We are talking about college students. Recruited football players are 17 or 18. In the case of transfers like Cam Newton, they are 18, 19, or 20. Newton was 20 during the time Mississippi State, Auburn, and others were recruiting him last fall.
When Cecil Newton, Cam’s father, requested money in exchange for sending his son to a certain school, he, according to NCAA rules, compromised Cam’s eligibility. According to the technicalities of the rules, whether or not Cam knew what his father was doing is irrelevant to the issue of his eligibility. Frankly, it shouldn’t be relevant. What say does a teenager or 20-year old have over what his/her parents do? Did you govern your parents’ actions when you were that age? Do you govern your parents’ actions now?
Do people actually expect Cam Newton or any other athlete—any other person of that age, for that matter—to stop a parent from breaking a rule? “No mother, no father, do not do that. It is wrong and unfair.” People in the media are actually judging Cam Newton guilty for his inability to speak those sentences to his father and keep his parent from breaking a rule.
In truth, that last point is irrelevant too. According to the rule, once Cecil Newton asked for money, Cam’s eligibility was already compromised. Cam stepping to his father and demanding that he follow all the rules to the full letter would be—again, according to the rule—too little, too late. By that point, the rule was already broken and Cam Newton’s eligibility was already compromised.
It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about an NCAA rule here. No law was broken by Cecil Newton asking for money. It is also important to recognize that, as far as anybody knows right now, no money was actually exchanged. Cecil Newton asked for money from Mississippi State. There are no allegations or accusations that he sought money from any other school. Cam Newton did not go to Mississippi State. The man went to Auburn. In short, no transaction has been made—as far as anybody knows.
Let me ask another question: did your parents tell you everything they were doing? Of course they didn’t. Your parents even kept things that are 100% about you from you. They still do. Yet, the mass media seems to be certain that Cam Newton had to know. Why? What reason would he have to know? Why would Cecil Newton tell his son? If you were doing something against the rules, would you tell your child? If you would, I have little to no respect for your intellect.
David Whitley of Fanhouse wrote, “Only a semi-complete moron could be oblivious to a father like Cecil Newton treating him like an eBay item.” I don’t know. Although I doubt it, this could be a generational or cultural thing. In my house, my parents told me nothing of their plans or financial affairs. I was neither consulted nor notified before we moved; they would just come to me one day and tell me it was time to start packing. I didn’t know ahead of time when they were buying a new car. I have no idea how much money my parents ever earned at their jobs, paid for a car, paid for a house, paid for a vacation, or anything else. It was their money, not mine. It was none of my business. Whatever money Cecil Newton did or did not receive from a college was his, not Cam’s. What reason would Cecil Newton ever have to say anything to his son? And to think that he couldn’t have done all this without his son knowing is akin to calling the man an idiot. Even if Cecil and Cam had lived in the same house, it would be easy for the son to be completely left out of the loop. But let us not forget that the two men did not live together last school year. Cecil was home in Georgia while Cam attended junior college in Texas.
What I also fail to understand is what difference it makes whether Cam knew or not. Say, for instance, that he knew his father’s doings. What exactly was the kid supposed to do? Realistically, what was Cam Newton supposed to do? Was he supposed to call up the NCAA and tattle on his father? Would it really be the right thing for him to bring to light the compromising of his collegiate eligibility? The results of that would have been denying himself an opportunity at a college education—if that happens to be important to him—creating discord in his home, and showing his parents that they cannot trust him. Would that have been the right thing? You wanted him to do that? When not a single law was broken?
In what world do teenagers do this to their parents? In what world to teenagers get anywhere telling their parents what to do? What planet are these people from? I’m from earth, and it doesn’t work that way here.
Taking all of this into account, why would anyone concentrate on whether or not Cam Newton knew what his father was doing?
My issue with the NCAA’s ruling in the Cam Newton case is a little different from the mass media’s. The NCAA reinstated Newton’s eligibility because their current evidence does not show that the player had any knowledge of his father’s seeking money. I believe the athlete’s knowledge of a parent’s rule breaking should have no bearing on whether or not he/she is ruled eligible to play. It makes more sense to me if eligibility is determined by whether or not the player received a benefit.
