11/21/24
November 04, 2010
NCAA investigating the recruitment of Auburn's Cam Newton: The NCAA is investigating whether a representative of Cam Newton solicited money before the quarterback signed with Auburn. That quote is taken from this USA Today article which links to this statement from John Bond.
Misleading headline in that Michigan Daily article, as the NCAA simply added a year to the two years of probation Michigan voluntarily imposed on itself.
posted by holden at 11:44 PM on November 04, 2010
Rule #1 of college football-everyone at a major program has committed an NCAA violation somewhere.
Rule #2-it's not that big a deal.
posted by Bonkers at 05:06 AM on November 05, 2010
After some thinking-Rule #2 should read "There's nothing wrong with it, in an overall moral sense. It's just against NCAA rules.
posted by Bonkers at 09:12 AM on November 05, 2010
#2 should read there's allot wrong with it but it is part of the system. Kids or their family getting paid $100,000+ to sign with a school is not wrong? Boosters are as bad as agents. Both have no moral sense as long as their team wins. There are big problems with the NCAA rules but to say giving huge sums of money to a family to sign their kid is OK? I disagree. Nothing has been proven in this case, but if MSU said no, as alleged, then I have to believe perhaps some Auburn boosters helped save a church and a bit more to get Newton.
posted by gfinsf at 09:58 AM on November 05, 2010
Kids or their family getting paid $100,000+ to sign with a school is not wrong?
Why is this morally wrong? Is it morally wrong for the New York Yankees or Washington Nationals to sign players out of high school with a signing bonus? If it is morally wrong for an athlete to be paid to play for a college team, wouldn't professional sports be just as morally wrong?
I mean, other than violating an NCAA rule.
posted by Aardhart at 12:01 PM on November 05, 2010
The moral component is that players who break NCAA rules to enrich themselves hurt their teammates, who may be stripped of their team accomplishments. They also have agreed to play football in exchange for a scholarship, many of which are worth $100,000 or more, so it's not like they are going completely uncompensated.
You can argue they should be compensated, but to suggest there's nothing wrong at all with cheating is off base. They choose to play the game the way the system is presently constituted. They know coaches and schools and broadcast networks are making money off of them.
posted by rcade at 12:07 PM on November 05, 2010
Why is this morally wrong?
So it's OK for USC to be ineligible for for bowl games for two years, but it's OK when Auburn does it?
Either change the rules or enforce them equally. To punish one team but not another is morally wrong.
posted by cjets at 12:10 PM on November 05, 2010
Well, to be fair, cjets, nothing has been proven about Auburn yet.
posted by NoMich at 12:27 PM on November 05, 2010
They choose to play the game the way the system is presently constituted.
There's really no choice involved when your only football-playing option is the NCAA. It would be nice if there were another serious option to collegiate football, at that point I might actually care if someone gets paid.
posted by tron7 at 12:28 PM on November 05, 2010
I don't think it is at all immoral for someone to cheat an entirely immoral system. The NCAA is built on exploiting young athletes with minimal compensation to make huge profits.
posted by bperk at 01:12 PM on November 05, 2010
Well, to be fair, cjets, nothing has been proven about Auburn yet.
Fair enough. But let's see the NCAA investigate with the same vigor that they did with SC.
posted by cjets at 01:54 PM on November 05, 2010
I don't think it is at all immoral for someone to cheat an entirely immoral system.
The athletes are making that system possible. If it's "entirely" immoral, why do they not bear any culpability for propping it up?
posted by rcade at 02:00 PM on November 05, 2010
rcade, I think you have some good points, but I think all of it goes to violating an NCAA rule. I asked for reasons it would be morally wrong other than violating an NCAA rule.
If the system is entirely immoral, I think we all would have some culpability. The NCAA would collapse if we stopped posting about it on SportsFilter.
posted by Aardhart at 02:05 PM on November 05, 2010
From the comments I'm reading, most seem to assume that Cam Newton has attempted to profit from his athletic ability by receiving money from MSU. There has been no such allegation, nor is there any proof of it. It might be that Kenny Rogers tried to take advantage of MSU's desire to have Newton play for them, and attempted to pull a scam. If they pay him, and he never delivers, how does MSU punish him? If they report him to the NCAA, they have just convicted themselves of a very serious recruiting violation. I say that Rogers attempted a scam without Newton's consent and it didn't work.
I do agree with most that the major athletic programs at most of the NCAA's member institutions are rife with corruption.
posted by Howard_T at 03:37 PM on November 05, 2010
The athletes are making that system possible. If it's "entirely" immoral, why do they not bear any culpability for propping it up?
I think they are the least culpable of anyone. They are whippersnappers being run by powerful people. And, they are either going to give up football altogether or submit to this corrupt system.
posted by bperk at 04:24 PM on November 05, 2010
As far as not getting compensated, is a scholarship not a qualifier for compensation?
posted by sgtcookzane at 10:49 PM on November 05, 2010
Another reason why football is one of the most interesting sports ever. The product is unbelievably good, I'd put it up against any other sport, but the league is for all intents and purposes killing it's players (the cheque is just cashed after retirement). The college game - the feeder system or minor league - is great too, and in parts of the country more popular, but completely and utterly morally bankrupt.
Such a strange game.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:30 PM on November 05, 2010
Football is a good spectator sport -- it's almost the only thing sports radio talks about here in Jacksonville -- but the massive number of TV timeouts undercut its appeal, especially in the stadium. I feel like there's a tipping point it's headed towards where the stoppages are too much for fans to embrace.
posted by rcade at 09:38 AM on November 06, 2010
In further NCAA football violation news, Michigan gets hit with a three year probation for breaking some rules.