To put to rest any notions of a purposeful anti-Auburn animus in my analysis and commentary, here's what I wrote on Nov. 4, 2010, when the Cam Newton story first broke:
"We knew that this season would continue to be wild, but not like this.
Obviously, a lot of investigating is going to take place in the coming weeks, with numerous twists and turns before the NCAA arrives at some sort of finish line. What can be said in the immediate aftermath of this breaking story is that the NCAA emperor is still without clothes.
Sure, there will be questions raised about whether Auburn’s wins against South Carolina and LSU will be vacated, which might have some sort of effect on how the 2010 SEC standings are formally recognized. Naturally, this episode – coming on the heels of Reggie Bush’s surrendered 2005 Heisman Trophy yet before Heisman ballots are sent out on November 15 – will make the political (not football-based, but political) likelihood of a Newton victory rather small, or at least much smaller than previously thought. And, of course, Auburn’s ability to compete in the BCS National Championship Game has been thrown into question, especially if the NCAA makes an unfavorable ruling in the time between the SEC Championship Game and January 10, 2011. There are all sorts of political and procedural minefields to be navigated in the coming weeks, and it’s far too premature to comment on any of those distinct yet interconnected dramas.
What can be said about L’Affaire Newton is that the notion of amateurism – which the NCAA continues to stubbornly hide behind – is being exposed even more as the sham it has been for a long time. Reggie Bush blew up the notion of pure and wholesome amateur athletics. Josh Luchs – in his still-recent admissions to George Dohrmann of Sports Illustrated (remember that?) – provided a veil-lifting look inside an entire industry and an established way of life among sports agents. Luchs took the individual story offered by Bush and turned it into an indictment of the sprawling athletic-industrial complex, a monstrously pervasive and all-consuming entity that makes a mockery of college sports’ pathetic attempts at maintaining the purity of uncompensated competition.
Let’s put this story in its proper perspective: Cameron Newton should be able to make the money that’s being generated by sales of his No. 2 Auburn jerseys. Newton is generating substantial sums of cash for Auburn by carrying this team to on-field success and prominence. In a truly market-based society that rewards the ability to create an attractive product people will pay for, Newton and other successful college athletes should be able to see a substantial percentage (if not all) of the income they generate. Instead, the NCAA tries to preserve the outdated and patently false notion that a scholarship is an appropriate level of compensation, along with the similarly absurd idea that jersey sales should not accrue to the bank account of the athlete who makes cash registers pop at sporting-goods stores and university bookstores.
It’s a waste of time and energy for a false, nonexistent and unattainable amateurism to be pursued and promoted – thereby forcing shady business dealings among agents, runners and (in North Carolina’s case) assistant coaches into the shadows – when college sports could be conducting these processes in the open, with sunlight and accountability flooding the landscape.
Yes, this is a bombshell development with potential real-world implications for the college football season, especially the national-title race and the Heisman competition. However, the big story is that the NCAA’s combination of hypocrisy and wrongheadedness is more apparent than ever before, with the business of collegiate athletics continuing to operate under the table instead of in a place where everyone can see it and – even more importantly – not regard it as a problem."
If I was anything other than an Auburn fan and I read this, I would walk away thinking Auburn's football program paid Cam Newton money. I think you realize this is what the vast majority of readers concluded.
ReplyDeleteBy defending what you believe to be Newton's right to be paid, you are insinuating that he was in fact paid.
If someone wrote in a nationally recognized column;
"Matt Zemeke should have the right to say mean things about Rosa Parks".
While, sure, maybe you do technically have that right... It would be assumed that you're a pretty horrible person.
The reason this article isn't on CFN is because your partner had even more rash things to say and eventually pulled the article when more facts came to light. When I read similar things about the scandal at USC, I believed they were guilty - which is why I didn't really care when they were put on probation. I still don't know much about the USC probation since I just read bits and pieces from sites like yours. If you pulled any irresponsible USC articles, I didn't notice and I didn't care.
You and your pals swiftboated Cam Newton.