Comments on: Can You Blame Cam Newton?

By: Brad

Brad — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:49:34 +0000

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…

By: BL

BL — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:43:25 +0000

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.

By: Will King

Will King — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 01:14:40 +0000

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.

By: Tom Reale

Tom Reale — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:41:02 +0000

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?