Cam Newton cleared to play by NCAA

[lmg0088]

So Cam Newton was declared ineligible on tuesday and the NCAA reinstated him on wednesday.


INDIANAPOLIS -- INDIANAPOLIS -- Auburn quarterback Cam Newton is eligible to play in the SEC title game this weekend, even though the NCAA says his father broke rules by shopping his son to another school.

The NCAA released its finding in a statement Wednesday. The college sports governing body had concluded on Monday that a violation of Newton's amateur status had occurred. Auburn declared Newton ineligible on Tuesday and requested his eligibility be reinstated.

Newton has been cleared to compete without conditions.

Auburn (No. 1 BCS, No. 2 AP) plays South Carolina (No. 19 BCS, No. 18 AP) in the Southeastern Conference championship game Saturday. With a victory, the Tigers will earn a spot in the BCS National Championship Game.

"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," said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs. "From a student-athlete reinstatement perspective, Auburn University met its obligation . . . Under this threshold, the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible."

Said Auburn athletic director Jay Jacobs: "We are pleased that the NCAA has agreed with our position that Cam Newton has been and continues to be eligible to play football at Auburn University. We appreciate the diligence and professionalism of the NCAA and its handling of this matter."


Former Mississippi State player Kenny Rogers, who has worked with a sports agent, has said Newton's father, Cecil, asked two Mississippi State coaches for up to $180,000 at a hotel in Starkville, Miss., to secure his son's commitment to the Bulldogs. Rogers says the coaches declined the request, and MSU has said all of its employees acted properly.

Rogers is scheduled to meet with officials from the Mississippi Secretary of State's office Dec. 9 to discuss the recruitment of Newton.

Rogers has a company called Elite Football Preparation, which holds camps in Alabama, Chicago and Mississippi, and matches football prospects with colleges.




I'm sure Cam and his father really learned their lesson with that punishment.:confused:

[Mad Dog Madsen]

I didn't even hear he was declared ineligible in the first place... :confused:

[badger]

Do we still have any resident opposing cocky fans left over from the CWS? If so, is there any cocky chants or catchy cocky tunes we can hum throughout the SEC championship game?

[adoniijahsooner]

The Pimping of Cameron Newton

[madillsoonerfan5353]

He broke the rules, as stated by the NCAA, and still gets to play? So why even have the rules? I guess they are saying that no money changed hands? Give Reggie Bush's stuff back? WTF?

:gary:

[Hot Rod]

Auburn quarterback Cam Newton is eligible to play in the SEC title game this weekend, even though the NCAA says his father broke rules by shopping his son to another school.

Ok

[lmg0088]

So basically the NCAA is telling parents that they can shop their kids around as long as they don't let the kid know.

[sooneraia]

So it's over? That's it?

Bogus..............................

[LASooner]

Hey... he wasn't allowed to play on Tuesday... what if they had a game on Tuesday? What would they have done? Auburn sure had to endure a lot during that long penalty. :cool:

[lmg0088]

ESPN has added more to their story.
I updated the first post.

Here is the link.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5870788

[TopDawg]

Do we still have any resident opposing cocky fans left over from the CWS? If so, is there any cocky chants or catchy cocky tunes we can hum throughout the SEC championship game?

An Alabama employee was fired this week after playing "Son of a Preacher Man" and "Take the Money and Run" during the pregame warmups of the Iron Bowl.

[adoniijahsooner]

So they keep Balogun from playing, but allow Cam to play even though they admit his father broke the rules. Do they seriously believe that Cam had no idea this was going on.

[lmg0088]

Here's another article on this from al.com


The NCAA has ruled Auburn quarterback Cam Newton is eligible to compete after looking into his recruitment at Auburn and Mississippi State.

The NCAA's statement said:

"Auburn University football student-athlete Cam Newton is immediately eligible to compete, according to a decision today by the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff. The NCAA concluded on Monday that a violation of amateurism rules occurred, therefore Auburn University declared the student-athlete ineligible yesterday for violations of NCAA amateurism rules."

There are no penalties against Auburn or Newton, and no wins are in jeopardy.

"We are pleased that the NCAA has agreed with our position that Cam Newton has been and continues to be eligible to play football at Auburn University," said Auburn Athletics Director Jay Jacobs. "We appreciate the diligence and professionalism of the NCAA and its handling of this matter."

The NCAA said, "We do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware" of improper activity involving Newton's father."

Auburn has limited the athletic access to Newton's father, Cecil Newton. Mississippi State disassociated itself from former player Kenny Rogers, who, with Cecil Newton, tried to "actively market" Cam Newton to Mississippi State.

The SEC said:

"The conduct of Cam Newton's father and the involved individual is unacceptable and has no place in the SEC or in intercollegiate athletics," said SEC Commissioner Mike Slive. "The actions taken by Auburn University and Mississippi State University make it clear this behavior will not be tolerated in the SEC."

Here are some details from the NCAA:

When a school discovers an NCAA rules violation has occurred, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible and may request the student-athlete's eligibility be reinstated. Reinstatement decisions are made by the NCAA national office staff and can include conditions such as withholding from competition and repayment of extra benefits. Newton was reinstated without any conditions.

According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete's father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton's commitment to attend college and play football. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship.

In conjunction with the case, Auburn University has limited the access Newton's father has to the athletics program and Mississippi State has disassociated the involved individual.

The SEC said:

"Our members have established rules for a fair and equal recruitment of student-athletes, as well as to promote integrity in the recruiting process," said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs. "In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete's eligibility, we must consider the young person's responsibility. 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. From a student-athlete reinstatement perspective, Auburn University met its obligation under NCAA bylaw 14.11.1. Under this threshold, the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible."

During the reinstatement process, NCAA staff review each case on its own merits based on the specific facts. Staff decisions are made based on a number of factors including guidelines established by the Division I NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, as well as any mitigating factors presented by the university.

Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete's involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation. It is NCAA policy not to comment on current, pending or potential investigations.

The NCAA began looking into Newton's recruitment at Mississippi State, and then Auburn, but found nothing to make the quarterback ineligible to play for the Tigers. Auburn began an internal investigation in July and did not find any wrongdoing, either.

Newton has led Auburn to a 12-0 record and a No. 1 BCS ranking heading into Saturday's SEC Championship Game against South Carolina.

Newton has lit up opponents, the SEC and the Auburn record books.

He leads the SEC in rushing and has accounted for 43 touchdowns, accounting for at least four touchdowns in a game seven times.

He's the first player in the SEC history to have thrown for more than 2,000 yards and to have rushed for more than 1,000 yards in the same season.

He ranks second in the nation in passing efficiency.

He's been named the SEC's offensive player of the week six times.

[gernblansten]

Ridiculous.

[soonerbub]

:stunned:

[Tigeman]

It's not over fellas.

I said before a few days ago to expect a partial decision to come out before the SECcg. And well here it is.

These reports are kind of twisting the story.

The NCAA cannot suspend a player. Only the school can suspend them. Which is why Auburn first suspended Cam, not the NC2a. This causes the NCAA to make a decision on eligibility immediately with the information at hand as the SEC pushed hard for something to get done before the game.

The Eligibility dept. is seperate from the investigation dept. So the investigation will continue and a hearing will eventually take place. Much like the Reggie Bush deal. This however is intermission of this story for a few months while the investigation continues. Nothing will happen before the mNCG.




I thought all of this was supposed to come to a head like a week ago.... whats the deal?
When have you ever known the ncaa to do anything quickly? But expect to c something b4 the SECcg. Especially if Auburn wins today.

[delhalew]

I think the NCAA is just getting out of the way. The real investigation is in the hands of the FBI.

[NormanPride]

This has absolutely nothing to do with Auburn, though. Why are they saying he's good because Auburn didn't know? It's not about Auburn screwing up, it's about Cam not being eligible to play. Complete and utter horse****.

[MikeInNorman]

Please read the statement. It says Cam Newton is eligible. It does NOT say Auburn is cleared. The investigation continues, and this season is as likely to be vacated as it was before. Just not quite yet.

[KantoSooner]

I believe that the FBI investigation is ongoing. Have indictments been handed down? Has a grand jury been seated? Are the charges open records? If not, then the NCAA is in somewhat the same place as the rest of us: they have their own investigatory results and what Auburn and Mississippi have given them.
And they have to wait for the FBI stuff to become public.

If and when it finally is, the story might change significantly. And perhaps Cam Newton will be completely cleared. I don't have warm and fuzzy feelings about Auburn's future, however.

[Tigeman]

It's simply posturing by Auburn. They are trying to force the NCAA to give them a pass for when they do hammer Cam. By doing this, they can try and say, well.... you cleared him so it's not our fault we played him. The problem is, not all the information is there yet. By doing this, Auburn could very well set themselves up for the death penalty if and when the NCAA gets the states and FBI's information, if it's determined that Auburn did know.


Think of it like this at this point....

Chizik, the AD, and other Auburn Coaches, are called one at a time to talk to the NCAA. As well as Papa Newton

NCAA: Did you know anything about Cam getting shopped, or did they ask for money from you.

