gport_tennis;634677 wrote:I don't think this title will be stripped because auburn ruled cam ineligible, then the ncaa said he was eligible. Wouldn't make sense for the ncaa to strip the title when they overturned his ineligible ruling
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
#1- Nothing the NCAA does makes sense. They rule on inconsistency and make decisions based on THEIR best interests, not in the interests of the schools, athletes, or sports themselves. The NCAA's biggest worry is the NCAA, and they will ALWAYS look out for #1.
#2- The NCAA ruled Cam Newton eligible because they 'couldn't find any evidence linking him to the Cecil Newton pay-for-play scheme' and, at the time, had not found any evidence linking Auburn to it either. That's their story. The real reason is probably because they knew, without Cam Newton, the BCSNG would be a dud that no would watch and they would lose money without him on that field. Refer to point 1. Just as they did with Terrelle Pryor and the rest of the OSU 5, it was in the best interest of the NCAA for Cam Newton to play. So he did.
sportswizuhrd;635188 wrote:+1.. They cant tell them that he is eligible and then punish them for playing him. UNLESS Auburn was supposed to declare him ineligible again and check back in with the NCAA to see if he is eligible.
He was ruled eligible
at the time because no evidence had been found linking him to his father's little pay-for-play scheme. If evidence is found in the future linking him to this, I think he could still be declared retroactively ineligible.
I have my doubts that this happens but, if it does, I think the punishment Auburn gets will be worse than USC. This situation is either going to be quietly swept under the rug and forgotten about or the NCAA is going to be in the middle of an investigation that goes far beyond Cecil Newton's pay-for-play scheme. Basically, Auburn's getting off scot-free or they're going to be in a boat load of trouble. I don't think there's a middle ground here.
