What I hate most about the Cam Newton situation

[slh1234]

At this point, none of us really knows anything. Forget the inuendo, accusations, cognitive bias, posters with "inside sources" <wink wink> and all those people who just "know" things. The bottom line is, none of us really knows anything. It's all just rumor and progression of the gossip game.

It may turn out at some point that Cam is found to have participated in wrongdoing, but in the meantime, we're just left with stories which grow with every telling by someone who hates Auburn.

It's progressing now to influence Heisman votes and possibly other voters, and this is what bothers me. The Heisman voters and other awards voters know nothing more than we do, but some want to change their votes on allegations.

Think of where this goes. In the future, this becomes mudslinging politics for every kid with Heisman hopes because some awards voters have shown the willingness to change their votes due to (yet unproven) allegations. You can almost guarantee that someone supporting one candidate in the Heisman (or other) award is going to start slinging mud at challengers for an award, and with the way the media works, it will take off.

If it turns out later that there is nothing to the allegations, then it no longer matters - the award has already been awarded, and it is completely unfair. I hate the whole situation.

And for those loving it because it is Auburn suffering through it right now, just wait ... it will be pointed at OU at some point in the future when OU has another Heisman candidate.

My thought is that the voters should vote on the play on the field and forget the allegations. After the investigations are complete, if wrongdoing is found, then declare him ineligible and take the trophy. But definitely don't change votes because of allegations.

[fadada1]

i get what you're saying, but if father and son weren't IDIOTS, there would be no question.

i find it hard to be sympathetic in situations like this. you know it's against the rules, but you continued to pursue it anyway. sad thing is they learned nothing from reggie bush, and someone in the future will learn nothing from cam newton.

futhermore, to use a cliche - where there's smoke, there's fire. while they may just be "allegations", they certainly didn't come out of nowhere.

[slh1234]

futhermore, to use a cliche - where there's smoke, there's fire. while they may just be "allegations", they certainly didn't come out of nowhere.

That's what every mudslinging politician hopes people will think. You illustrate my point exactly and it only took you one paragraph after saying you got what I was saying.

[fadada1]

That's what every mudslinging politician hopes people will think. You illustrate my point exactly and it only took you one paragraph after saying you got what I was saying.

clearly, i'm a lemming just waiting my turn to jump off the cliff.;)

[LiveLaughLove]

I hate that OU tried to recruit him. I hare that we are tied however remotely to him. He's bad news just for stealing from his own roommate.

Easy for me to second guess going after him. I just hate that we did.

[tcrb]

That's what every mudslinging politician hopes people will think. You illustrate my point exactly and it only took you one paragraph after saying you got what I was saying.

You are a bit naive.

[slh1234]

You are a bit naive.

Really? Enlighten me.

I usually find those one line barbs to be a way for someone to disagree when they can't really form a solid argument for why they disagree. If you're not doing that, then tell me and let's talke about it.

[tcrb]

There were those who defended Reggie Bush until the day he gave back the statue. Solid evidence may never come to light in this case, although I suspect it will; but like Fadada said earlier, where there's smoke...

[slh1234]

There were those who defended Reggie Bush until the day he gave back the statue. Solid evidence may never come to light in this case, although I suspect it will; but like Fadada said earlier, where there's smoke...


What I'm saying is that you can't even see whether or not there is smoke at this point. Basically, you're taking someone else's word that they saw smoke. You believe what you WANT to believe at this point.

As soon as Heisman voters begin changing who they will vote for just because of allegations, then allegations are going to become a regular part of the Heisman process. It doesn't matter whether the person is guilty or not, you just have to get enough people to believe that someone else saw smoke, and you influence the Heisman race.

[tcrb]

What I'm saying is that you can't even see whether or not there is smoke at this point. You believe what you WANT to believe at this point.


This is what I was referring to earlier. If you cant see smoke at this point, you are being a bit naive IMO. But you certainly have the right to believe or not believe what you want at this point. ;)

[Scott D]

I know that it took $75k and 300 pairs of free Nikes to get some of those recruits to Boise State.

[cleller]

In college football, where there's smoke-there's usually money changing hands behind it.

Is that a one line barb?

[slh1234]

This is what I was referring to earlier. If you cant see smoke at this point, you are being a bit naive IMO. But you certainly have the right to believe or not believe what you want at this point. ;)

Because you are defining naievete as not believing that someone do what Cam Newton is accused of doing. I'm not saying that at all.