All Auburn officials: NO WAYYYYYY! We don't know a damn thing about that, I can't believe anyone would do such a thing.

Papa Newton: I did everything, my son didn't know jack.

NCAA: Are you sure

Papa Newton: Yep, 100% sure he knew nothing.

NCAA: Well we got hearsay from MSU coaches that he called them saying he knew about the money. But it's hearsay so we can't say anything just yet. Ok, well that's all we got for now, so he's cleared FOR NOW! The investigation continues, and a hearing will follow.

The NCAA is kind of giving Auburn just enough rope to hang themselves with. The posturing here is very very similar to the Reggie Bush case.

[Okie35]

and it will all be taken back if they win the title.

[GKeeper316]

**** auburn, **** the sec, and **** the ncaa.

[SoonerLB]

**** auburn, **** the sec, and **** the ncaa.

I find that statement quite quotable! :D

[soonerchk]

Go Cocks.

[sjt]

**** auburn, **** the sec, and **** the ncaa.

Do you write for Cee Lo?

[CowboyMRW]

Nasty nasty precedent set just now.

I f&%$ing HATE HATE HATE the NCAA. They suspend Dez and Balogan but allow this and several other things. It's complete bullsh!t

[The]

You gots some times, read this:

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/messagetopic.asp?p=22778676

Lotsa talk about how there might be a new slot opening up in the SEC, at the very least.

[boomersooner28]

I never thought I would say this but....I LOVE ME SOME COCKS!



GOOOOOOO Spurrier!

[prrriiide]

Go Cocks.

I love it when you talk dirty.

Seriously tho...The FBI is investigating this and it goes MUCH deeper than a money-grubbing "preacher." I suspect that the NCAA is letting Cam play because at this point they don't have the evidence to stop him and if they tried Auby could easily get an injunction from any number of Auby grads sitting on the judicial bench in Alabama. But when the FBI case is done, they'll have sworn, deposed evidence with which to go after Cam, Cecil, and Auby. When they get that, there will be (damned well better be, anyway) hell to pay. Not to mention what's gonna happen when this all ends up on an IRS agent's desk.

[Dwight]

OK, let him play now, but erase the results later. Good work, NCAA.

[Mad Dog Madsen]

Do you write for Cee Lo?

Who the f*** is Cee Lo?!?

[NormanPride]

I still don't understand why he's eligible. His dad broke a NCAA rule that should make him ineligible. The rule states nothing about whether or not the player knows.

[NorCal Sooner]

Who the f*** is Cee Lo?!?

apparently some dude who says f*** a lot.

[Scott D]

I still don't understand why he's eligible. His dad broke a NCAA rule that should make him ineligible. The rule states nothing about whether or not the player knows.

The investigation isn't over, it's still going on. Basically it's a case of "He's eligible (right now) pending the end of this investigation." Re-read the wording, his being declared eligible is based upon the argument that Auburn gave that "We had no offer of pay-to-play, we didn't know of any offer of pay-to-play until this story came out. We've limited the contact that Cecil Newton can have with our program pending the results of these investigations."

Auburn basically forced the NCAA's hand because of the SEC forcing Auburn's hand regarding Newton being available to speak to the media after the SEC CCG. There is still the potential for Newton to be retroactively ruled ineligible for the entire season. But, Auburn is being smart by having the NCAA rule him ineligible for yesterday so that they could start the appeal process now so that it didn't become a distraction between the CCG and their bowl game.

[badger]

Steve Spurrier is Stoops' visor daddy

[NormanPride]

The investigation isn't over, it's still going on. Basically it's a case of "He's eligible (right now) pending the end of this investigation." Re-read the wording, his being declared eligible is based upon the argument that Auburn gave that "We had no offer of pay-to-play, we didn't know of any offer of pay-to-play until this story came out. We've limited the contact that Cecil Newton can have with our program pending the results of these investigations."

Auburn basically forced the NCAA's hand because of the SEC forcing Auburn's hand regarding Newton being available to speak to the media after the SEC CCG. There is still the potential for Newton to be retroactively ruled ineligible for the entire season. But, Auburn is being smart by having the NCAA rule him ineligible for yesterday so that they could start the appeal process now so that it didn't become a distraction between the CCG and their bowl game.

I understand all that. The problem with your explanation is that Cam's eligibility has absolutely nothing to do with Auburn. Furthermore, the rule they cite to claim he has no knowledge of the PFP scheme does not require his knowledge. There is no basis for his eligibility even considering the current evidence they have.

[Scott D]

You're right, it (the violation) has nothing to do with Auburn. That being said, Auburn's appeal had EVERYTHING to do with it (the affected party) being Auburn. Their argument was in it's simplest form "Cam Newton plays for us, we never got a request for money, we never paid any money, and anything that has to do with Mississippi State has absolutely nothing to do with us, nor did the player have any knowledge of this activity."

At it's root, it's the same as how a defendant has entered their plea, and been given limited freedom rather than being locked up until trial.

[NormanPride]

Hmm... I always thought the eligibility of a student athlete was determined independent of the school they were attending. The only role the school had in it was to suspend them.

If it works the way you're saying then I understand more what is going on, even though I don't like the temporary reprieve based on the letter of the law (rule ;)).

[Scott D]

What's amusing is that there were reporters who were saying weeks ago that eventually it'd get to a 1 day ineligibility of Newton, and that he'd be eligible again in short order because Auburn would file their appeal that day, and have a strong chance of not only winning the appeal, but that Auburn was actually welcoming the process.

[soonerbub]

The reason the Reggie Bush ordeal took so long was due to the federal investigation into the agent--this will play out the same.

So expect an announcement sometime in 2014 :rolleyes:

His dad & Ken Fairley must have both went to the same seminary--I don't know how either one can sleep at night especially Cecil because this is his own flesh & blood

I mean jeez why can't these people just wait on their NFL payday--it drives me nuts

[GKeeper316]

Who the f*** is Cee Lo?!?

dont know... BUT I SURE AS **** KNOW WHO SKEE-LO IS!

5CTNxrrWCDE

[CowboyMRW]

Cee Lo sings the song F**K You

[Leroyt]

Assuming Auburn beats Oregon in the MNC, Alabama will claim the MNC for this year once Newton is declared ineligible in 2014.

[AlboSooner]

The NCAA message is clear: if you're careful enough, go ahead and pay people.

[HolaKyle]

I'm curious to see the Cam Newton coverage for the Heisman Trophy show. Knowing ESPN, they will probably say one quick sentence, and that is it.

Pat Forde admitted today to Doug Gottlieb that they aren't allowed to talk about their Heisman votes.

[ashley]

This is good for college football.

[Okla-homey]

This is good for college football.

It is good, to the extent that kids shouldn't be held responsible for stupid stuff their parents do without their knowledge.

Now, that said, if evidence comes in that Cam Newton knew about the scam his Pop was running, that's no good and will probably result in him being retroactively declared ineligible.

But until that happens, if it ever does, Newton, and AU, are golden. And you can bet Cam Newton is lawyered-up and won't be answering any questions from anyone about this dealio from this day onward.

[Frozen Sooner]

Now, that said, if evidence comes in that Cam Newton knew about the scam his Pop was running, that's no good and will probably result in him being retroactively declared ineligible.


You mean like telling someone that his heart was at Mississippi State but the money at Auburn was too much?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5786315

Auburn forced the NCAA's hand by suspending Cam, the NCAA was forced to reinstate him because they didn't have enough evidence. Yet. If the NCAA ever gets their hands on whoever Joe Schad is protecting, Newton's going down.

[Okla-homey]

You mean like telling someone that his heart was at Mississippi State but the money at Auburn was too much?



Have you taken "Evidence" yet? We call this "hearsay."

[Frozen Sooner]

Have you taken "Evidence" yet? We call this "hearsay."

I have. They even taught me the "admission against interest" and "Party admission" exceptions to hearsay.

I mean, as long as we're assuming the rules of evidence apply to NCAA proceedings.

[slh1234]

I believe that the FBI investigation is ongoing. Have indictments been handed down? Has a grand jury been seated? Are the charges open records? If not, then the NCAA is in somewhat the same place as the rest of us: they have their own investigatory results and what Auburn and Mississippi have given them.
And they have to wait for the FBI stuff to become public.

If and when it finally is, the story might change significantly. And perhaps Cam Newton will be completely cleared. I don't have warm and fuzzy feelings about Auburn's future, however.

I'm interested to know: What federal laws do you think have been broken? Why would the FBI be involved?

[slh1234]

You mean like telling someone that his heart was at Mississippi State but the money at Auburn was too much?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5786315

Auburn forced the NCAA's hand by suspending Cam, the NCAA was forced to reinstate him because they didn't have enough evidence. Yet. If the NCAA ever gets their hands on whoever Joe Schad is protecting, Newton's going down.

So this is the paragraph you are referring to:



After Newton committed to Auburn, another source said an emotional Cam Newton phoned another recruiter to express regret that he wouldn't be going to Mississippi State, stating that his father, Cecil, had chosen Auburn for him because "the money was too much."



