, a student will have only gone to a school for a very short time, but cause major long-lasting problems for it. </p>
<p>It will be interesting what the penalties will be? 3 year ban of bowl games? Loss of scholarships? More?</p>
<p>*The scandal involves Cecil Newton and Mississippi State, not Auburn. There are no new cars, new house, etc. No money exchanged hands. Auburn has been cleared as has Cam Newton. </p>
<p>*</p>
<p>where did you get the idea that Auburn has been declared “not guilty”??? Not so.</p>
<p>Cecil Newton has been shown to be a liar. When the story first broke, he claimed complete innocence and claimed that the agent must have been acting on his own. When evidence proved Cecil to be the liar that he is, all of the sudden the story became…yes, Cecil did this, but Cam knew nothing. </p>
<p>The NCAA already has rules in place that declare an athlete ineligible when relatives financially benefit…even if the student had no idea. </p>
<p>I do think that the NCAA did want a SEC team in the BCS bowl. A Oregon v TCU game would not have netted the same amount of money.</p>
<p>just look at the dates of the bowl games involving SEC teams…they have the good dates and times. Money, money, money.</p>
<p>In my mind (and clearly the NCAA’s) it’s more egregious when the proposed payments, um, actually happen. Kind of like how it’s more egregious to kill someone than to want to kill someone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t really expect the NCAA to rule based on something other than its findings. Ludicrous as the idea that Cam didn’t know may be, without evidence linking him to it they’re in a tough spot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, Reggie Bush paid a lot of money to make sure no facts were established in courts of law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Definitely. In the long run it’s likely that something will come out about Auburn paying Newton, and maybe they’ll find many other problems, as happened at USC. Then Auburn will get hit hard.</p>
<p>I was talking about the NCAA wanting a SEC team in the BCS Championship game.</p>
<p>My later reference about the other SEC bowl games and their dates/times was just about money. The SEC is able to have contracts with certain bowl games that are played at “prime viewing times” on “prime viewing days” (such as New Years Day) because those teams bring in a huge viewership. Money, Money, Money.</p>
<p>*In my mind, it is more egregious that Newton’s proposed payments were to come directly from the universit(ies?) his father was negotiating with </p>
<p>In my mind (and clearly the NCAA’s) it’s more egregious when the proposed payments, um, actually happen. Kind of like how it’s more egregious to kill someone than to want to kill someone.
*</p>
<p>From our criminal justice system’s outlook, that is true. </p>
<p>However, NCAA doesn’t necessarily have that distinction - and the NCAA doesn’t really want to have that distinction because they want even the “attemps” to never happen. So, the penalty is severe…attempts or actuals. </p>
<p>Look at it this way…</p>
<p>Suppose Cecil Newton was promised that if Cam went to Auburn, that Cecil would receive $100k AFTER Cam’s first game for Auburn. So, Cecil decides that Cam is going to go to Auburn** instead of another school that Cam wanted to go to**. </p>
<p>Then, after Cam’s first game, the person renegs on paying Cecil for one reason or another. It doesn’t matter that Cecil never got the money. The fact is that the promise of money influenced where Cam was going to go to school.</p>
<p>Or…what if the promise was that Cecil would get the money in 2012 (after Cam would be certainly gone from Auburn). If the scheme was uncovered now, should Cam be eligible to play at Auburn because money hadn’t changed hands…yet??? NO…because the choice to play for Auburn was made under the promise of money. </p>
<p>You can see why the issue of money “actually” changing hands cannot be the deciding factor.</p>
<p>This is not a good analogy because the factual situations are different, so it is not the same as comparing murder versus attempted murder, rather it is like comparing grand theft to attempted murder for $$. Which is worse? I say the attempted murder.</p>
<p>When a university participates in the violative payments, it is certainly more egregious than when an independent third party pays the athlete and the university has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>^^Fine, though you’re still describing a situation in which a player agreed to play for money, which is, as far as evidence goes, not what happened with Newton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The person involved was a Mississippi St. booster - still a third party. Newton ended up at Auburn, so as far as the evidence goes this doesn’t have anything to do with Auburn. This is compared to a situation in which a player did receive money and was largely enabled by the school, which turned a blind eye to the many agents crawling around on campus.</p>