Kevin Marshall's America
2011 Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton (photo credit: The Associated Press)
I’m a regular reader of Mark McGuire’s blog (which for some reason the main site still lists as “2nd and Short” even though he abandoned that name literally months ago), which I find is a consistently entertaining read and a great resource.
Today he posted a link to an article that irked me; not one that was written by him, but one that was written by TU staffer and Heisman Trophy voter Pete Dougherty.
The commentary is titled “Why I Didn’t Vote for Cam Newton.”
From the piece:
That said, Newton clearly was the best offensive player, but the saga of Reggie Bush haunts me.
Voting for the Heisman Trophy is a privilege. I’ve grown to respect all that the award represents.
When Bush forfeited the 2005 award over the summer, after the NCAA found him to have received improper benefits while at USC, it tarnished not only the trophy, but the organization.
I understand where Pete’s coming from. He seems consistent in his beliefs, and I respect the stand he’s taking.
Still, I couldn’t help but get frustrated, though it’s more in response to the reaction at large from sports journalists and fans who perpetuate the fraud of college football as an upstanding and honorable sport whose reputation is only tarnishe by players like Reggie Bush and Cam Newton.
As imperfect a human being as Newton may be, he’s still a young and impressionable kid brought up in a sports culture that convinces him he’s invincible, untouchable, and privileged. Yet he’s being demonized by journalists and pundits while the NCAA and colleges are painted as the victims.
I hate to sound uber-cynical, but the NCAA – particularly when it comes to football – is systematically corrupt and exploitive. The only difference in this instance is that the circumstances behind Cam Newton and his father’s leveraging became public, and I find it a bit dishonest – at least intellectually – to pretend that the image presented to the mainstream public at large is in fact the reality of college football.
Pontificating on the supposed smearing of college football’s integrity committed by Newton and his family is no different than all the rants about steroids in baseball that don’t even mention the NFL. You’ll find those are the same folks, none of whom seem to know how easy it is to avoid a positive test result through cycling. Or they just don’t want to know.
I don’t think the hypocrisy is intentional, and I think people who write pieces against Newton have good intentions. The problem is that it’s presented with starry-eyed whimsy and naivety that doesn’t belong in the discussion of college sports in the 21st Century.
It’s also selective outrage. I understand where Dougherty’s coming from, but if he’s so concerned about integrity in college sports, maybe we should look at all the money that schools and the NCAA as a whole makes off these young kids, most of whom will play four years and NOT go to the NFL, therefore never seeing a dollar off the fruits of their labor.
“But they get an education” will be the expected response.
Yeah, sure. They get an education where they’re allowed exceptions and coddled so as to prevent them from actually learning anything or getting valuable life experience that will serve them well off the field.
And Cam Newton is jeopardizing the integrity of college football?
Give me a break, guys.
Share it!
4 Responses to Can You Blame Cam Newton?
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
You make a number of valid points, Kevin, but I fear the comparison that Pete made with the Reggie Bush case is an overriding concern here.
The NCAA absolutely is “systematically corrupt and exploitative.” The different ways the Bush and Newton cases were handled is proof positive of that. Two very similar situations treated very differently by the NCAA – unless, down the road, it turns out that they were simply turning a blind eye to Newton in the same way they did with Bush, and merely punish him and his school later instead of now.
Football, like all sports, is a game of rules, and in the NCAA, those rules include the myriad ridiculous rules that helps the NCAA enrich itself, frequently at the expense of its student-athletes. If Newton was assisted in throwing a touchdown pass by one of his linesmen holding a pass rusher, the infraction against the rules is called, the ball is brought back, and the down is replayed – the touchdown isn’t allowed to stand.
The situation with Bush is and was ridiculous. That USC now has to deal with probation, and that Bush was essentially forced to return his Heisman, is equally ridiculous. But worse than that situation is that it has been compounded by a similar situation with Newton that the NCAA has refused to treat equally. Even if the NCAA has no qualms about that basic unfairness, that shouldn’t stop principled writers from saying that, even though it wasn’t his fault (like the lineman flagged for holding), Newton – the best player in college football – was not playing within the rules of the game as they were established by word and by precedent. That’s not fair to Newton. But like the defense that was stopped from having an opportunity to rush the passer unfairly, how fair is it to award him the Heisman over Andrew Luck, LaMichael James, and Kellen Moore, who apparently have been playing by the rules?
Looking past how the NCAA is as a governing body and looking at it as purely as I can, how could you possibly not of voted for Cam Newton?
According to the NCAA he didn’t do anything wrong so you hold back your vote “just in case” he is found in the wrong in the long run?
Just for the sake of argument lets say the majority voted like Pete Dougherty and Newton didn’t win the Heisman, but then he is found to be in the clear.
That would mean you voted for someone else that is far less deserving than Newton to win the most prestigious award in all of NCAA sports and you would have done it for no reason.
To not have voted for Cam Newton for the Heisman is ridiculous.
I don’t think that they can later find him to be in the clear. That’s the default and is based on them not being able to prove that he knew about his father’s actions. Personally I find the “plausible deniability” argument ridiculous both specifically wrt Newton and just as a general means for clearing him. In what world is a parent of a minor not a surrogate, which is the precedent now set by the NCAA. But that’s no matter. The point is, the only thing that can be altered in the future is Cam being found culpable, since he has already been found to be in clear.
I agree w/ Tom, and am proud that a fellow RPI grad, the late Myles Brand, did so much to bring attention to academics in NCAA sports when he was President, but disappointed by the inconsistency in rules and punishments that he turned a blind eye to. It is a joke that “smaller schools” generally get pounded for NCAA violations, when the “big schools,” which make most of the television & Bowl revenue, went relatively unscathed until the USC fallout. It’s always about the money…