Blog Entry

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

Posted on: July 26, 2011 5:31 pm
Edited on: July 26, 2011 5:34 pm
Posted by Jerry Hinnen

Aside from Auburn's fans and coaches, there didn't seem to be many people happy with the NCAA's decision last fall to rule Cam Newton eligible after his father Cecil Newton admitted he'd asked Mississippi State boosters for $180,000. That even goes for people who agreed with the NCAA's ruling, like president Mark Emmert, who stated plainly (as Gene Chizik will tell you) that the NCAA had no evidence to rule that Cam knew of his father's request or that the family had received benefits from anyone ... but also affirmed that "I think it's absolutely a fundamentally wrong for a father to try to sell the services of his son or daughter to the highest bidder."

And in the interests of protecting that stance, Emmerts's organization has moved towards making requests like Cecil's an eligibility-breaker in the future. An official release from the NCAA Tuesday details a proposal for an "expanded definition of agents," one that would "include third-party influences, including family members, who market student-athletes’ athletics ability or reputation for personal financial gain."

The statement reads:

The cabinet at its recent meeting in Indianapolis agreed to sponsor legislation for the 2011-12 cycle that would define agents as individuals who either directly or indirectly:

  • Represent or attempt to represent a prospective or current student-athlete in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain; or
  • Seek to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospect’s enrollment at an institution or a student-athlete’s potential earnings as a professional athlete.

The new definition would include certified contract advisors, financial advisors, marketing representatives, brand managers or anyone who is employed by or associated with such individuals.

The new definition also would apply to third parties, including family members, who shop prospects to various institutions for personal financial gain. In the past, the agent definition applied generally to third parties marketing an athlete’s skills to a professional sports team. The cabinet’s proposal expands the definition to include people marketing athletics skills to a collegiate institution for personal gain.

Under the new definition, Cecil would have been acting as Cam's "agent" and -- one would assume -- having an agent operating on his behalf (even without his consent) would have resulted in Cam's having been declared ineligible. The definition might also be broad enough to include the likes of "advisors" like Bryce Brown mentor Brian Butler (or, if certain allegations involving Oregon stick, Will Lyles.)

The proposal will be reviewed at the NCAA's 2011-2012 legislative session and could be put into effect as soon as April of next year.

If we play devil's advocate for a moment, we have to wonder if it's entirely fair to prospective athletes to pay the price in elgibility for others' actions they may have no control over. (Consider a scenario similar to the famous Albert Means case: if a high school coach goes behind a recruit's back and asks a school for money in order to push the recruit towards that school, how is that the player's fault? Would their college football career be ruined all the same?)

But all the same, Emmert is right that the attempted sales of athletes' services (whether that sale is completed or not) is "fundamentally wrong." If the NCAA believes the proposed legislation might help stamp out some of those sales pitches, it's legislation they must consider.


Since: Aug 10, 2006
Posted on: July 30, 2011 12:19 pm

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

AUTiger7788, I can understand your undying support of your program, however, there are some holes.  First, if you believe that Cam Newton had no knowledge of his father's discussions with Mr. Rogers or Miss. State or any other booster or representative, than you are dreaming.  This family has been portrayed at every point as being a very close and loving family, one in which the parents are very involved with their son. The fact that the NCAA chose to interpret this rule the way that they did is a little hard to understand.  If he was ruled ineligible, but re-instated in a matter of a couple of days, very interesting indeed.

No, you only think that because that is what the media has made you believe.  You don't know Cam, you don't know Cecil.  Cam has said he loves his father and his father loves him and they are close.  I love my father too, but I don't know all that he does.  Not saying I know what is going on.  Why are you?  Your gut?  Your gut isn't worth squat at the moment.  Auburn may be guilty.  We may have paid Cam.  But right now you know nothing more than I do.   

The fact that it was week 10 and Auburn was in contention for a trip to the National Championship game and the SEC is the most influential league oin college football, all points toward a rush to judgement and thus an error in how the whole situation was handled.  The NCAA also had clearly indicated that the issue was not finished, only that they had ruled that Cam Newton could continue playing.

It's not Auburn's fault that people chose to leak this in week 10.  The NCAA has said many times they do not comment on pending investigations.  Someone took the effort to purposely leak this to try and derail Auburn's season.  Then the media went wild with rumors and innuendo posted on blogs and messag booards.  And as we speak, Auburn is still not been sent a letter of inquiry.  Not saying that letter isn't coming, just saying that everything you have read about this case at the moment has not been confirmed.  And the bottom line is the NCAA reinstatement committee reinstated him because their hands were tied at the moment. 

Now, was there enough there for the NCAA to rule otherwise and as youo say "ruin" the Auburn season?  Well, I can not tell you what the NCAA did or did not know, only what was stated in public.  Tthe fact that they also indicated that they would continue to look into the situation tells me that there was more than what was told to the public and based on that, yes they should not have re-instated Newton after he was ruled ineligible.  He should not have played in the bowl game and neither should the Ohio State players been allowed to play in their bowl game.

No, they BELIEVED something was there and WANTED to keep investigating.  That doesn't mean anything is there.  The comittee reinstated him at the time because they had no information to work with. 

In both situations if there was enough information to rule anyone ineligible, there was enought to keep them from playing in the bowl games. The NCAA and the BCS and the bowls stood to lose lots of money if things had not gone as they did.  And the NCAA makes very little off the bowls from what I have heard, not sure if that is true. 