Hmm ... really, so someone said that Cam newton said ... and let's not forget that ESPN said that someone said that Cam Newton said ...

It's always interesting to me how people believe what they want to believe. People generally are predisposed to believe the negative, and especially when they have counter-interests.

At best you would have to admit that the report is hearsay at best the way it is reported. I don't know whether Cam did anything wrong or not, but you have to admit that at best, this is believing what you want to believe.

[slh1234]

You mean like telling someone that his heart was at Mississippi State but the money at Auburn was too much?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5786315

Auburn forced the NCAA's hand by suspending Cam, the NCAA was forced to reinstate him because they didn't have enough evidence. Yet. If the NCAA ever gets their hands on whoever Joe Schad is protecting, Newton's going down.

One other factor to keep in mind: The "pay for play" was apparently offered to Mississippi state, but Cam Newton plays for Auburn. Did Auburn have any knowledge of anything that was offered (legitimately or illegitimately) to MSU? Should they be held accountable for that?

[prrriiide]

You gots some times, read this:

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/messagetopic.asp?p=22778676

Lotsa talk about how there might be a new slot opening up in the SEC, at the very least.

HOLY CARP!!!

This cesspool is WAAAAAY deeper than I realized. An opening in the SEC might be the least of some of these people's worries...they could quite possibly lose their accreditation over the whole deal. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools has some wording in their policies about oversight of athletic programs and also about financial matters.

But think about this: the FBI starts an investigation of a bribery scandal involving the Alabama legislature. In the course of the investigation, they uncover all this other stuff, possibly leading to Auby's expulsion from the SEC. Guess who is waiting in the bedroom, all flounced up in her lingerie, condoms at the ready?

Aggie.

But maybe I just have too much tinfoil on my head right now...

[Frozen Sooner]

So this is the paragraph you are referring to:



Hmm ... really, so someone said that Cam newton said ... and let's not forget that ESPN said that someone said that Cam Newton said ...

It's always interesting to me how people believe what they want to believe. People generally are predisposed to believe the negative, and especially when they have counter-interests.

At best you would have to admit that the report is hearsay at best the way it is reported. I don't know whether Cam did anything wrong or not, but you have to admit that at best, this is believing what you want to believe.

You do realize that the NCAA SPECIFICALLY ruled that Cecil Newton was shopping Cam around, right?

Talk about believing what you want...

[The]

HOLY CARP!!!

This cesspool is WAAAAAY deeper than I realized. An opening in the SEC might be the least of some of these people's worries...they could quite possibly lose their accreditation over the whole deal. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools has some wording in their policies about oversight of athletic programs and also about financial matters.

But think about this: the FBI starts an investigation of a bribery scandal involving the Alabama legislature. In the course of the investigation, they uncover all this other stuff, possibly leading to Auby's expulsion from the SEC. Guess who is waiting in the bedroom, all flounced up in her lingerie, condoms at the ready?

Aggie.

But maybe I just have too much tinfoil on my head right now...

Nah, I think the same thing. A&M would jump at the opportunity.

Just think, this could have been the last Iron Bowl.

[WestLakeHillsSooner]

The real indecency of this decision is when you compare the situation to Dez Bryant last year. Bryant didn't do anything wrong, he just didn't tell the truth to the NCAA and they decalred him ineligible and suspended him. Cam Newton's father knowingly tried in engage in the worst infraction in the NCAA rulebook but Cam is still able to play?

This is a horrible decision by the NCAA due to the precedent that it sets. They have given future maleficent parents and handlers the playbook for how to rig the system.

[Soonerfan88]

So from now on, we just need to convince a known :texan: to pay off a recruit's family, not tell the kid anything, and he can get paid to play for OU? Yet if any finds out, kid stays eligible, and Hook 'em is the only one that will get in trouble? Somebody set up the slush fund. :pop:

[TopDawg]

There are two possible outcomes of this that I love:

1) Auburn is forced to vacate their wins after the final BCS poll, but before the national championship game. Chaos ensues as the BCS tries to decide if Auburn should be left in, if #3 should move into the game, or if there should be another poll with Auburn ineligible.

2) Auburn beats Oregon and then a year or two from now has to vacate their wins, leaving no national champion. Give the Ducks a little taste of what it's like to have something wrongfully taken away from you.

[smc]

So this is a cluster of the highest order...and the NCAA has just set a nasty precedent with their quick ruling (make no mistake this is about $$, especially with the viewership expected for Saturday's game, heisman hype, etc). I cannot believe the "It wasn't me" defense is actually being considered. Lets be honest, outside of being a superb athlete, what has Cam brought to society? He stole a laptop, and has had multiple academic fraud charges brought to light...I may be rushing to judgement, but past history would indicate (atleast to me), that Cam is not the most upstanding individual.

[SoonerLB]

His dad apparently isn't the most upstanding preacher either. ;)

[Octavian]

It is good, to the extent that kids shouldn't be held responsible for stupid stuff their parents do without their knowledge.

Now, that said, if evidence comes in that Cam Newton knew about the scam his Pop was running....


not sure if serious?

[Octavian]

In practice, this decision makes it legal to pay players.

[royalfan5]

One of the reasons I'm pro-paying players is that it brings all of this out into the open instead a creating more shady backroom deals. College football has long since ceased to be an amateur sport, and pretending that it still is, does a diservice to all involved.

[TopDawg]

In practice, this decision makes it legal to pay players.

As long as they don't know *wink, wink* that they are being payed.

[NormanPride]

Bomar didn't know that he wasn't at work...

[jkjsooner]

One of the reasons I'm pro-paying players is that it brings all of this out into the open instead a creating more shady backroom deals. College football has long since ceased to be an amateur sport, and pretending that it still is, does a diservice to all involved.

In theory that sounds great. Is it an open market, highest bidder situation? If so, we'll all be UT's bitch and the power differential will kill college football.

Is it a stipend? If so, how does that play with Title IX. Do we give every athlete in every sport the stipend? If so, how is this possible considering so many athletic departments are in the red? (Even OU was heavily in the red 15 years ago.)

[85sooners]

:eek:

[Okla-homey]

One of the reasons I'm pro-paying players is that it brings all of this out into the open instead a creating more shady backroom deals. College football has long since ceased to be an amateur sport, and pretending that it still is, does a diservice to all involved.

Amen. Thesa kids are the modern day equivalent of gladiators. Far too many don't graduate, won't play pro ball and all they have to show for their time making beaucoup bucks for schools and merchandisers is scars and injuries that will plague them the rest of their lives.

I am totally down with stipends fort athletes.

Heck, call it "work-study" if you want. In the final analysis, what's the difference between paying a student, who is on an academic scholarship, to work in the library or for tutoring others, and paying a student who is on an athletic scholarship for practicing/playing football? Nadda.

[badger]

Not that I sympathize with USC, but their new AD had a good perspective:

Link (http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/12/02/1367413/ncaas-cam-newton-decision-baffles.html)

[RedstickSooner]

You gots some times, read this:

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/messagetopic.asp?p=22778676

Lotsa talk about how there might be a new slot opening up in the SEC, at the very least.

Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln. That's, uhm, a lot of reading. And a lot of scumbaggery.

Even more surprising, I read most of it, and skimmed the rest. Surprisingly interesting for something so nit-pickingly detailed at times.

So.... If that dossier is correct, Auburn isn't just dirty -- it's old-school, pay-'em-all 1950s kinda dirty. I mean, crazy corruption. Handing out cash like Gatorade.

If they're *this* dirty, only weird part to me is that we haven't heard more about it sooner... Guess I'm naive, as I'd expect, with that many players on the take, for one to come forward at some point and try to come clean.

[RedstickSooner]

Oh, one more question -- if Auburn really does turn out to be as massively rotten as the breakdown implies, with boosters paying hundreds of grand per year in signing bonus and unknown other amounts in ongoing pay-for-play, why the fudge would the NCAA *not* dial up the death penalty again?

Obviously, using it the first time wasn't enough, by itself, to get the attention of unabashed cheaters -- and the fact that everyone acts like it's now off-limits seems to, if anything, encourage such turds. So wouldn't this be a great opportunity to do the right thing and hit the 'smite' button?

[The]

Oh, one more question -- if Auburn really does turn out to be as massively rotten as the breakdown implies, with boosters paying hundreds of grand per year in signing bonus and unknown other amounts in ongoing pay-for-play, why the fudge would the NCAA *not* dial up the death penalty again?

Obviously, using it the first time wasn't enough, by itself, to get the attention of unabashed cheaters -- and the fact that everyone acts like it's now off-limits seems to, if anything, encourage such turds. So wouldn't this be a great opportunity to do the right thing and hit the 'smite' button?

Well, if there is anyone left at Auburn after the FBI hauls them off to the pokie, it seems like a grand idea.

[royalfan5]

In theory that sounds great. Is it an open market, highest bidder situation? If so, we'll all be UT's bitch and the power differential will kill college football.

