PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Has Found Cam Newton's Bag Man



SoCal
7/29/2011, 06:38 PM
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2011/7/20/2285291/cam-newton-danny-sheridan-finebaum

Paul Finebaum had the USA Today's Danny Sheridan on as a guest this afternoon, and Sheridan says the NCAA thinks it has found the bag man who helped Auburn pay for Cam Newton. I didn't catch the whole thing and the replay's not up yet, but this is news big enough to post it now and update later.

Most of what I have to go on right now is a series of tweets from Finebaum's Twitter feed. Here are the bullet points:
•The NCAA investigation of Auburn ramped up after the Destin incident. Be careful what you wish for, Gene Chizik.
•This is a quote from Sheridan: "As I understand it, the NCAA is trying to get an alleged 3rd person or bag man to come forward."
•Sheridan reports that the investigation is all about Auburn and not about Mississippi State.
•If the NCAA can put it all together, major sanctions will come along with vacation of the national championship and Heisman.
•Sheridan closed by reiterating that the NCAA thinks it knows the "third party" who put up the money to pay for Newton's signature.

Obviously this is huge news. I'll try to update this as soon as Finebaum's web site posts the audio from the interview.

UPDATE

The interview is up in Part 1 and Part 2. Only Part 1 has Newton talk, though in Part 2 Sheridan expresses annoyance throughout that Finebaum is doing the interview while also fiddling with his smartphone.

The following is all according to Sheridan.

The NCAA thinks Newton was bought and paid for; it's all a matter of proving it now. Some amount of money went to Cecil Newton, while another amount went to Cecil's church. This money was handled by a "third party". The investigation has "revved up" since Chizik's outburst in Destin. The total amount is approximately $180-200K, with $20-30K having gone to the church. Sheridan has "no idea" if this is true.

This is a direct quote: "They're trying to get a third person, allegedly the bag man, to step forward, and if he steps forward, it'll be a bad situation. But I don't know that he will step forward. I don't know if they have any evidence. I don't want you to misquote me." This "third party/bag man" would be someone doing the work so the someone else's fingerprints are not on the transaction. This third party is not a "rogue alumni".

Sheridan's sources at the NCAA are "25 years old" (as in, he's had a sources there that long; it's not a twentysomething feeding him info) and have never mislead him. [Edited to add: Sheridan later said his sources are not inside the NCAA but rather know people inside the NCAA -Y2] There are also 15 other schools being looked at, but he will not name them. They feel money changed hands in the Newton case, but if it can't be proven, the case "will be dropped in probably three-to-six months." Sheridan is not aware of any ongoing investigation of Mississippi State.

Confusingly, Sheridan later says that "Auburn had nothing to do with this" and that this third party "I won't say was working for a rogue alumni." I don't get what he's hinting at here. If the third party didn't do this with the school's knowledge and wasn't working for a rogue alumni, who is he and why did he get involved? Is he some sort of non-alumni booster? Two questions later, he says "if they are guilty of paying a student, not they but the alumni..." Huh?

Sheridan closes by saying the "they [the NCAA] think they know the third party, and they think they know the party that put up the money." That means the NCAA is looking at two entities here: someone who allegedly financed this alleged deal and someone who allegedly carried out this alleged deal. If the NCAA can remove the four "allegedly" instances out of that statement, Auburn's in deep trouble.

UPDATE 2

In a later segment, Sheridan calls the alleged financier of the deal a "wealthy supporter of Auburn." That means someone the NCAA will define as a booster, and that means (if true) we're in Albert Means territory at the least.

IndySooner
7/29/2011, 08:49 PM
I'm surprised this didn't spark discussion. This could be a HUGE deal.

RedstickSooner
7/29/2011, 09:03 PM
I dunno -- since the NCAA decided to not bother with the death penalty for USC's hiring of Reggie Bush, I'm starting to think they've become a bunch of giant pussies, and NCAA sanctions no longer mean squat... Because, really, what program *wouldn't* take a few years of probation in exchange for a national championship?