Another angle on Naievete is in thinking that nobody would ever go to much length to set that up or forward those allegations. After all, nobody ever makes up allegations in politically charged situations, right?

May not be, but the truth is, you have heard about smoke - not seen it. There is a big difference. Smoke is direct evidence, not rumor.

[slh1234]

In college football, when there's smoke-there's usually money changing hands behind it.

Is that a one line barb?

You've seen this money? You've seen evidence of this? like maybe you saw someone with no income buy a Lexus and not have car payments? Maybe there is something else you can tell us that you have seen that is direct evidence.

If not, then I say you don't see smoke ... you heard someone say there was smoke. That's my point ... people believe what they want to say, then pay attention only to the things that help them maintain that belief (IE Cognitive bias).

[fadada1]

i hope the heisman voters change/question their descision. what's worse - giving it to someone who played by the rules but is second best, or giving it to someone who will have to give it back in january?

[Scott D]

I'm telling you, I saw Kellen Moore driving a benz last week.

[cleller]

Mississippi State went running to the SEC to report something involving the recruiting. That has been confirmed. That's smoky to me.

[adoniijahsooner]

I absolutely agree with the opening poster! Stuff like this reminds me of the dark ages and some of the persecution that took place back then. Everyone is judged by an act of attainder, and the mob seems very well pleased by this.

[slh1234]

Let me clarify: I am not defending Cam Newton, and I'm not piling on him, either. I'm saying I recognize that wrongful accusations DO occur, and especially when it gives someone else a political advantage. That's exactly the direction the Heisman race is now taking, and other awards will follow.

All the talk of smoke is nothing but someone seeing what they want to see at this point.

[Scott D]

I'm telling you....Kellen Moore...Brand New Mercedes Benz...why does ESPN not care?!?!?!?!?!?!

[slh1234]

i hope the heisman voters change/question their descision. what's worse - giving it to someone who played by the rules but is second best, or giving it to someone who will have to give it back in january?

And those are the only two possibilities?

Which is worse, having to take an award away later? or taking it away pre-emptively because of "allegation" only to find later that they were trumped up and the rightful winner has no recourse?

[cleller]

Two persons connected to Mississippi State, Kenny Rogers and Bill Bell, have also said the Newtons demanded money.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5792707

[Scott D]

I demanded money from Mississippi State also, that campus is god awful.

[slh1234]

Two persons connected to Mississippi State, Kenny Rogers and Bill Bell, have also said the Newtons demanded money.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5792707

So great, let the NCAA move and declare him ineligible so long as a fair chance is given. THe worst thing is to let it be unclear and let there just be "He said ... he said ... they said" be an influencer in the voting. Fair enough?

[slh1234]

I demanded money from Mississippi State also, that campus is god awful.

I thought that when I read the earlier post about Boise State ... What would it take to get you to spend 4 years there :). (J/K for those Boise dwellers. I've been there and have to say it is a clean and nice town)

[Scott D]

Would you say that the Boise metropolitan area was clean and articulate? :D

[fadada1]

And those are the only two possibilities?

Which is worse, having to take an award away later? or taking it away pre-emptively because of "allegation" only to find later that they were trumped up and the rightful winner has no recourse?

the other possibility is having auburn win the MNC this year, only to have all their wins vacated. and then listen to auburn fans bitch and moan until 'bama claims another national championship.

[cleller]

Sorry to keep piling on reports, this is the last I promise.

Cam Newton's father has apparently admitted to discussing the possibility of under the table money- but denied taking any.

Also, his church building was in danger of being demolished for code violations, but has suddenly be able to secure funding for renovations. sources are mentioned in this story:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/516455-cam-netons-father-cecil-admits-to-asking-mississippi-state-for-pay-for-play

[Scott D]

I know you're not citing the bleacherreport for anything. That's like me citing my 12 year old neighbor on political policy.

[cleller]

They have links to stories from a TV station in Atlanta, and ESPN.

[slh1234]

Sorry to keep piling on reports, this is the last I promise.

Cam Newton's father has apparently admitted to discussing the possibility of under the table money- but denied taking any.

Also, his church building was in danger of being demolished for code violations, but has suddenly be able to secure funding for renovations. sources are mentioned in this story:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/516455-cam-netons-father-cecil-admits-to-asking-mississippi-state-for-pay-for-play

So is that legally defensible evidence you are presenting? If so, then let the process move forward. If not, then this shouldn't influence Heisman voting regardless of how many "bleacher reports" infer wrongdoing. That's what I'm saying - it can't be rumor (and bleacher report is basically just rumor).

