Cam Newton cleared, but questions still abound

In a bit of a surprise, the NCAA has announced a finding in the Cam Newton case: the Auburn quarterback is eligible to play, though some evidence of a pay-for-play scheme was found.

According to a release from the NCAA, it 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.”

Newton was immediately reinstated by the NCAA without any conditions. Then the NCAA release adds:

“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.”

Therefore, Cecil Newton’s access to the Auburn program was “limited” according to the NCAA, while Mississippi State disassociated itself from the “involved individual,” presumed to be Kenny Rogers.

SEC commissioner Mike Slive said in the release that the “conduct of Cam Newton’s father and the involved individual is unacceptable.”

But the NCAA also determined that neither Cam Newton nor Auburn was “aware of this activity.” So presumably, the player and Auburn are in the clear, at least as far as being able to play Newton the rest of the season.

A few immediate reactions:

- By saying that Cam Newton’s father did something wrong, but his son is eligible, this seems to create a giant loophole in recruiting: A family member or coach can solicit payment, but as long as the recruit doesn’t know anything about it (assuming they don’t know anything about it) it doesn’t affect the recruit.

As a few other’s have stated, this opens a Pandora’s Box.

- Is the NCAA investigation actually over, and is Auburn in the clear? That's not quite set out.

- If Auburn ruled Newton ineligible on Monday because a violation had occurred, then the NCAA ruled him eligible, does that means everything’s OK going forward, but the previous wins could be vacated? I’m guessing no, but just to be sure I’ve sent a request for clarification to the SEC.

UPDATE: Charles Bloom of the SEC referred me to the final line in a quote by the NCAA vice president Kevin Lennon. Here's Lennon's quote:

"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."

So basically, until it's proven Newton "was aware" of the pay-for-play scheme, Auburn is in no danger of having wins vacated.

- At least this is some finality for Heisman voters who were desperate for it. I’m one, and as of Wednesday morning I was leaning towards abstaining. Now I’ll give it some thought. But I’ve still got misgivings: The NCAA has now found that Newton's father engaged in a pay-for-play scheme. Does his son not knowing about it pass the smell test? If not, is that still grounds enough for withholding a Heisman vote?

A lot of things to ponder over the weekend.