When a parent, guardian, or anyone else associated with a student-athlete shakes down a coach or booster for money, cars, jobs, houses, and/or other illicit benefits, he/she is acting in his/her own interests. Remember in He Got Game when Jesus Shuttlesworth’s uncle stated his demands for a piece of the pie? What about Blue Chips when Ricky Roe’s father wanted a new tractor. In neither case was there any compensation for the athlete himself.
When the rumors first started regarding Cecil Newton attempting to sell his son’s services, the media jumped on the fact that Cecil Newton’s church was in trouble with the local municipal government. The building faced demolition unless a large number of repairs were made. Most people, including me, believe that Cam Newton went to Auburn because the Alabama school offered more money than did Mississippi State. Yet, there is no car, no new house, no new job, no jewelry—just a church in need of money. Even if we go with the assumption that Auburn paid the Newtons, what benefit did this money provide to Cam?
How can we, as a society, even remotely justify punishing these kids for things that the adults in their lives do? We can’t. Yet, we’re punishing them anyway. Even worse, we’re raging when these kids are not punished.
In justifying the NCAA’s decision to let Cam Newton play, SEC commissioner Mike Slive said, “We must consider the young person’s responsibility.” Whitley’s response to that statement was, “Since when?” The other columnists wrote similar things. The majority of the American sports media feels the same way:
Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN:Staples also wrote that Southern California tailback Dillon Baxter, “should be furious.” USC held Baxter out of a game after Baxter was caught catching a golf cart ride onto campus from a classmate who is also a registered agent. The cases of Newton and Baxter are only similar in that they involve current college football players. The scenarios are entirely different.
Huh? Did the NCAA do what I think it did? Did it basically rule that a father and a third party can actively, brazenly and with impunity shop a player around for hundreds of thousands of dollars—and the worst thing that happens is the father has to lie low and the third party has to disassociate himself from the programs in question?
Did it just get embarrassed by a rules loophole the size of Jordan-Hare Stadium, the gist of it being: Your old man and another guy can put you on the open market, but as long as you don't know about it, you're good to strap it up for the next big game?
The answers: yes and yes.
Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports quotes Sonny Vaccaro:
The NCAA just gave cover to every middle man in the country. The kids never know. In all my years, I've never heard of a kid being involved in the negotiation. You think they ask? Of course not. Their mom asks. Their coach asks. Their cousin asks. This is crazy.
Kalani Simpson of Fox Sports:
I was probably the last guy outside of the state of Alabama to give Cam Newton the benefit of the doubt that maybe he wasn’t being shopped around for cash. But apparently the NCAA is really, really, really giving the benefit of the doubt—yeah, he was being shopped around for cash. But the kid didn’t know about it, so he’s clean.
Thayer Evans, also of Fox Sports quoted an unnamed college football coach:
What they’re saying is as long as the kid has nothing to do with the solicitation then you’re OK. It's a joke, man. This blows everything wide open. Now, it really becomes the haves and the have-nots. It'll be everybody doing the SEC money thing, but all across the country. Here we go. Get ready. With all this, how can they possibly give that kid the Heisman Trophy after we got embarrassed with Reggie Bush? This is just a farce.
Andy Staples wrote of CNNSI.com:
…by doing the right thing based on the available evidence, the NCAA has opened a gaping loophole in its own enforcement process. Any player who is for sale during his recruitment now may shift blame to a parent, an uncle or a crooked family friend and say, “Well, you let Cam Newton play.”
As stupid as Baxter’s suspension was, he actually received what is considered a benefit. To this day, we still see no benefit that Cam Newton received or was set up to receive. Had a car come into his possession, we would have found out about it by now. We would also know about any other tangible benefit he would have received. If he received cash, where did it go? We all know college students aren’t good at holding onto money. Besides, what use would there be for Cam to receive money if he was just going to save it? This doesn’t make any sense at all.
Whatever happened between Cecil Newton and Mississippi State, Auburn, and whoever else resulted in nothing for Cam. Yet, the college football public is crying loudly for the man to be punished.
Only in America can people cry out injustice because a late teen/early twenty-something is not punished for the sins of his father. Only in America can people fill with rage when a college student who has received nothing goes unpunished when the adults around him try to make a buck.
But comparing it to a slave system would make me the bad guy.
No comments:
Post a Comment