Is it a stipend? If so, how does that play with Title IX. Do we give every athlete in every sport the stipend? If so, how is this possible considering so many athletic departments are in the red? (Even OU was heavily in the red 15 years ago.)

Even if it was a highest bidder situation, is it that much difference than now? If you gave the cash to the players instead giving coaches dumbass extensions after every 8-4 season because their agent hinted that some other school would pay them more? With all the cash dumped in facilities to "recruit" and to other fringe benefit stuff. (e.g. Suh buying I-Pad's for each NU players locker etc) Why not just cut out the middle man, and acknowledge what we are already doing? Plus, being able to spend the most money means nothing if it isn't spent wisely.

[TopDawg]

In the final analysis, what's the difference between paying a student, who is on an academic scholarship, to work in the library or for tutoring others, and paying a student who is on an athletic scholarship for practicing/playing football? Nadda.

The difference is that a student who is on academic scholarship is getting a scholarship for their academic performance and then paid for a job, whereas the student-athlete would be getting a scholarship for his athletic performance AND paid for this athletic performance.

I'm not saying student-athletes shouldn't get some sort of a stipend (or that they should), just saying that those two situations are different...IMO, drastically different.

[Scott D]

anyone comparing this and Reggie Bush needs to take a step back.

Reggie knowingly took not only money but hotel stays along with the parents getting the rent free house. Bush was ineligible for the same reason that North Carolina's Marvin Austin was ineligible.

[Tigeman]

If they're *this* dirty, only weird part to me is that we haven't heard more about it sooner... Guess I'm naive, as I'd expect, with that many players on the take, for one to come forward at some point and try to come clean.


Yep very naive to think they'd come forward. Keep in mind an overwhelming majority of these players come from a background that it is a real "death penalty" to squeal on anyone, especially to "da man". Being a rat is perhaps the worst thing you can be in their eyes.

As for why you haven't heard it before about Auburn is b/c you either weren't paying much attn. or you weren't talking to the right people. I've said on here many of times that Auburn is dirty as PHUCK, and mentioned about recruits we've lost to them that the word I'm hearing is they were bought! The stories started flying about 2-3 years ago. Since Chizdick came in, they went old school dirty. Tubby kept them in check for the most part and wouldn't let the boosters buy him a championship. Chizik on the other hand is win at any cost. The other reason you haven't heard it before is because Auburn is one of the dirtiest programs in history. They have a hugeeee background in hiding money and are VERY good at it. Somehow they always seem to squirm out of the investigations around them.

[TopDawg]

Has the similarity between this and Damon Stoudamire's situation been discussed? Similar situations, different NCAA rulings.

He's an article about the two situations:

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/95-suspended-star-didnt-know-of-dad-benefits-29294


In 1995, the father of Arizona Wildcats basketball star Damon Stoudemire was accused by the NCAA of accepting a plane ticket from an agent. Stoudamire denied knowing of the arrangement while his father, Willie Stoudamire, also denied accepting the ticket.

After the NCAA informed Arizona of its allegation against Stoudamire’s father, the school immediately suspended the star guard while simultaneously filing an emergency appeal with the governing body seeking Stoudamire’s immediate reinstatement.

In announcing the suspension of Stoudamire, the WASHINGTON POST reported that Arizona Athletic Director Jim Livengood said at the time:

“I need to make this very clear and very distinct. Damon has done nothing wrong. Damon knows nothing of what has transpired, and Damon has had no part in that.”

The BOSTON GLOBE subsequently reported that instead of immediately reinstating Stoudamire, as it did in the Cam Newton case, the NCAA “suspended Stoudamire for the last regular-season game, reinstating him for the postseason tournament.”

[HolaKyle]

When will the info listed at TigetDroppings make it to the major media? The thing I'm tired about is nobody outside of the people that post here knowing about the details behind the story.

I'm tired of the talking heads saying they will still vote for Cam with the Heisman. If all this information was available to the votes, would they still vote for Cam?

At this point, Cam is OJ guilty.

[The]

When will the info listed at TigetDroppings make it to the major media? The thing I'm tired about is nobody outside of the people that post here knowing about the details behind the story.

I'm tired of the talking heads saying they will still vote for Cam with the Heisman. If all this information was available to the votes, would they still vote for Cam?

At this point, Cam is OJ guilty.

My personal worthless opinion is this little conspiracy:

The NCAA wants Auburn to win the MNC, then hammer them with the death penalty afterwards. This high profile case allows Congress to get involved with college football, specifically the BCS. NCAA get control of the Div 1 postseason, we get a playoff, and conference realignment goes helter skelter.

Tada.

[NormanPride]

I'm all for it, but I would be naive to think that the NCAA is smart enough to pull that off.

[85sooners]

:pop:

[TopDawg]

I'm all for it, but I would be naive to think that the NCAA is smart enough to pull that off.

That's exactly what they want you to think.

[The]

I'm all for it, but I would be naive to think that the NCAA is smart enough to pull that off.

There is that.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Oh, one more question -- if Auburn really does turn out to be as massively rotten as the breakdown implies, with boosters paying hundreds of grand per year in signing bonus and unknown other amounts in ongoing pay-for-play, why the fudge would the NCAA *not* dial up the death penalty again?

Obviously, using it the first time wasn't enough, by itself, to get the attention of unabashed cheaters -- and the fact that everyone acts like it's now off-limits seems to, if anything, encourage such turds. So wouldn't this be a great opportunity to do the right thing and hit the 'smite' button?

My question if they are paying out all of that money is why have they sucked so bad? The only reason they are not 6-6 this year is because of one player.

[badger]

The bowls are taking way too much of the postseason pot to be in good favor with the NCAA. The bowls have nothing if they don't have college football teams, yet they continue to only pay out about half of their revenue to teams. On TexAgs, they're griping about the fact that in a 80k to 100k stadium, their team's ticket allotment is 12,500... so not only are the postseason games screwing the schools out of revenue, but also out of tickets. What gives?

The salvation for the bowls might be the fact that a playoff for a national title would only feature about 16 teams at most, whereas the current postseason has 70 teams... oh yeah, that'll go over well. Maybe there'll be playoffs to determine who gets the bowl invite?

Fewer bowls, more playoffs (which likely means more home games)? SWEEEEEEET!

[Leroy Lizard]

My personal worthless opinion is this little conspiracy:

The NCAA wants Auburn to win the MNC, then hammer them with the death penalty afterwards. This high profile case allows Congress to get involved with college football, specifically the BCS.

Exactly how does Cam Newton fit in with the BCS?

[The]

The bowls are taking way too much of the postseason pot to be in good favor with the NCAA. The bowls have nothing if they don't have college football teams, yet they continue to only pay out about half of their revenue to teams. On TexAgs, they're griping about the fact that in a 80k to 100k stadium, their team's ticket allotment is 12,500... so not only are the postseason games screwing the schools out of revenue, but also out of tickets. What gives?

The salvation for the bowls might be the fact that a playoff for a national title would only feature about 16 teams at most, whereas the current postseason has 70 teams... oh yeah, that'll go over well. Maybe there'll be playoffs to determine who gets the bowl invite?

Fewer bowls, more playoffs (which likely means more home games)? SWEEEEEEET!

I dunno. If the NCAA runs a playoff, I see the bowls dying off pretty quickly. Which, if you see how scuzzy those things really are, is pretty much not a big loss at all.

[The]

Exactly how does Cam Newton fit in with the BCS?

Read thread before commenting.

[Leroy Lizard]

The bowls are taking way too much of the postseason pot to be in good favor with the NCAA. The bowls have nothing if they don't have college football teams, yet they continue to only pay out about half of their revenue to teams.

That's probably pretty generous.

It's a free market. ATM has been invited to play in a bowl and they accepted. If they don't like the deal, they can turn it down.

As for the ticket allotment, bowls try to bring in from people all over the country, not just College Station. The hotel industry doesn't do so well when the fan base doesn't have far to travel. But that's just a hunch.

[jthomas666]

One of the big questions right now is what was the SECs role in all of this? After Cecil tried to pimp Cam in Starkville, MissSt. notified the SEC office what had happened. The SEC office should have notified the rest of the SEC and begun an investigation; apparently they did nothing. After several months of getting no action from the SEC MissSt went ahead and notified the NCAA directly.

Mike Slive--the man who tortured the SEC regulations in order to create the interpretation that supported keeping Cam eligible--has been conspicuously absent in all of this, mainly because if he shows his face to reporters he's gonna have to answer a number of unpleasant questions.

This whole reinstatement is basically a dog an pony show to keep a good face on the situation, but has already been noted, if any proof emerges that money changed hands, or that Auburn knew more about the situation than they've been telling, this stunt might well cause the NCAA to hammer them even more.

[Leroy Lizard]

I dunno. If the NCAA runs a playoff, I see the bowls dying off pretty quickly.

Yep. The idea that a bowl system will peacefully coexist with a playoff is nonsense. They'll hang around for awhile, though. Maybe five years.

