Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Cam Newton Ruled Ineligible and then Eligible

The NCAA has ruled on the Cam Newton situation, and in doing so, continued its reputation of ridiculous rulings. According to the NCAA press release, Cam Newton was ruled ineligible on Monday because of amateurism issues, but was reinstated today. Auburn and the NCAA both agreed that Cam's father and a scouting service attempted to sell him to programs. So how was he reinstated?

Here's the NCAA press release

If the NCAA ruled that he was ineligible because of amateurism issues stemming from his family's attempts to sell him, how did that change two days later? If this ends up standing, the slippery slope has been created. Now parents will be able to try to get schools to pay for a player as long as the player can plausibly deny any knowledge of the payment plan.

Naturally, a player can be ruled permanently ineligible for taking money for education (basically a scholarship) from a European basketball team, but parents are free to attempt to get schools to pay-for-play deals as long as the athlete himself is not aware of it. Which one of these situations is more dangerous to the amateurism the NCAA is looking to protect?

The key part to me is this quote:
Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement.
The NCAA is famous for ruling someone eligible, then later finding them ineligible and causing them to vacate wins (See Derrick Rose at Memphis). It seems like the "at this time" portion of the quote is giving themselves enough room to pull off that same move.

Regardless, the NCAA has blown it again. It's time someone took them to task.

1 comment:

  1. follow the money Doe, Auburn Oregon is where the money is.