[cleller]

Okay, this more reputable?
http://www.wsbtv.com/sports/25778803/detail.html

[Scott D]

They have links to stories from a TV station in Atlanta, and ESPN.

what you have, is someone's opinion citing information from two legitimate sources. I'm just saying I wouldn't cite the bleacher report as absolute fact, otherwise you'd have to say that any random joe's blog is just as legitimate.

[slh1234]

Okay, this more reputable?
http://www.wsbtv.com/sports/25778803/detail.html

What is the definition of "Reputable?" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reputable

Is reputable the same as "legally defensible?" If not, then it is irrelevant. (Because it is still just hearsay.)

[cleller]

I'm guessing that the Newtons feel the story is going to come out, and the best tactic now is to have Dad take the fall. This also seems like a desperate, running scared decision.
Making a donation to fix up Dad's church would seem like a slick idea to "launder" the money at first; but may be shot full of holes when its all said and done.

Just an opinion based on the hearsay swirling thru the internet.

The beauty of the whole situation, is what we think doesn't affect any of this, or the Heisman voters, etc.

[slh1234]

I'm guessing that the Newtons feel the story is going to come out, and the best tactic now is to have Dad take the fall. This also seems like a desperate, running scared decision.
Making a donation to fix up Dad's church would seem like a slick idea to "launder" the money at first; but may be shot full of holes when its all said and done.

Just an opinion based on the hearsay swirling thru the internet.

The beauty of the whole situation, is what we think doesn't affect any of this, or the Heisman voters, etc.

Ah, but my point is that it DOES affect the Heisman voters according to reports that are about as reputable as the reports about the Newton's money. That is what I think is wrong.

[cleller]

Ah, but my point is that it DOES affect the Heisman voters according to reports that are about as reputable as the reports about the Newton's money. That is what I think is wrong.

True, I concede.

If you, or any Heisman voter can gather in all this info, and still believe that Cam made his decision with no tainted influences, fine.

If I were voting, I think the totality of the circumstances makes it more likely than not that Cam has been involved in activities that should preclude his consideration for the Heisman.

[slh1234]

True, I concede.

If you, or any Heisman voter can gather in all this info, and still believe that Cam made his decision with no tainted influences, fine.

If I were voting, I think the totality of the circumstances makes it more likely than not that Cam has been involved in activities that should preclude his consideration for the Heisman.

So you think "More likely" is enough to disqualify him from consideration with no recourse? or should it be based on play on the field until he can declared ineligible?

[tcrb]

Because you are defining naievete as not believing that someone do what Cam Newton is accused of doing. I'm not saying that at all.

Another angle on Naievete is in thinking that nobody would ever go to much length to set that up or forward those allegations. After all, nobody ever makes up allegations in politically charged situations, right?

May not be, but the truth is, you have heard about smoke - not seen it. There is a big difference. Smoke is direct evidence, not rumor.

I see where you are coming from now...Where there's smoke, there's a conspiracy brewing. Thanks for clarifying.

[slh1234]

I see where you are coming from now...Where there's smoke, there's a conspiracy brewing. Thanks for clarifying.

A great message board or agument technique for when you realize you're not winning and have noplace to go. Purposefully take what the other person is saying and misinterpret it so as to miss or ignore the point. Take it to a ridiculous position and claim that is what the other person was really trying to say.

Do you have any real input, or any real direction you want to take the discussion? if so, then let's take it there instead of these types of ridiculous tactics.

[tcrb]

A great message board or agument technique for when you realize you're not winning and have noplace to go.

Pretty sure that this ^ is what you did when you shifted to the conspiracy theory argument. Nevertheless, you've misconstrued my involvement in this thread. I could care less whose theory is proven to be right in the long run. What I said is that I thought you were being naive if you dont think that there might be something fishy going on with Cam and his pappy. I still stand by that. Only time will tell which stance was correct, but you seem to want to carry on with your defense of him when there are credible sources providing the "smoke" (i.e. MSU officials).

I'm gonna watch the game now....carry on.

[cleller]

Oh well, I don't want to get into an ugly argument with each other. (slh1234)
I see your point, it would be a shame if he's not dirty and gets hurt for it.