The death of the bowls has far bigger ramifications than you think. It would be a serious blow to college football.

[TopDawg]

The idea that a bowl system will peacefully coexist with a playoff is nonsense.

Why?

[The]

Yep. The idea that a bowl system will peacefully coexist with a playoff is nonsense. They'll hang around for awhile, though. Maybe five years.

The death of the bowls has far bigger ramifications than you think. It would be a serious blow to college football.

I don't think so. History, tradition... obviously as we are finding out with the conference musical chairs, is not so important.

Money? I think every playoff scenario out there calls for generating a metric boatload of moar cash for teams and conferences.

I think the bowl system is corrupt, archaic, and ultimately, hampering the growth of the game.

[Leroy Lizard]

Amen. Thesa kids are the modern day equivalent of gladiators. Far too many don't graduate, won't play pro ball and all they have to show for their time making beaucoup bucks for schools and merchandisers is scars and injuries that will plague them the rest of their lives.

I am totally down with stipends fort athletes.

Heck, call it "work-study" if you want. In the final analysis, what's the difference between paying a student, who is on an academic scholarship, to work in the library or for tutoring others, and paying a student who is on an athletic scholarship for practicing/playing football? Nadda.

This solves nothing. Cecil Newton wasn't going to be satisfied with his kid getting a $200/month stipend. He needed church renovations. Bush' parents wanted a nice place to live.

[TopDawg]

This solves nothing. Cecil Newton wasn't going to be satisfied with his kid getting a $200/month stipend. He needed church renovations. Bush' parents wanted a nice place to live.

Doesn't solve everything =/= solves nothing.

It could make the situation better for a LOT of college athletes without solving ALL of the problems (like the Newtons and Bushes).

[Leroy Lizard]

Why?

For the same reason the NIT became a big nothing. Once a playoff grabs all the headlines, interest in consolation games dwindles. The only thing that saves the NIT is that basketball is cheap to host. Football is very expensive. At some point, teams will simply decide not to play in the bowls, which will accelerate their demise.

Think about having post-season games in the NFL for teams that didn't make the playoffs. That's what it would ultimately become.

[Leroy Lizard]

Doesn't solve everything =/= solves nothing.

It could make the situation better for a LOT of college athletes without solving ALL of the problems (like the Newtons and Bushes).

Actually, it solves very little and creates huge problems elsewhere, as others have pointed out.

First rule: Don't create a problem that you will have to fix. Paying players is a bad idea.

[starclassic tama]

but we have the BCS, and there is still interest in other bowls. even though the champion can only come from the BCS... i think you are dead wrong. if we only have a 4, or at the most 8 team playoff, then the bowls can definitely coincide...

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't think so. History, tradition... obviously as we are finding out with the conference musical chairs, is not so important.

Are you saying it shouldn't be?


Money? I think every playoff scenario out there calls for generating a metric boatload of moar cash for teams and conferences.

Yet, at the same time the playoff proponents cry that the huge monies handed out by the bowl committees is getting in the way of a playoff.

This is also where the playoff proponents try to have their cake and eat it too. All this huge money they talk about is mostly generated from having a large playoff system (16 teams). In the same breath, they advocate a small playoff system because it is more tractable.

So which is it?

BTW, I am one that doesn't think the average athletic department will benefit financially from a playoff system.

[Leroy Lizard]

but we have the BCS, and there is still interest in other bowls. even though the champion can only come from the BCS... i think you are dead wrong. if we only have a 4, or at the most 8 team playoff, then the bowls can definitely coincide...

BCS is not a playoff. (Well, it's technically a two-team playoff, but the lack of subsequent rounds is a big difference.)

There is no such thing as a four-team playoff system, or even an eight-team playoff system, at least not in the long term. Any playoff system will grow to at least 16 teams, and maybe even more. And when it does, goodbye bowl system.

[cdlbdd]

For the same reason the NIT became a big nothing. Once a playoff grabs all the headlines, interest in consolation games dwindles. The only thing that saves the NIT is that basketball is cheap to host. Football is very expensive. At some point, teams will simply decide not to play in the bowls, which will accelerate their demise.

Think about having post-season games in the NFL for teams that didn't make the playoffs. That's what it would ultimately become.

I disagree with your assumption that "a playoff grabs all the headlines." I think that, with a 16 team playoff, teams 17-40 or so would still generate plenty of interest ("grab headlines" in your lingo) to bring in the TV revenue to make it worthwhile for said teams to continue competing in the bowl games. Just a hunch.

[Leroy Lizard]

I disagree with your assumption that "a playoff grabs all the headlines." I think that, with a 16 team playoff, teams 17-40 or so would still generate plenty of interest...

Try ZERO.

We went through this with the NIT. Damned if I can even recall who won the NIT last year. (I'll let someone else look it up.)

What you have is a prayer. You HOPE that the bowl system will hang around after a playoff system is implemented. A prayer is not a plan and not much of an argument.

[cdlbdd]

Try ZERO.

We went through this with the NIT. Damned if I can even recall who won the NIT last year. (I'll let someone else look it up.)

So your inability to recall who won the NIT last year means there was no interest in it?


What you have is a prayer.

I prefer the term hunch (if you read my post, the term appears near the end).


You HOPE that the bowl system will hang around after a playoff system is implemented.

I certainly do. I expect there will be several years before I die where OU is not rankd in the top 16 in the country, and I would love to be able to watch them play a postseason game.


A prayer is not a plan

Agreed.

[Leroy Lizard]

I certainly do. I expect there will be several years before I die where OU is not rankd in the top 16 in the country, and I would love to be able to watch them play a postseason game.

And here's the problem.

We have good evidence, using human nature and past history, that a bowl system will not survive the shift in focus on a playoff system.

Those who want a playoff system always mention that the bowl system will stick around. It's a convenient way to quiet criticism and have your cake and eat it too. And they base this on... a hunch?

What if they're wrong? We can never recover what we lost, so whatever great things we had with the bowl games will be lost forever. And we gave it all up because people had a hunch that they would survive?

I am not willing to make such a gamble.

[cdlbdd]

We have good evidence, using human nature and past history, that a bowl system will not survive the shift in focus on a playoff system.

What is this "good evidence" you speak of?


Those who want a playoff system always mention that the bowl system will stick around. And they base this on... a hunch?

My perception (influenced particularly by the events of this past summer) is that collegiate athletic departments are willing to sacrifice quite alot in terms of history/tradition/rivalry in order to make more money. I think that there is money to be made with bowl games alongside a 16 team playoff. Therefore, I think some of the bowls will survive.


I am not willing to make such a gamble.

I think many on this board would agree, that the knowledge that you will not be the one having to make this decision ("gamble" as you call it), is most comforting.

[Leroy Lizard]

What is this "good evidence" you speak of?

The NIT. Read "College Sports Inc." The author (forget his name) devotes much of a chapter to the NIT's demise after the NCAA instituted its playoff system.

It's also Marketing 101.


My perception (influenced particularly by the events of this past summer) is that collegiate athletic departments are willing to sacrifice quite alot in terms of history/tradition/rivalry in order to make more money. I think that there is money to be made with bowl games alongside a 16 team playoff. Therefore, I think some of the bowls will survive.

The fact that the bowls (especially the minor bowls) oppose a playoff system should tell you all you need to know about their viability post-playoff. They do the market analyses and they obviously don't like what they see.

Sure, you can try to convince them that their fears are unjustified. But they know better.


I think many on this board would agree, that the knowledge that you will not be the one having to make this decision ("gamble" as you call it), is most comforting.

Who cares what the people on this board think? They're nothing as far as college football is concerned.

If you left the decision-making to the others on this board, college football would just become a smaller version of the NFL.

[Scott D]

fwiw, the NIT is all but dead...it's very generously on life support right now. In fact, the "preseason" NIT gets more pub and exposure than the end of season NIT which used to determine the NCAA Basketball Champion prior to the current Tournament stealing it.

[cdlbdd]

It's also Marketing 101.

Never took any marketing classes as an undergrad, please excuse my ignorance.


The fact that the bowls (especially the minor bowls) oppose a playoff system should tell you all you need to know about their viability post-playoff. They do the market analyses and they obviously don't like what they see.

I am all for many of the minor bowls going away. Teams that don't finish in the to 40% or so, IMO, don't deserve to have the reward of postseason play (currently 58% of FBS teams compete in the postseason). I am not particularly concerned with the viability of the New Orleans or Humanitarion Bowls.

[Leroy Lizard]

I am all for many of the minor bowls going away. Teams that don't finish in the to 40% or so, IMO, don't deserve to have the reward of postseason play (currently 58% of FBS teams compete in the postseason). I am not particularly concerned with the viability of the New Orleans or Humanitarion Bowls.

Fine, but I'm not aware of ANY bowls that favor a playoff.