Collier11
7/29/2011, 09:07 PM
Interesting info but the reason it isnt being discussed more is because it is speculation and when it comes to the ncaa I dont trust any speculation until its been proven

MeMyself&Me
7/29/2011, 09:22 PM
I dunno -- since the NCAA decided to not bother with the death penalty for USC's hiring of Reggie Bush, I'm starting to think they've become a bunch of giant pussies, and NCAA sanctions no longer mean squat... Because, really, what program *wouldn't* take a few years of probation in exchange for a national championship?

The 'death penalty' can only be imposed if the infraction itself takes place while on probation per the NCAA own rules. Was Bush paid while USC was on probation? I don't think Auburn was on probation in this instance so the death penalty isn't at play here either.

Edit: I listened to the interview while it aired. Sheridan was very non-committal for the entire interview except to say that he wasn't lying... about being non-committal. Let's wait and see what comes out.

Penguin
7/29/2011, 09:43 PM
I'll wait for more proof. Remember how Cowherd told us that Oregon was getting the death penalty a couple of months ago.

Jacie
7/29/2011, 10:37 PM
The 'death penalty' can only be imposed if the infraction itself takes place while on probation per the NCAA own rules. Was Bush paid while USC was on probation? I don't think Auburn was on probation in this instance so the death penalty isn't at play here either.


Probation does not equal the death penalty and I think the post you responded to was saying what program would not accept probation for a national championship, not the death penalty for one.

Dan Thompson
7/29/2011, 10:57 PM
If all this comes to pass, does it mean the Alabama will have it's 300th NC?

MeMyself&Me
7/30/2011, 05:40 PM
Probation does not equal the death penalty and I think the post you responded to was saying what program would not accept probation for a national championship, not the death penalty for one.

If you actually read the post I was replying to you'd see that the poster was chastising the NCAA for not applying the death penalty to USC which it didn't have the power to do since USC's football program wasn't on probation at the time of the violation.

I don't think Auburn was on probation either so I don't think that's an option here either.

I do agree with the notion that if sanctions have no teeth then violations are worth it as long as you know you're going to get a championship. However, I think the sanctions levied on USC had plenty of teeth. The only way it could have been worse is if they also issued a TV ban which I don't think the NCAA will do anymore after witnessing that TV bans have an effect on not just the violators but also the other programs they play.

I don't think Auburn's sanctions will be as bad as USC though. USC's admin fought the investigators unusually hard instead of being forthcoming and cooperative and I think a big part of USC's punishment was due to that. NOW, if it comes out that Auburn admin (as opposed to some rogue booster) had a hand in the payouts (which I doubt), that's a different issue entirely and then I think they may get punished al la USC style.

sooneredaco
7/30/2011, 06:15 PM
If all this comes to pass, does it mean the Alabama will have it's 300th NC?

Yes

picasso
7/30/2011, 06:21 PM
Now they just need to find his camel toe man.

PLaw
7/30/2011, 09:44 PM
I dunno -- since the NCAA decided to not bother with the death penalty for USC's hiring of Reggie Bush, I'm starting to think they've become a bunch of giant pussies, and NCAA sanctions no longer mean squat... Because, really, what program *wouldn't* take a few years of probation in exchange for a national championship?T

Bottom line - it's all become awash in money. The NCAA is not going to spank a team or conference that generates huge dollars for the TV contracts. The NCAA has become as culpable as the filth they are supposed to be policing.

tOSU should have been toast. SUC should have had an OU like penalty from 89. If Auburn or Auburn alums paid for Newton, then the punishment should be so severe that the any other institution would not think about coming close to that line.

BOOMER

Sooner Cal
7/30/2011, 09:55 PM
T

Bottom line - it's all become awash in money. The NCAA is not going to spank a team or conference that generates huge dollars for the TV contracts. The NCAA has become as culpable as the filth they are supposed to be policing.

tOSU should have been toast. SUC should have had an OU like penalty from 89. If Auburn or Auburn alums paid for Newton, then the punishment should be so severe that the any other institution would not think about coming close to that line.