I truly feel the guy is dirty. For me personally, feeling that he more likely than not committed these infractions is plenty of grounds to drop him from the Heisman race. He is supposed to be a student athlete.
There's enough time for this to play out some, and I trust the voters to do what's responsible.

[slh1234]

Pretty sure that this ^ is what you did when you shifted to the conspiracy theory argument. Nevertheless, you've misconstrued my involvement in this thread. I could care less whose theory is proven to be right in the long run. What I said is that I thought you were being naive if you dont think that there might be something fishy going on with Cam and his pappy. I still stand by that. Only time will tell which stance was correct, but you seem to want to carry on with your defense of him when there are credible sources providing the "smoke" (i.e. MSU officials).

I'm gonna watch the game now....carry on.

I think you've ignored my point, and even what I've said directly. I said explicitly that I am not defending Newton. I did not lay out a conspiracy theory as you claimed (you misinterpreted what I intended as an example), but I did acknowledge that mudslinging DOES occur in political situations to try to give one person an advantage. That theme did not change from my first post.

Changing Heisman votes because of this creates a political situation where this becomes the norm for the future, and I do not think it is fair for someone to irrevokably lose their chance at an award like the Heisman because of mudslinging. That is a general statement rather than any specifics on this case. That was my case from the beginning. You jumped in with the Naievete but with IMO a very naieve position yourself.

Credibility is a term that depends heavily on opinion, and what position you take. That is not the same thing as a legally defensible position. My stated position several times is that if there is wrongdoing, then let the officials take action and declare him ineligible. Until they do that, we have rumor, and I don't think anyone's once in a lifetime opportunity should be taken away by rumor.

[slh1234]

Oh well, I don't want to get into an ugly argument with each other. (slh1234)
I see your point, it would be a shame if he's not dirty and gets hurt for it.

I truly feel the guy is dirty. For me personally, feeling that he more likely than not committed these infractions is plenty of grounds to drop him from the Heisman race. He is supposed to be a student athlete.
There's enough time for this to play out some, and I trust the voters to do what's responsible.

I don't think a discussion on points of discussion is ugly, but if that's where you want to leave it, then that's fine. :) cheers.

[cleller]

At least we don't have to decide whether to lock him in the slammer.

[cleller]

I just saw the Auburn halftime highlights. What a donnybrook. Cam looks like a Heisman player, alright.
If this issue isn't cleared up before the voting, the arguments back and forth will really get heated.
Broyles and Georgia's A.J. Green look pretty darn good too, though.

[tcrb]

Changing Heisman votes because of this creates a political situation where this becomes the norm for the future, and I do not think it is fair for someone to irrevokably lose their chance at an award like the Heisman because of mudslinging.

I don't think anyone's once in a lifetime opportunity should be taken away by rumor.

So, based on your statements above, is it safe to assume that you are OK with the fact that Reggie Bush received the award, was later proven to be ineligible, and the second place player in the Heisman voting had his "once in a lifetime opportunity" taken away because usc was able to subdue the smoke and mudslinging?

Cam is not the only one that may lose his once in a lifetime opportunity, but he is the only one who [at this time] has mud on his reputation. There's no doubt in my mind that he is this year's best player and thus far deserves the award based on his play. But it would suck for the 2010 Heisman to be vacated down the road. There's no one slinging mud as you say. The sources of the so-called smoke are credible.

[slh1234]

So, based on your statements above, is it safe to assume that you are OK with the fact that Reggie Bush received the award, was later proven to be ineligible, and the second place player in the Heisman voting had his "once in a lifetime opportunity" taken away because usc was able to subdue the smoke and mudslinging?

Cam is not the only one that may lose his once in a lifetime opportunity, but he is the only one who [at this time] has mud on his reputation. There's no doubt in my mind that he is this year's best player and thus far deserves the award based on his play. But it would suck for the 2010 Heisman to be vacated down the road. There's no one slinging mud as you say. The sources of the so-called smoke are credible.

If they are credible, then let the process with the NCAA and SEC move forward. I think the Heisman committee should have a process in place that if he is later ruled ineligible, then it should be taken away at that point and awarded to someone else. Still, crediblity is totally subjective in this case.

There are other cases where huge deals have been made later to find out they were in error. Duke LaCarosse is one that comes to mind. (Go ahead and take this somewhere it was never intended to go ... the point is the court of public opinion is often wrong, and "Credible" doesn't always prove correct.)