[ZoonerMagic]

It appears that this thread has deviated remarkably from Cam Newton to, well the NIT...? So, let me apologize to all involved, if I am steering the ship to waters revisited... but, as far as Cam Newton goes... well, it's only a matter of time... all the recent NCAA "clearance" should mean to us, the public... is that the NCAA does not have, as of yet, substantive evidence in order to make condemnatory statements against Cam... you have to realize that the NCAA cannot (if they have any good legal sense, anyway...) go "out on a limb", no matter how obviously sturdy that limb is, to incriminate Cam Newton, in a public forum, until the NCAA has this deal so circumscribed as a render it a slam dunk...

Consider the Reggie Bush scenario... remember how much time lapsed between the when Yahoo! Sports first reported improper money exchanges in the Bush case until the NCAA actually moved in to act upon these exchanges...?

See, this is one of the downsides of a bureaucracy... it is SLOW MOVING... but, for those who are appalled at Cam Newton's association with this conspiracy and yet his ability to continue to play NCAA ball... well, I just ask you to exercise patience...Cam will get what Cam has coming to him...

[Leroy Lizard]

See, this is one of the downsides of a bureaucracy... it is SLOW MOVING... but, for those who are appalled at Cam Newton's association with this conspiracy and yet his ability to continue to play NCAA ball... well, I just ask you to exercise patience...Cam will get what Cam has coming to him...

Then Cam must be deserving of millions of dollars, media hype, and stardom, because that's what's coming to him.

[ZoonerMagic]

Then Cam must be deserving of millions of dollars, media hype, and stardom, because that's what's coming to him.

True... but, as was the case with Reggie Bush, Cam's collegiate aspirations and accomplishments will tarnish faster than the Statue of Liberty...

[Tigeman]

This guy says..... "Get this money from Auburn???? Hell no....I just know daddy handed it to me. IDK where it came from though, so it's cool"

http://papasmoustache.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dabloata-mosley.jpg

[TopDawg]

Actually, it solves very little

Very little =/= nothing.

I'm not saying it's a good idea or that it doesn't raise other problems...I'm just saying that it's incorrect to say that it solves nothing.

Especially when you put it in the light that you did...as if the only problem is with athletes and/or their families wanting to get super rich.

[TopDawg]

For the same reason the NIT became a big nothing.

But the two peacefully coexist, right?


At some point, teams will simply decide not to play in the bowls, which will accelerate their demise.

I bet the same was said about the NIT (or about the NCAA when it first hit the scene since the NIT was the bigger thing then).


Think about having post-season games in the NFL for teams that didn't make the playoffs. That's what it would ultimately become.

I might buy your analogy if the NFL had 120 teams and a 12-game regular season schedule.

[TopDawg]

Those who want a playoff system always mention that the bowl system will stick around. It's a convenient way to quiet criticism and have your cake and eat it too. And they base this on... a hunch?

Leroy, who doesn't want a playoff system, always mentions that the bowl system will die if we have a playoff. It's a convenient way to quiet support for a playoff and for him to have his cake and eat it too. And he bases it on...a hunch?

Oh, wait, no...he bases it on Marketing 101. Of course, all of the marketing-based conclusions that he draws are based on...hunches.


I am not willing to make such a gamble.

This is what it really boils down to. Leroy fears change. That's okay. Some people embrace it, some people oppose it. I, for one, would really miss the bowls if they were gone. But I would also really enjoy a playoff and I'm willing to make such a gamble. I don't pretend that I know what's going to happen if we have a playoff (like Leroy does) so I spend most of my time with him trying to chip away at the "certainty" with which he makes his claims. Sure, Leroy, everything that you mention is possible but that doesn't mean that it's likely and I think there are some very good reasons to think that everything you mention is actually quite unlikely.

[cdlbdd]

Fine, but I'm not aware of ANY bowls that favor a playoff.

Why would they be?

I am far more interested in what fans favor than the bowls themselves.

[Leroy Lizard]

But the two peacefully coexist, right?

I bet the same was said about the NIT (or about the NCAA when it first hit the scene since the NIT was the bigger thing then).

I don't know if you simply missed it or refused to acknowledge it, but I already stated that the NIT costs far less to produce than a bowl game. They'll continue to host the NIT as long as they can get viewership akin to that of a roller derby.


Why would they be?

I am far more interested in what fans favor than the bowls themselves.

The point got completely by you.


Leroy, who doesn't want a playoff system, always mentions that the bowl system will die if we have a playoff. It's a convenient way to quiet support for a playoff and for him to have his cake and eat it too. And he bases it on...a hunch?

Cake and eat it too? WTF? I'm not trying to have a playoff and a bowl system.

Right now we have the bowl system. I'm not willing to risk the bird in the hand to go after two in the bush. The great things provided by the bowl system are not worth risking.

[RedstickSooner]

BCS is not a playoff. (Well, it's technically a two-team playoff, but the lack of subsequent rounds is a big difference.)

There is no such thing as a four-team playoff system, or even an eight-team playoff system, at least not in the long term. Any playoff system will grow to at least 16 teams, and maybe even more. And when it does, goodbye bowl system.

I just don't buy the slippery slope argument. Having a 4-team +1 system would be *great* for the big bowls that are in the BCS, and would mean that all the truly deserving teams got a shot at a title. You run all the bowls like we do now (as far as when they're played) but the matchup for the national title game isn't decided until #2 and #3 play in a bowl and #1 and #4 play in a bowl. Winners of those two bowls play one extra game, which is a small enough extra quantity to not cause the moon to fall out of the sky and the seas to catch fire -- two teams' worth of players can just muddle through having an extra week of football and survive, I believe.

Heck, the NCAA could even authorize the involved schools to give the involved players an extra summer's worth of scholarship so they could have extra time to wrap up their degrees in case another week's football playing totally tanked their academic success that year. :rolleyes:

Also, quite frankly, it'd be nice to see that very final game played after just one week of preperation -- you could see which team can really play well on a "normal" game prep schedule, as opposed to which coaching staffs just come up with a great game plan after having an entire month to scout and scheme.

[cdlbdd]

The point got completely by you.

Must have. Care to enlighten me?


The great things provided by the bowl system are not worth risking.

What are some of these "great things" of which you speak?

[TopDawg]

I just don't buy the slippery slope argument. Having a 4-team +1 system would be *great* for the big bowls that are in the BCS, and would mean that all the truly deserving teams got a shot at a title. You run all the bowls like we do now (as far as when they're played) but the matchup for the national title game isn't decided until #2 and #3 play in a bowl and #1 and #4 play in a bowl. Winners of those two bowls play one extra game, which is a small enough extra quantity to not cause the moon to fall out of the sky and the seas to catch fire -- two teams' worth of players can just muddle through having an extra week of football and survive, I believe.

Heck, the NCAA could even authorize the involved schools to give the involved players an extra summer's worth of scholarship so they could have extra time to wrap up their degrees in case another week's football playing totally tanked their academic success that year. :rolleyes:

Also, quite frankly, it'd be nice to see that very final game played after just one week of preperation -- you could see which team can really play well on a "normal" game prep schedule, as opposed to which coaching staffs just come up with a great game plan after having an entire month to scout and scheme.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

[RedstickSooner]

My perception (influenced particularly by the events of this past summer) is that collegiate athletic departments are willing to sacrifice quite alot in terms of history/tradition/rivalry in order to make more money. I think that there is money to be made with bowl games alongside a 16 team playoff. Therefore, I think some of the bowls will survive.


Yes, they are and they will. And, no, they don't think there is, and I don't think there is, and plenty of analysts don't think there is.

Colleges make money from a slew of sources, and not all of those sources show up in the revenue streams like you'd see if you just went by how much got paid out for post-season bowl versus post-season playoff or post-season mixed bowl & playoff scenarios.

How many $100 million basketball stadium fund-raising campaigns have their been? How many sold-out regular-season basketball or baseball or any other sport games do we see?

In every sport with a playoff, the interest is modest at best (with a few niche exceptions with powerhouse programs in a particular sport).

Fact is, football attendance and interest in games is at an all time high.

To put that another, simpler way -- the college football "system" is working spectacularly well.

In what bizarre, backward, retarded universe would university ADs and presidents have even the smallest, most ridiculously infinitesimal interest in changing that system? You want the system changed because you've decided, there at your computer, that it'd *definitely* work great and be better if they changed it.

They, on the other hand, have, what, a few billion collectively involved in this sport? You think the decision makers in a multi-billion dollar industry are going to push for a massive, fundamental change of how that industry is run -- at a time when that industry is drawing as much interest and income as it has ever drawn -- simply because you, and others like you, have gone to the rigorous lengths of, well, thinking it's gonna work?

I'm not trying to be a dick here. I simply don't see where anyone's opinion does anything to contradict that major college football attendance and income are both high. That'd be like asking Ford and GM, in the middle of the 1960s, to switch to producing small electric cars because you've thought a lot about it, and when you imagine them switching, you imagine they sell *really* well. And, plus, as way of proof, there's the long-haul train industry, which is transportation just like cars, and in *that* industry, going electric turned out awesome.

