BlueTunaTiger invited me to post this on the board. Believe it or not, it's slightly condensed, but I do think it's important to understand the reinstatement committee's role before making quick judgments.
-----
The newspaper accounts about Cam Newton's reinstatement are a) poorly researched, and b) lacking in any kind of grounded analysis. Thus, I decided to review the actual NCAA website on reinstatement for some perspective on this situation. You can find it here, if interested.
What follows is information from the website, followed by my explanation and/or interpretation of how it applies to the Cam Newton case. My interpolations are, of course, likely flawed in some ways. I like the idea of furthering debate, but I want it to be based on written statements, not wrong-headed assumptions from the media:
1) What is student-athlete reinstatement?
It is the process schools must use to restore the lost eligibility of student-athletes involved in NCAA rules violations. On average, the NCAA receives more than 1,000 reinstatement requests annually, and nearly 99 percent of these requests result in the student-athlete being reinstated.
Note that initial statistic - "nearly 99% of the requests result in the student-athlete being reinstated." As other people have noted, this is because the reinstatement committee is NOT related to the investigative arm of the NCAA. The reinstatement committee exists primarily to let universities 1) self-report violations committed by their athletes, 2) let the university suggest the method(s) by which restitution can be achieved, and 3) essentially offer a quick and (relatively) simple path to resolving issues that regularly crop up in athletic departments.
If the NCAA infractions committee later decides that important facts were purposefully left out of the university's report to the reinstatement committee, the situation changes dramatically.
2) How does it work?
When a school discovers a student-athlete has been involved in a violation, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible, investigate the violation, and forward its report with a request for the student-athlete's eligibility to be reinstated to the national office staff.
This seems obvious, but is very important:
A university is obligated to report a violation to the reinstatement committee once they discover that it has occurred.
Technically, this allows any university to stick their heads in the sand and pretend like they know absolutely nothing about a violation. USC attempted this. They pretended to be completely ignorant about Lloyd Lake's gifts to Bush and Mayo. And USC could have gotten away with it... if they had cooperated more transparently with the NCAA, and, more importantly, the NCAA hadn't discovered that running backs coach Todd McNair knew what was happening with Bush.
So, Auburn could blissfully ignore the entire controversy. But, as everyone knows, Kenny Rogers directly implicated Cam Newton's father on a Dallas radio station on Nov. 11. This suddenly put Kenny Rogers in a similar role to Lloyd Lake.
In my opinion, then, Auburn's decision to report the "violation" is a wise move. If the NCAA ultimately finds nothing beyond a tenuous connection between Kenny Rogers, Cam's father, and Mississippi State, Auburn is now in the clear.
Why it took Auburn 18 days to report the incident to the NCAA, however, is the most problematic aspect of this particular reinstatement procedure:
* Why didn't Auburn suspend Newton on November 12 and begin their appeal to the reinstatement committee immediately afterwards?
* Are we supposed to believe that Auburn only found out about the possible violation on Monday, November 29?
* On that one date, was Auburn really able to declare Cam Newton ineligible, avoid wikileaks, investigate the entire matter in literally minutes, and immediately send off their report to the NCAA?
It is equally troubling that the NCAA responded to this single request within 24 hours, when their stated policy is to "allow three weeks for staff review." In my original thread, Slevin suggested that if the review "is before a Championship game it gets expedited to the top of the list." If this is the case, Auburn timed this process perfectly so that Cam would not miss the Georgia or Alabama games.
3) Who makes the decisions on reinstatement cases?
In short, it's a 6 member committee of athletic directors and a "student-athlete." They claim to handle "approximately 1500 reinstatement requests and 400 waiver requests" during a single academic year (figures from 2003-2004). If that doesn't give you an indication of the rubber-stamp nature of this committee, I don't know what will.
4) What does the staff consider when reaching its decision?
The staff considers a number of factors when deciding each case. These include the nature and seriousness of the violation; any impermissible benefits received by the student-athlete; the student-athlete!|s level of responsibility; any mitigating factors presented by the school; applicable NCAA guidelines; and any relevant case precedent. It is rare that the facts of two cases are identical.
Honestly, if Auburn presented their argument clearly, logically, and simply (without divulging any significant information tying problems to Auburn), it is easy to understand why Cam would be exonerated at this early stage of the process. Presently, there is no money trail linked with Auburn. We don't know if Cam received "impermissible benefits" as a result of his father's dealings. And, as long as Auburn selectively and carefully reported the Kenny Rogers radio incident, Cam's personal involvement is currently zero.
And this leads to...
5) What are the possible outcomes in reinstatement decisions?
Student-athlete reinstatement decisions result in one of three possible outcomes. The staff may reinstate a student-athlete's eligibility without any conditions. A student-athlete may have his or her eligibility reinstated with conditions on the student-athlete, such as sitting out a specific number of contests or donating the amount of any impermissible benefits received to a charity. Or the student athlete could lose all remaining eligibility, which is extremely rare.
Cam is eligible, but the conditions are revealing. Auburn must have gone out of their way to spin this whole situation as a "father problem."
That is why, as a condition of reinstatement, "Auburn University has limited the access Newton's father has to the athletics program."
6) How is the information gathered to determine reinstatement decisions?
Student-athlete reinstatement decisions are based on an evaluation of the information provided to the staff by the involved school, given the NCAA reinstatement staff's role is not investigatory in nature. While the student-athlete reinstatement staff may ask additional questions related to the reinstatement request, it is the school's responsibility to provide all necessary information for the staff to consider.
Read this carefully!
Auburn, alone, is responsible for reporting all of the facts and circumstances concerning a violation. Nothing else matters. Thus, the university has complete control over what the reinstatement committee is reading when they make their decision. If Auburn goes on record as saying that "Cam Newton had no knowledge of the pay-for-play scheme initiated by his father," the committee HAS to accept that statement as fact during their deliberation process.
Note the wording on the statement by Kevin Lennon, NCAA VP for academic and membership affairs:
"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."
The committee fully knows that their information may, or may not, be complete... "at this time."
Conclusions:
1) The reinstatement committee is a tool of convenience and almost never enforces penalties.
2) Despite what's being reported in the media, this ruling by the reinstatement committee is not setting precedent, nor is it creating a massive loophole that allows parents to market their sons and daughters. The infractions committee can, and likely will, still weigh in.
3) Auburn is rightfully using the reinstatement committee so that they can isolate the statements by Kenny Rogers, tie them to Cam's father, and keep Cam eligible for the immediate future. I am impressed with how they have handled this process to their advantage.
4) Nevertheless, if people want to criticize the NCAA, they should focus on how Auburn received an answer from the committee within 24 hours. That fact understandably fuels speculation that something collusive is happening between Auburn and the NCAA.
5) Pat Haden and other USC supporters need to get a grip. If USC had undergone the same reinstatement committee process with Bush, there is a "99% chance" he would've been temporarily cleared too.