[tcrb]

I I think the Heisman committee should have a process in place that if he is later ruled ineligible, then it should be taken away at that point and awarded to someone else.

Problem is, an ineligible player that is included in the voting skews the results. That's why they have to leave it vacant.

The Heisman award has its foundation in the court of public opinion, so I dont have a problem if it interferes with Cam's once in a lifetime opportunity. He and his daddy should have considered that back when he was in possession of stolen property and when daddy was soliciting funds. Life is all about choices and consequences.

[slh1234]

Problem is, an ineligible player that is included in the voting skews the results. That's why they have to leave it vacant.

The Heisman award has its foundation in the court of public opinion, so I dont have a problem if it interferes with Cam's once in a lifetime opportunity. He and his daddy should have considered that back when he was in possession of stolen property and when daddy was soliciting funds. Life is all about choices and consequences.

And I guess that making oneself a juror without hearing evidence other than what is currently flying around the airwaves is where my problem lies. It seems that your mind is already made up, so no possibility exists in your mind that a Duke LaCrosse situation could occur (where should they have "thought about that?")

Other contests have a process in place for replacement of the winner if something happens that makes the winner vacate the title. I think the Heisman has to learn from Reggie Bush and put such a process in place. That may be a process of the second place vote getter getting it, or it may be a process of a second vote - I wouldn't have a real problem with either one so long as it is clearly defined.

I have to think your opinion might be a little different if it was your "once in a lifetime" opportunity, though. Would it?

[slh1234]

That's all the time I can devote to the discussion today. Thanks for the engagement on the topic.

[tcrb]

And I guess that making oneself a juror without hearing evidence other than what is currently flying around the airwaves is where my problem lies. It seems that your mind is already made up, so no possibility exists in your mind that a Duke LaCrosse situation could occur (where should they have "thought about that?")

Other contests have a process in place for replacement of the winner if something happens that makes the winner vacate the title. I think the Heisman has to learn from Reggie Bush and put such a process in place. That may be a process of the second place vote getter getting it, or it may be a process of a second vote - I wouldn't have a real problem with either one so long as it is clearly defined.

I have to think your opinion might be a little different if it was your "once in a lifetime" opportunity, though. Would it?

I said nothing about myself being a juror....I dont vote in the Heisman race. But if I did, I would be paying very close attention to where this thing goes. I certainly wouldn't ignore the smoke and naively cast my ballot and hope that nothing comes to light later to make me regret the way I voted. I'd rather cast my vote for a player who I am certain is eligible than to cast it with my fingers crossed.

And if I were the one with the once in a lifetime opportunity, if I were clean, I'd immediately come forward and say so. (Cam has kept strangely quiet on the matter, similar to Reggie Bush) And If I was guilty, I'd be thinking "Damn, I guess I fooked up".

Like I said earlier, this isn't a case of mudslinging. The accusers are credible sources, and it's pretty clear that no one is making this sh*t up, or the NCAA and the FBI wouldn't be involved. You can believe what you choose to believe. I really have nothing more to say about it. All I said from the outset of joining this thread was where there's smoke there's usually fire, and anyone who wants to ignore that age-old adage is, IMO being extremely naive. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[PDXsooner]

i hope the heisman voters change/question their descision. what's worse - giving it to someone who played by the rules but is second best, or giving it to someone who will have to give it back in january?

Well, LaMichael James is the "runner up" at this point...wait a minute! He was involved with assaulting his girlfriend last year, throw him out.

Might as well vote for the number three guy...

[tcrb]

Well, LaMichael James is the "runner up" at this point...wait a minute! He was involved with assaulting his girlfriend last year, throw him out.

Might as well vote for the number three guy...

Not sure that this affects his eligibility. ;)

[fadada1]

Well, LaMichael James is the "runner up" at this point...wait a minute! He was involved with assaulting his girlfriend last year, throw him out.

Might as well vote for the number three guy...
how many games did OU vacate because of charles thompson?

tcrb said it right - it doesn't influence eligibility.

shows he a dumbass, but not not according to the NCAA.

[Scott D]

I don't know why you people keep focusing on Newton....we need to follow this paper trail from California to Boise....something fishy there.

[tcrb]

I don't know why you people keep focusing on Newton....we need to follow this paper trail from California to Boise....something fishy there.

I'm in. Let's see where it goes.

