My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

[MemphisMaroonClubDog]

My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

I am confused (other than the obvious reasons) why Slive has the confidence to say:

“[Cam Newton] is at a different institution than the one the father solicited, and the institution that he’s playing at, there’s no evidence that they did anything wrong."

These next two quotes are why everyone has a question there, Mikie...

"Slive said the SEC only became involved during this process once the facts were established"

and

He also dismissed the notion that the SEC was somehow more involved in this case because Auburn was No. 1 in the country and its star player and Heisman Trophy front-runner was in limbo. The Tigers have a chance to be the fifth straight national champion out of the SEC.

“We didn’t do any more or any less for Auburn than we would do for any of our schools,” said Slive, noting the league’s policy adopted in 2004 that it would no longer investigate cases, but would only serve in an advisory capacity.

Yeah, Sure... Mikie would do the same for MSU any day... Just ask Renardo Sidney...

 

[boomboommsu]

My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

Here in the real world, Papa Newton suddenly coming up with 6-figures worth of money to repair his 'church' counts as evidence.

By standard NCAA procedure, Cecil asking for money, and shortly thereafter recieving an equivalent amount of money from sources unknown, is more than enough. The NCAA has never before cared about the exact wording/interpretation of its prohibitions/etc. If you were anywhere close, you were guilty. For whatever reason, Cam was treated differently. Period.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

The FBI has the evidence to convict or exonerate Auburn and the Newtons. Given that releasing this information now will undoubtedly taint any jury pool in the state of Alabama, this information is being kept under wraps. So Slive doesn't have the evidence because no one outside of the investigation has it. And they can keep the secrets far better than the guy your well connected buddy knows.

 

[RebelBruiser]

My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

Let's say the Renardo Sidney thing didn't come out until late last season, and he was the clear cut Player of the Year, you ran through the SEC with 0 or 1 loss, and you were sitting at No. 1 in the nation heading into the SEC tourney when it came out that he had some issues with his eligibility and whether or not his family took money.

I'd be willing to bet in those circumstances that Slive and the NCAA would've been in a hurry to claim that they didn't have concrete evidence in the case until further investigation.

If Slive and the NCAA have proven anything to me over the years, it's that they are all about appearances. They don't want to look bad by having their best teams exposed as cheaters mid-season. Cam Newton being suspended for the rest of the year would've been one of the biggest rulings in NCAA history, because of the direct impact it would've had on Auburn's season.

Imagine if they had done that to Derek Rose just prior to the NCAA tournament.

They'd rather either get you beforehand and make you wait/sit out to prove that they are tough on eligibility issues, or they'd rather wait until after you are gone to find the information to force you to vacate wins.

I have confidence this would've been handled differently had it come up thisFebruary after Newton declares for the draft.

 

[maroonmania]

My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

was known in August I don't understand how he was ever allowed to play at the start of the season. Seems like Auburn should have ruled him ineligible then, like they did last week, and apply for reinstatement. That's what we did with Sidney from what I understand. Its just with Sidney they wouldn't reinstate him for 1 year + 9 games. With Newton, he got reinstated in less than 48 hours with no consequences. And when the stuff with Sidney happened HE WAS A MINOR! Cam, on the other hand, was a college junior in age.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

<div>Can you imagine the precedent set here? Don't let the evidence come out before because we'll get you. Don't let it come out after the season because we'll strip the title from you. Just let a little bit out midseason so we'll have to make some kind of public statement that indicates that you have done no wrong.</div><div>
</div><div>Yeah, the NCAA will love that. I wouldn't put it past them to say "Whoops, look at what evidence we just found" a week before signing day.</div>

 

[rezdawg]

My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

themedia didn't...

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

My question... Why does Mike Slive have ANY knowledge as to what proof the NCAA has???

Wouldn't he have been ineligible the whole regular season? It seems like ineligibility is based on whether or not you did certain things, not what the school says. The declaration is merely a public acknowledgement of the ineligibility and is not what actually makes the athlete ineligible. If this is so then they will really open themselves up to schools not declaring ineligibility until it is convenient and not have to vacate wins.