No, they wouldn't.  Auburn and Ohio State would have just been filled by other schools.  You telling me if the NT game was Oregon and TCU, that TCU wouldn't sell just as many tickets?  Why do you think it matters which fans butts are in the seats?

Since: Aug 10, 2006
Posted on: July 30, 2011 12:06 pm

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

Oh if Cecil said it, then it must be true. You're stupid.

He's lied 5,000 times before, but we're gonna take this one statement that suggests that he actually found some "Christian values" and that he, nor Auburn are guilty, and call it the truth. That's typical Auburn fan b.s. You'll go down with the Cam Newton ship and defend them to the death, rather than admitting there's something going on and saving yourself the embarrassment.

I guess I would too, if the only national championship my team had ever won was 60 years ago and has an asterisk beside it, and now the new one is about to follow suit.

Go back and read some of my previous posts on the Cam issue.  You are the close minded one.  Save myself the embarrassment?  What are you smoking? 

All I was saying is at the moment, we have no clue what is going on with Cam, or what happened with Cam.  My scenario is just as plausible as yours.  You are the one who will blindy show allegience to something.  The difference between you and I is I am basing my judgment on facts and waiting for the issues to come out.  You are basing yours on hope and you just want Auburn to be in trouble.  Your "gut" or "common sense" that you think you have doesn't mean squat.  Yes, Auburn may have done something here, but right now, you are just sour grapes because you don't know jack.

And if I were you I would worry about my own schools problems and shut my mouth.     

Since: Apr 22, 2009
Posted on: July 28, 2011 9:49 am

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

 The NCAA's statement said:
"Auburn University football student-athlete Cam Newton is immediately eligible to compete, according to a decision today by the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff. The NCAA concluded on Monday that a violation of amateurism rules occurred, therefore Auburn University declared the student-athlete ineligible yesterday for violations of NCAA amateurism rules."
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. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship. (THANKS AOL SPORTS)

Since: Apr 14, 2011
Posted on: July 28, 2011 1:24 am

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

I have no problem with them closing the Loophole. but there should be a way to appeal. I mean if some poor players two bit crackhead dad, he hasn't spoken to in 13 years is trying to sell him, he should be able to appeal.

Since: Aug 25, 2006
Posted on: July 27, 2011 8:47 pm

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

Too little, too late.

Since: Nov 24, 2007
Posted on: July 27, 2011 7:55 pm

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

So you had know idea what the ncaa knew but you know cam knew. hmmm pyschic sometimes, sometimes not

Since: Nov 24, 2007
Posted on: July 27, 2011 7:47 pm

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

so if a school has a top performer and other school is about to play them then they could possibly hire someone to say that they were shopping this athelete around have him suspeneded. clean it up ncaa

Since: Apr 22, 2009
Posted on: July 27, 2011 7:43 pm

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

Schools will just hire the "parent" to be a coach or work in the complaince office.  Cam HAD TO KNOW what was happening with his father, Auburn had to know because they suspended Cam for ONE day.  I see it all now, a kid has not had anything to do with dad his whole life and dad being pissed off calls a booster / school and says "My son will play for you for X amount of dollars, and the kid is declared ineligible,"  Then I see a kid telling father "see what you can do for me and I will say I did not know what was happening".    STUPID NCAA rule!  Keep AGENTS AWAY from athletes UNLESS there is a complaince officer with them.  I agent is caught speaking with a kid without a school rep, then the agent loses his creditials.

Since: Sep 6, 2006
Posted on: July 27, 2011 6:45 pm

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

I agree that this is a problem. Newton basically skated for what should have been an eligibility-killing violation. I mean, the best case scenario is Cam's dad shopped his skills for cash. Unless I'm mistaken, it's already in the NCAA bylaws somewhere that a benefit given to an athlete's immediate family member is legally the same as one given to the athlete themselves. The only reason there was no punishment for Cam Newton or Auburn is because no one could ever prove Auburn (or an Auburn booster) gave the Newtons anything.

But, this rule is sloppy. The agent definition expansion needs to apply to immediate family only. The reason the immediate family is scrutinized so much more than other acquaintences already is because it is assumed the athlete is much more likely to be aware of any improper behavior taking place in his or her own home, much more likely to have some or all the benefit quietly redirected to himself or herself, and much more likely to be able to stop it. An athlete may have no idea what a coach or mentor is doing behind his back, and shouldn't have eligibility stripped if someone like that is selfishly trying to get a profit at a kid's expense. They should instead come down hard on the adult trying to profit. But with immediate family the danger of impropriety is just too great.

Since: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: July 27, 2011 1:41 pm

NCAA moves towards closing Newton loophole

I don't like this rule.  It means that a kid with a con man for a father won't have the opportunity to transcend his upbringing by getting a college education.  Isn't that what "student-athlete" is supposedly all about?  If the parent shops the kid around without his consent, and he doesn't even know about it, how is it the kid's fault?  They need to punish the school that pays the money, not the kid who doesn't even know his parents are taking it.  

It is supposed to be a deterant to stop any of that from happening.  It should stop the kid from asking and the parent from asking and ruining the kids career.  But if they just ignore the rule that is in place it is not much of a deterant.  Also when Scam told the coach at Miss St. that the money was too good that tells me he knew.  How is that being over looked in all this?  That even gets the NCAA loophole out of this since he mentioned money which means the player knew.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or