[slh1234]

So how about this: Instead of voting just for 1, the Heisman voters were able to vote 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Then, they can vote for field play and people don't have to worry so much about whether they see smoke, or just hear someone talking about smoke. If it takes longer for the NCAA to sort things out, and the trophy has already been awarded, then the votes for that person can be eliminated and the other votes moved up so we don't have to worry about how that person's votes would have been distributed among the other runners up.

I think that would be an equitable solution, and people wouldn't have to resort to whether the FBI or someone else is involved before they've had a chance to finish.

Call me naieve if you want, but that street goes both ways. Ignoring the possibility of using allegations to skew a vote is also naieve.

[slh1234]

I said nothing about myself being a juror....I dont vote in the Heisman race. But if I did, I would be paying very close attention to where this thing goes. I certainly wouldn't ignore the smoke and naively cast my ballot and hope that nothing comes to light later to make me regret the way I voted. I'd rather cast my vote for a player who I am certain is eligible than to cast it with my fingers crossed.

You're trying to make a distinction where one does not exist. You are making the judgement based on something other than how they played, and that's making yourself a juror in the sense that I meant it.

[tcrb]

Ignoring the possibility of using allegations to skew a vote is also naieve.

Seriously? There could be criminal penalties for making false allegations. No one in their right mind would make allegations of this nature when there was nothing to gain. MSU has nothing to gain by reporting what occurred with Cam's daddy. What you're suggesting is a conspiracy , and that just sounds a little silly IMO. Who is orchestrating it? Who is the beneficiary? Nuts.

As for your suggestion to change the voting method that's been in place for some 75 years in order to accommodate Cam's indiscretions, you should run it up the flag pole here: Link (http://www.heisman.com/contact_us.php)

[slh1234]

Seriously? There could be criminal penalties for making false allegations. No one in their right mind would make allegations of this nature when there was nothing to gain. MSU has nothing to gain by reporting what occurred with Cam's daddy. What you're suggesting is a conspiracy , and that just sounds a little silly IMO. Who is orchestrating it? Who is the beneficiary? Nuts.

As for your suggestion to change the voting method that's been in place for some 75 years in order to accommodate Cam's indiscretions, you should run it up the flag pole here: Link (http://www.heisman.com/contact_us.php)

I cannot believe this, you are STILL talking specifics about Cam Newton and ignoring the bigger picture. You're trying so hard to build a strawman and paint me as a conspiracy nut, and you're ignoring the fact that in this case or another that you are making a judgement without knowing the facts (oh! I keep forgetting, you see smoke, right?). And this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about will happen. We will have dirt digging and throwing contests as regular part of the Heisman race in the future.

Of course there are criminal penalties for making false CRIMINAL allegations. There are sometimes civil liabilities for making false civil allegations.

There are serious penalties for seeking pay for play in the NCAA, but apparently people do it. Apparently alums or possibly schools will take the chance on it. It doesn't seem to always deter it. And if boosters working at a car dealership will give no-show jobs to college players, what would keep them from the "investigation" to throw dirt in future heisman races?

What's the point of the "75 years" in that? Is it implying that it can't improve? Is there nothing the Heisman committee has to learn from recent years? Seriously?

Tell me, do you, or do you not think it would be a more fair way to proceed? And if someone is later found ineligible, would that not take the argument away that we don't know how the votes would have been counted if the now ineligible player had not been part of the balloting?

(Thank you for the link. I just started that up their flagpole.)

[wilson63]

Well..if the Newton's did take money...hope they invest it well...because although CAM is extremely talented...he may be just a marginal NFL player..so he will need to be a high draft pick. He big, fast and athletic..but everyone is in the NFL. What scheme would his talents best translate to?
Although he is much more athletic..I hope he doesn't become a Jamarkus Russell..

[tcrb]

Tell me, do you, or do you not think it would be a more fair way to proceed? And if someone is later found ineligible, would that not take the argument away that we don't know how the votes would have been counted if the now ineligible player had not been part of the balloting?

Wanna know what I think? I think there are alot of liberal minded people who think that tradition should be swept aside and the rules should be changed in order to align with their own vision of utopia. Tell me why the Heisman Trust should alter THEIR long standing tradition with regard to how they choose the recipient of THEIR award just because a couple of kids and their parents have become greedy and made stupid choices? They shouldn't! If these kids want to be considered for the honor, they need to know what it takes to remain eligible for the award and then act with the level of honor and responsibility it takes to stay eligible! And if they, or their parents, or some coach, or Uncle Joe screw it up for them, they have to learn to live with the consequences. You don't change the rules to make allowances for their faux pas. The onus is on them (and their families) to keep their noses clean so as not to send up any "smoke signals". It's called living with INTEGRITY!