BOOMER


Your's is a silly comment. The NCAA doesn't get TV revenue thanks to OU and Georgia. The truth is that the public no longer demands strong punishment for any offense. In some cities, paying traffic fines is voluntary.

LASooner
7/31/2011, 01:24 AM
There are also 15 other schools being looked at, but he will not name them.


The thing I worry about in the Cam Newton deal is the possible collateral damage. I want to believe that OU wouldn't ever do anything like that under Stoops, but we were on his short list.

badger
7/31/2011, 10:21 AM
If you were the bag man, you must have been a big time Aubie supporter. That said, would you cooperate with the NCAA? Hells, no!

I find it amusing that only a fraction went to Cecil's church. The rest is making up for the fact that the older son didn't have much of a pro career I guess :rolleyes:

rekamrettuB
7/31/2011, 11:12 AM
If there is a school to hit hard and make an example of, Auburn is it.

PLaw
7/31/2011, 01:14 PM
Your's is a silly comment. The NCAA doesn't get TV revenue thanks to OU and Georgia. The truth is that the public no longer demands strong punishment for any offense. In some cities, paying traffic fines is voluntary.

You missed the point - we all acknowledge that the NCAA receives no financial benefit from the business of the sports they govern. That said, there are huge opportunities for corruption within the NCAA with respect to the sanctions they administer.

Boomer

SoonerLB
8/1/2011, 09:46 AM
If there is a school to hit hard and make an example of, Auburn is it.

Kind of a shame to leave Oregon out of the running don't you think? ;)

rekamrettuB
8/1/2011, 10:15 AM
Kind of a shame to leave Oregon out of the running don't you think? ;)

Well Oregon doesn't have the NC that Auburn does. You have to show the rest of the NCAA that you can't buy the NC for 2 years of no bowls and a couple less scholly's a year.

ouflak
8/1/2011, 10:21 AM
Your's is a silly comment. The NCAA doesn't get TV revenue thanks to OU and Georgia.

Not true. They don't get TV revenue directly from football TV revenues. However they still do get licensing and merchandising money. Their latest six year 500 million dollar agreement (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4904393) went up to April, 2011. I can't find any details on extensions of that agreement as it seems to have become a corporate secret.


You missed the point - we all acknowledge that the NCAA receives no financial benefit from the business of the sports they govern....

Except ofcourse the 10.8 billion dollar contract they signed just last year (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2010/Association-wide/NCAA+signs+new+14year+TV+deal+for+DI+mens+basketba ll_NCAANews_04_22_10)for the NCAA basketball tournament.

cccasooner2
8/1/2011, 10:22 AM
......I find it amusing that only a fraction went to Cecil's church. The rest is making up for the fact that the older son didn't have much of a pro career I guess :rolleyes:

That is a very generous fraction by historical standards. In political scandals, ponzi schemes, profits from kickbacks, embezzelments, financial fraud, etc., the ratio is typically much, much less than 1% to "charity". A $10,000 payment from millions to hundreds of millions is more the norm (with obviously a large variance). :)

GameWarden
8/1/2011, 10:28 AM
Kind of a shame to leave Oregon out of the running don't you think? ;)

I think Auburn has a greater proven history of paying players. Oregon has been paying officials for a while but only recently gotten into the business of paying players - as far as I know.

badger
8/1/2011, 11:05 AM
That is a very generous fraction by historical standards. In political scandals, ponzi schemes, profits from kickbacks, embezzelments, financial fraud, etc., the ratio is typically much, much less than 1% to "charity". A $10,000 payment from millions to hundreds of millions is more the norm (with obviously a large variance). :)

One of the reasons I never, ever donate money to any organization over the phone is because I know that they use phone soliciting companies to do their nuisance work and that a good chunk of any money donated would go to the solicitor company, not the non-profit.

Lose-lose situation: The phone nagging keeps coming thanks to big money, and the non-profits need more money to make up the difference because they only get a fraction of those donations :(