[RedstickSooner]

So, to sum up, I'm a huuuuuuuuuuuuge fan and supporter of the +1 "playoff" system. I'm also a huge pessimist who believes that not only will we never see a 16 game playoff (at least, not in my lifetime) it'd be difficult as heck just to get the schools to agree to a plus-one... And a plus-one is an awfully modest proposal.

[TopDawg]

I don't know if you simply missed it or refused to acknowledge it, but I already stated that the NIT costs far less to produce than a bowl game. They'll continue to host the NIT as long as they can get viewership akin to that of a roller derby.

Do you have the numbers for production costs or is that just a hunch? And how do profits compare? It might...might...cost more to produce a bowl game than an NIT tournament, but if you make more money off of it, maybe that's okay.

[SoonerLB]

In what bizarre, backward, retarded universe would university ADs and presidents have even the smallest, most ridiculously infinitesimal interest in changing that system?

Let me get this straight . . . those would be the same guys that say they want to develop upstanding leaders with good morals, and then fire good coaches because they don't win enough, and waste donated funds paying off terminated contracts while doling out even higher paying contacts to a new coach, right?

Come to think of it, they're a lot like Congressmen aren't they? ;)

[cdlbdd]

How many $100 million basketball stadium fund-raising campaigns have their been? How many sold-out regular-season basketball or baseball or any other sport games do we see?


I don't know. Probably very few.


In every sport with a playoff, the interest is modest at best (with a few niche exceptions with powerhouse programs in a particular sport).

I assume you are speaking of postseason interest since we are currently discussing bowl system v. playoffs. The NCAA basketball tournament seems to generate a bit of interest.

If you are speaking of regular season interest, I think the lack of interest in, for example, OU mens basketball (not just this season, but generally over the past 5-7 years) has more to do with the caliber of opponent being played, the presence of a supersar athlete, and the number of home games than the existence of a playoff.


In what bizarre, backward, retarded universe would university ADs and presidents have even the smallest, most ridiculously infinitesimal interest in changing that system?

Certainly not this universe - they make too much money off the bowl system as is.


You want the system changed because you've decided, there at your computer, that it'd *definitely* work great and be better if they changed it.

I want the system changed because I think a playoff would be more entertaining that the current bowl system, without keeping the schools from making money during the postseason.


They, on the other hand, have, what, a few billion collectively involved in this sport? You think the decision makers in a multi-billion dollar industry are going to push for a massive, fundamental change of how that industry is run -- at a time when that industry is drawing as much interest and income as it has ever drawn -- simply because you, and others like you, have gone to the rigorous lengths of, well, thinking it's gonna work?

Again, I highly doubt it.

[Leroy Lizard]

Must have. Care to enlighten me?

Okay, here goes.

The question was, "Will the bowls survive?" The bowls themselves have a lot to say in this because they know their bottom line better than anyone. The fact that the bowls do not want a playoff says a lot.

Then you came along and made it appear as if their desires, and not the fans', was the issue.


What are some of these "great things" of which you speak?

For one, the fact that the bowls give weeks for fans to make travel arrangements.

The bowl games are meant as a reward for a job well done and to provide fans with a little vacation. And we want to risk throwing that all away to settle an argument over who's #1.

[I Am Right]

So Cam Newton was declared ineligible on tuesday and the NCAA reinstated him on wednesday.



I'm sure Cam and his father really learned their lesson with that punishment.:confused:

What did Auburn pay his dad to be reinstated?

[Leroy Lizard]

I just don't buy the slippery slope argument.

You would if you paid even a sliver of attention to what has happened in every other sport. Couple that with our incessant desire to include more and more teams and the outcome is obvious.

How many teams did the NCAA baseball playoffs begin with? NCAA basketball? FCS football? How many did they end up with? Go look it up and get back to us.

[Leroy Lizard]

Do you have the numbers for production costs or is that just a hunch? And how do profits compare? It might...might...cost more to produce a bowl game than an NIT tournament, but if you make more money off of it, maybe that's okay.

Sure, they can make a little money off the NIT because you only have one locale to move equipment and the equipment needed is far less. You can keep your equipment in place and televise 8-16 teams, whereas in football you can only televise 2. It is simply easier to televise a basketball game than a football game.

Consider also travel costs for athletic departments between moving 100 personnel versus 20.

A $200,000 payday for a basketball team can provide a comfortable profit. You couldn't break even for $200,000 in football.

[cdlbdd]

The question was, "Will the bowls survive?" The bowls themselves have a lot to say in this because they know their bottom line better than anyone. The fact that the bowls do not want a playoff says a lot.


It only says that they don't think they can make as much money as they do now. Not as much profits =/= failing to survive


For one, the fact that the bowls give weeks for fans to make travel arrangements.

Home games for higher seeded teams solves this problem.


The bowl games are meant as a reward for a job well done and to provide fans with a little vacation.

I Disagree. The bowl games, at one time, were meant as a reward for players and fans. Today, they are meant as a moneymaking tool for the schools/conferences, the host city's, and sponsors (not meant to be an all inlusive list- my guess is some scalpers and parking lot attendants benefit financially as well).


And we want to risk throwing that all away to settle an argument over who's #1.

I want to risk the demise of some of the bowls for a more entertaining postseason. Again, I disagree with your apparent position that the existence of the bowl system or a playoff are mutually exclusive.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yes, they are and they will. And, no, they don't think there is, and I don't think there is, and plenty of analysts don't think there is.

Colleges make money from a slew of sources, and not all of those sources show up in the revenue streams like you'd see if you just went by how much got paid out for post-season bowl versus post-season playoff or post-season mixed bowl & playoff scenarios.

How many $100 million basketball stadium fund-raising campaigns have their been? How many sold-out regular-season basketball or baseball or any other sport games do we see?

In every sport with a playoff, the interest is modest at best (with a few niche exceptions with powerhouse programs in a particular sport).

Fact is, football attendance and interest in games is at an all time high.

To put that another, simpler way -- the college football "system" is working spectacularly well.

In what bizarre, backward, retarded universe would university ADs and presidents have even the smallest, most ridiculously infinitesimal interest in changing that system? You want the system changed because you've decided, there at your computer, that it'd *definitely* work great and be better if they changed it.

They, on the other hand, have, what, a few billion collectively involved in this sport? You think the decision makers in a multi-billion dollar industry are going to push for a massive, fundamental change of how that industry is run -- at a time when that industry is drawing as much interest and income as it has ever drawn -- simply because you, and others like you, have gone to the rigorous lengths of, well, thinking it's gonna work?

I'm not trying to be a dick here. I simply don't see where anyone's opinion does anything to contradict that major college football attendance and income are both high. That'd be like asking Ford and GM, in the middle of the 1960s, to switch to producing small electric cars because you've thought a lot about it, and when you imagine them switching, you imagine they sell *really* well. And, plus, as way of proof, there's the long-haul train industry, which is transportation just like cars, and in *that* industry, going electric turned out awesome.

Nailed it.


I would also add that the fans of college football, while using economics to bolster their point, don't care about the financial viability of the system. They just want the system. Those who have a vested interest in the monies generated by a post-season don't care what the fans think, nor should they care.

[Scott D]

I know I can't wait to watch Feburary/March Madness with that 92 team NCAA Hoops Playoff. :rolleyes:

[TopDawg]

The question was, "Will the bowls survive?" The bowls themselves have a lot to say in this because they know their bottom line better than anyone. The fact that the bowls do not want a playoff says a lot.

Will their bottom line suffer? Possibly.

Will they disappear off the face of the earth? Probably not.

The bowls know that a playoff system won't increase their profits and could possibly have a negative impact on their bottom line, but that doesn't mean that it'll result in their demise. It's ridiculous to jump from "the bowls don't want a playoff because it'll hurt their bottom line" to "the bowls will not survive if we have a playoff system."

[smc]

I am confused, how does Cam Newton feel about the playoff vs bowl scenario...just trying to help out the poster that tried to get this back on track earlier...

[TopDawg]

Sure, they can make a little money off the NIT because you only have one locale to move equipment and the equipment needed is far less. You can keep your equipment in place and televise 8-16 teams, whereas in football you can only televise 2. It is simply easier to televise a basketball game than a football game.

Consider also travel costs for athletic departments between moving 100 personnel versus 20.

A $200,000 payday for a basketball team can provide a comfortable profit. You couldn't break even for $200,000 in football.

Is $200,000 the average payday a football team gets from a bowl game?

You claim that it's much less expensive to run the NIT than a bowl game. I was wondering if you actually had numbers that we could put with that statement and also asked that you consider the money that is made off of the NIT versus a bowl game. Your assertion that the NIT can survive (where the bowls couldn't) because it costs less, ignores the important fact of how much revenue each one generates.

[smc]

Is $200,000 the average payday a football team gets from a bowl game?

You claim that it's much less expensive to run the NIT than a bowl game. I was wondering if you actually had numbers that we could put with that statement and also asked that you consider the money that is made off of the NIT versus a bowl game. Your assertion that the NIT can survive (where the bowls couldn't) because it costs less, ignores the important fact of how much revenue each one generates.