Heisman Trust Mission Statement:

The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work. The Heisman Trophy Trust ensures the continuation and integrity of this award. The Trust, furthermore, has a charitable mission to support amateur athletics and to provide greater opportunities to the youth of our country. Our goal through these charitable endeavors is for the Heisman Trophy to symbolize the fostering of a sense of community responsibility and service to our youth, especially those disadvantaged or afflicted. All assets of the Trust beyond the expense of maintaining the annual presentation of the Heisman Memorial Trophy are reserved for such charitable causes. The Trustees, who all serve pro bono, are guided by a devotion to college football and are committed to community service and the valued tradition which the Trophy represents.

Now, I'm through discussing it with you. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, and they're obviously different. G'nite!

[slh1234]

Wanna know what I think? I think there are alot of liberal minded people who think that tradition should be swept aside and the rules should be changed in order to align with their own vision of utopia. Tell me why the Heisman Trust should alter THEIR long standing tradition with regard to how they choose the recipient of THEIR award just because a couple of kids and their parents have become greedy and made stupid choices? They shouldn't! If these kids want to be considered for the honor, they need to know what it takes to remain eligible for the award and then act with the level of honor and responsibility it takes to stay eligible! And if they, or their parents, or some coach, or Uncle Joe screw it up for them, they have to learn to live with the consequences. You don't change the rules to make allowances for their faux pas. The onus is on them (and their families) to keep their noses clean so as not to send up any "smoke signals". It's called living with INTEGRITY!

Heisman Trust Mission Statement:

The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work. The Heisman Trophy Trust ensures the continuation and integrity of this award. The Trust, furthermore, has a charitable mission to support amateur athletics and to provide greater opportunities to the youth of our country. Our goal through these charitable endeavors is for the Heisman Trophy to symbolize the fostering of a sense of community responsibility and service to our youth, especially those disadvantaged or afflicted. All assets of the Trust beyond the expense of maintaining the annual presentation of the Heisman Memorial Trophy are reserved for such charitable causes. The Trustees, who all serve pro bono, are guided by a devotion to college football and are committed to community service and the valued tradition which the Trophy represents.

Now, I'm through discussing it with you. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, and they're obviously different. G'nite!

I'm not quite through, though. (I'm almost ready to lay money you aren't either. I'm waiting with baited breath to see if you respond or not :) ).

First, I'm not a liberal. However; I notice that you try very hard to define me as one type or another that allows you to quickly disregard me without actually considering the argument.

If that's your opinion on the Heisman, then that's fine. However; the world today is different from what it was 75 years ago. The culture around sports is different. If tradition were unchangable, then we would still be tribal, and democratic practices would still be unheard of (It all depends on where you want to freeze change and call things "right").

I think at this point, the Heisman trust really needs to consider some of their practices to deal with some of the realities of the modern sports culture. Innovation is a part of our world and those who refuse to innovate get left behind in other parts of our world. Why would the Heisman trust not consider change as the culture changes?

I don't see how what I proposed compromizes their charter or emphasis on integrity. I do think their practices need to adapt a bit to make sure it does that, instead of making itself subject to unsavory political processes.

[BajaOklahoma]

Heisman Trust Mission Statement:

The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work. The Heisman Trophy Trust ensures the continuation and integrity of this award. The Trust, furthermore, has a charitable mission to support amateur athletics and to provide greater opportunities to the youth of our country. Our goal through these charitable endeavors is for the Heisman Trophy to symbolize the fostering of a sense of community responsibility and service to our youth, especially those disadvantaged or afflicted. All assets of the Trust beyond the expense of maintaining the annual presentation of the Heisman Memorial Trophy are reserved for such charitable causes. The Trustees, who all serve pro bono, are guided by a devotion to college football and are committed to community service and the valued tradition which the Trophy represents.

So Cam is already out if the leaked info on his cheating on class work is true - integrity issue. While the Universities can't legally comment, the student whose paper was claimed by Cam certainly could. Or is that back to heresay since the Professor can't legally talk about it either?
It's a pattern that has to be concerning.

And I do think that beating up your girlfriend should disqualify you as a candidate - poor role model. Life is full of choices and when you make a poor choice there are consequences.