Like all arbiters of power, the NCAA is used to being raked over the coals as a matter of course. But bureaucrats are people, too, and the latest barrage of criticism that rained down on the entire organization last week for its decision to suspend five Ohio State players for the first five games of 2011 – while somehow still allowing them to play in the Sugar Bowl next week – apparently hit a little close to home.Specifically, the NCAA wasn't pleased with comparisons between its decision to suspend Ohio State players less than a month after clearing Auburn quarterback Cam Newton to play in the SEC and BCS championship games and claim the Heisman Trophy, despite its finding that Newton's father and a third party "worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment" to Mississippi State. In the NCAA's eyes, these cases are nothing alike, and it issued an unusually blunt statement today to demonstrate why:
While efforts are being championed by NCAA President Mark Emmert to further clarify and strengthen recruiting and amateurism rules when benefits or money are solicited (but not received), current NCAA rules would be violated and students declared ineligible should a parent or third party receive benefits or money, regardless of the student's knowledge.
Put simply, had Cam Newton's father or a third party actually received money or benefits for his recruitment, Cam Newton would have been declared ineligible regardless of his lack of knowledge.
[…]
… the notion that the NCAA is selective with its eligibility decisions and rules enforcement is another myth with no basis in fact. Money is not a motivator or factor as to why one school would get a particular decision versus another. Any insinuation that revenue from bowl games in particular would influence NCAA decisions is absurd, because schools and conferences receive that revenue, not the NCAA.
That's a long way from the usual aloofness of "Student Athlete A" and "Student Athlete B." But to recap: Reggie Bush? Received improper benefits. A.J. Green? Received improper benefits. Marcell Dareus? Received improper benefits. Marvin Austin? Received improper benefits. Terrelle Pryor, Dan Herron, DeVier Posey and Mike Adams? Received improper benefits.
Cam Newton? According to the NCAA, there's no evidence of improper benefits. Nor (again, according to the NCAA) can they connect anything to his father. If you assume otherwise, its investigators would probably be very interested in the evidence in your possession.
Otherwise, the "benefits" part of the equation is pretty straightforward. The ongoing hangup, though, is why asking doesn't qualify for the equivalent of a conspiracy charge.
Based on the standard articulated here (and in the initial release on Newton's eligibility, in murkier terms), there are one of three ways to be declared ineligible re: improper benefits: a) Accept the benefits; b) Ask for benefits with your kid's knowledge, even if you don't receive anything; or c) Ask for benefits, then send your kid to the school you solicited, whether or not anyone received anything or the kid knows anything.
It's possible that the Newtons are the first case the NCAA has ever encountered that managed to slip through all three layers of that net, according to the official ruling: No benefits, no knowledge, kid went somewhere else. (If dad's only askin', well, alright. Just keep him at arm's length so he can't ask anymore, OK?) Depending on how well the ambitious fathers of America are able to cover the money trail, though, it's a good bet it isn't going to be the last, until that loophole is airtight and somebody finds out the hard way. Then, we'll hear some real complaints.
- - -
Matt Hinton is on Twitter: Follow him @DrSaturday.
Jeff Stanton Rex Staten James Stewart Jr Brian Stonebridge David Strijbos
No comments:
Post a Comment