Oddly enough, that is the average payday for the quarterback mentioned in this thread...creepy. Also goes to show that Cam Newton is = the quoted school payday from a bowl game as mentioned, so if Auburn makes a bowl it is a wash!

[Leroy Lizard]

You claim that it's much less expensive to run the NIT than a bowl game. I was wondering if you actually had numbers that we could put with that statement...

Awww man, THINK ABOUT IT!

Just use some common sense.

Yes, I don't have the exact figures to show how much more it costs to fly an entire football team to a game as opposed to a basketball team. But it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to understand that the costs are much higher.

Anyone that just thinks about the logistics involved in moving an entire filming operation from one football game to the next, rather than just leaving it in place, will come to the conclusion that airing eight bowl games is one helluva lot more expensive than airing a single basketball tournament day.

On the flip side, if you truly don't want to move forward on the playoff discussion without solid proof of expenditures, then your playoff idea is dead in the water anyway because you have nothing to back your side. Where are YOUR balance sheets?

[Leroy Lizard]

Will their bottom line suffer? Possibly.

Will they disappear off the face of the earth? Probably not.

I disagree. IMO, they will almost certainly disappear.

Now who is right? No one knows for sure, so why risk it? We have the bowls in place right now, so if we want to keep the bowls why introduce anything that would risk their survival?

Again, a bird in the hand versus two in the bush. But in this case even if you managed to get the two birds in the bush there is a high risk that one will die. Sounds like a bad choice.

[Leroy Lizard]

It only says that they don't think they can make as much money as they do now. Not as much profits =/= failing to survive

Any time you lose profits you risk survival. This is especially true of the minor bowls.


Home games for higher seeded teams solves this problem.

How does that solve anything?



I want to risk the demise of some of the bowls for a more entertaining postseason.

If bowl proponents are willing to sign their name to a statement that they are willing to risk the demise of "some" bowls, then I would at least give them some respect on this issue. But they won't, because they know that they will lose all support from the Akrons of the world whose only hope for a successful postseason is an invite to a minor bowl.

And this is part of the two-facedness encountered when dealing with playoff proponents. They get all misty-eyed in their zest to introduce a playoff system so that the little guys can participate in deciding a national champion. At the same time, they have no problem risking the survival of the bowls that these little schools rely on as their postseason goal. It's all a bunch of phony bull****.

[RedstickSooner]

You would if you paid even a sliver of attention to what has happened in every other sport. Couple that with our incessant desire to include more and more teams and the outcome is obvious.

How many teams did the NCAA baseball playoffs begin with? NCAA basketball? FCS football? How many did they end up with? Go look it up and get back to us.

We've had a 2 team playoff for 12 years. We have yet to move to a 4 team playoff (which is what folks like me are pushing for.)

If this slope is slippery, it's thirty-seconds-of-drizzle-with-good-shoes slippery.

[TopDawg]

Original post I responded to:

I don't know if you simply missed it or refused to acknowledge it, but I already stated that the NIT costs far less to produce than a bowl game.

Latest post on the subject:

Yes, I don't have the exact figures to show how much more it costs to fly an entire football team to a game as opposed to a basketball team. But it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to understand that the costs are much higher.

Anyone that just thinks about the logistics involved in moving an entire filming operation from one football game to the next, rather than just leaving it in place, will come to the conclusion that airing eight bowl games is one helluva lot more expensive than airing a single basketball tournament day.

On the flip side, if you truly don't want to move forward on the playoff discussion without solid proof of expenditures, then your playoff idea is dead in the water anyway because you have nothing to back your side. Where are YOUR balance sheets?

Sorry, I got confused because at first you were talking about how much it costs to produce the NIT in comparison to how much it costs to produce a bowl game, and now you're talking about how much it costs for a school to send a team to the NIT in comparison to how much it would cost for them to send a team to a bowl game.

I've got no argument if you're claiming it costs more to send a team to a bowl game than to the NIT. You're right and kudos to you for pointing out such a blindingly obvious point. For my argument on the relation between NIT production costs v. bowl game production costs and their relative impacts on the likelihood of survival of the bowl games in a "playoff world" see my previous posts.

[Leroy Lizard]

We've had a 2 team playoff for 12 years. We have yet to move to a 4 team playoff (which is what folks like me are pushing for.)

If this slope is slippery, it's thirty-seconds-of-drizzle-with-good-shoes slippery.

So you're now pushing for a four-team playoff. But that's just you. Many are advocating an eight-team playoff; some want 16 teams.

You've proven my argument. We have a two-team playoff, but you can't be satisfied with that. So we gotta have more teams involved.

[TopDawg]

I disagree. IMO, they will almost certainly disappear.

Why would you expect them to disappear with a playoff when they have only multiplied since the beginning of the BCS? In fact, we've added 13 just in the last decade.

[Leroy Lizard]

Sorry, I got confused because at first you were talking about how much it costs to produce the NIT in comparison to how much it costs to produce a bowl game, and now you're talking about how much it costs for a school to send a team to the NIT in comparison to how much it would cost for them to send a team to a bowl game.

I've got no argument if you're claiming it costs more to send a team to a bowl game than to the NIT. You're right and kudos to you for pointing out such a blindingly obvious point.

If it's such an obvious point, why do playoff proponents continually overlook it?

[TopDawg]

If it's such an obvious point, why do playoff proponents continually overlook it?

Leroy, you're confusing the issue. If you'll respond to the production costs of NIT vs. Bowl Games and the profits of each, then I'll move on to schooling you on the issue of travel costs.

[Leroy Lizard]

Why would you expect them to disappear with a playoff when they have only multiplied since the beginning of the BCS? In fact, we've added 13 just in the last decade.

Apples and oranges. A playoff won't infringe on the popularity of the bowls until it reaches a certain size. If playoff proponents were truly going to be happy with a four-team playoff, then I wouldn't worry about the bowls. Sixteen teams? Forget it.

And is it possible to hold the size of the playoffs down? Nope.

[TopDawg]

And is it possible to hold the size of the playoffs down? Nope.

Well then this is all a moot point anyway. If you concede that we already have a 2-team playoff and you believe that it's impossible to hold the size of a playoff down, then it's just a matter of time before we have a 4-team playoff.

Thankfully, this discussion can now die. You can go on wringing your hands about how college football will be forever ruined and the rest of us can go on trying to speed up the inevitable.

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy, you're confusing the issue. If you'll respond to the production costs of NIT vs. Bowl Games and the profits of each, then I'll move on to schooling you on the issue of travel costs.

It's all part of the costs associated with hosting a game. Travel costs need to be factored in a team's payout, so you just can't ignore it.

As for production costs, I have already delineated exactly why the production costs are higher to televise a bowl system versus a basketball playoff. And so far you haven't pointed it out as incorrect.

[Leroy Lizard]

Well then this is all a moot point anyway. If you concede that we already have a 2-team playoff and you believe that it's impossible to hold the size of a playoff down, then it's just a matter of time before we have a 4-team playoff.

So why are playoff proponents arguing for a playoff if we already have one?

[TopDawg]

It's all part of the costs associated with hosting a game. Travel costs need to be factored in a team's payout, so you just can't ignore it.

As for production costs, I have already delineated exactly why the production costs are higher to televise a bowl system versus a basketball playoff. And so far you haven't pointed it out as incorrect.

At first it was a bowl game...now it's the whole system?

This is an important distinction because the NIT is run by one body whereas the bowl games are run independently.

[TopDawg]

So why are playoff proponents arguing for a playoff if we already have one?

And why are you arguing against it?

Oh, it's because everybody is arguing for or against expanding it.

I see.

I was just pointing out that it's dishonest for you to say that we have a playoff (when supporting your slippery slope argument in your statement to Redstick "You've proven my argument. We have a two-team playoff, but you can't be satisfied with that. So we gotta have more teams involved.") but to say that a playoff would lead to the end of the bowls. Well, if you're telling Redstick that the BCS is already a playoff, why is it that the bowls aren't dying but, instead, we're getting more and more of them.

As I mentioned before, we've seen an increase of 13 just in the past decade. Seven of those have started in or since 2006, which was the same year we introduced the BCS Championship Game instead of having it be an existing bowl game.

As the BCS grows, so does the number of bowls.

[Leroy Lizard]

At first it was a bowl game...now it's the whole system?

This is an important distinction because the NIT is run by one body whereas the bowl games are run independently.

Well, there is more than one bowl game.

The NIT hosts a certain number of teams each year. The bowl system hosts a fraction of teams at a far higher cost. If you want to allow X number of teams to play in a bowl, you have to consider the cots needed to maintain that system.


And why are you arguing against it?

Oh, it's because everybody is arguing for or against expanding it.

I don't recall the word "expansion" used anywhere in these arguments. All I hear is everyone calling for a playoff system. Even the cover of Sports Illustrated stated "PLAYOFF" without a hint of making it a mere expansion.

Everyone always says "They do it in the other sports! They do it in Div 1AA!" Obviously they don't think we do it in FBS.

Obviously, playoff proponents are arguing for something new and different. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. I just happen to oppose it.