NCAA Rules Newton Eligible for SEC Championship Game
by Gamecock Man on Dec 1, 2025 3:32 PM EST
in Football
Email
PrintApparently, Auburn won't receive any punishment for the Newton situation. The NCAA ruled that Newton's father did indeed shop his son around to Mississippi St., but it's letting Auburn and Newton off because they apparently didn't know about the actions of Newton's father. I would assume that this is case closed on this issue unless additional facts become available. That means that in addition to having their star QB this weekend, Auburn won't forfeit any of its victories or any titles it might win over the next few weeks. Sorry, 'Bama and UGA fans.
I would say the NCAA is letting Auburn off pretty easy here. Rules were violated and the letter of the law would suggest punishment is in order. However, I guess the NCAA let us off easier than they might have, too, considering that we have several players who not only sought but, at least according to the NCAA, received improper benefits. Fair enough, I say. I'm ready to see our guys play the game and quit worrying about the Newton off-field situation.
Tweet
19 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
it's easy to forget our issues with Cam Newton's story....
But still, I would rather play Auburn with Cam Newton. If we don’t win, so be it, not a lot of people are expecting us to win. Sure, a lot of the so-called experts are saying we will compete, but not many are saying we will win.
If we do win, I want Cam Newton on that field. I don’t want to have to listen to the Taters, the Barners, the Bammers, the Hogs or Jaw-Ja Bulldawwwwwgs or any other haters about how we beat Auburn without it’s golden boy.
The only thing is I don’t want this to be another Heisman Highlight Reel for another Heisman candidate. We have been featured prominently on the Heisman promotions of Darren McFadden, Tim Tebow and Mark Ingram. Oh and Cam Newton had a good game against us this year. I don’t want to have another performance like that.
Go Gamecocks! Beat Auburn!
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Dec 1, 2025 4:25 PM EST reply actions
Yeah, completely agree
I would be extremely nervous if he wasn’t on that field. A win would obviously be tempered (not that I’d give a damn…let ‘em talk, but the hardware would still come home with us!) What I’d be more worried about is if Cam wasn’t playing and we somehow lost. Gah, that’d be somewhat embarrassing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Champagne for my real friends and real pain for my sham friends." - Tom Waits
by Gamecock'n'Balls on Dec 1, 2025 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah - rules, schmules
One set of rules for South Carolina. One set of rules for Auburn. Just be glad you’re even allowed to play in our sandbox, South Carolina. Take your check and go play in the Peach Bowl. You wouldn’t get the same treatment, no doubt, but you wouldn’t want to play Auburn without Cam, would you?
It’s not that I dont want to beat Cam. It’s the hypocrisy that is sickening.
They wore garnet helmets.
by tryptic67 on Dec 1, 2025 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely.
Win or lose, let the guys on their team play. No excuses for either team after this one.
stuff 'bout stuff.
by silver82blade on Dec 1, 2025 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
Yes. Integrity is for the little programs.
Let the cheaters cheat, so there can be no excuses for either team. Meh.
They wore garnet helmets.
by tryptic67 on Dec 1, 2025 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
I haven't been paying any attention to the Newton thing.
The only stuff I know of the case are from partial sentences I read, or hear, before I move on to something I care about. All I know is the NCAA typically dishes out penalties that are far more severe than I think they should be. Besides, I’d rather Newton play, and then if they want to retroactively take backs some, or all, of the wins, then that’s their prerogative. I want him playing in the game, so if we win there is no doubt we were the SEC champions.
stuff 'bout stuff.
by silver82blade on Dec 1, 2025 11:15 PM EST up reply actions
Auburn is getting preferential treatment
Consider …
the first SEC player suspended by the league office for an improper hit was Rodney Paulk of South Carolina. As far as I can tell, only Paulk and a Miss State kid have faced suspensions. Nick Fairley, on the other hand, had two questionable hits on Aaron Murray of Georgia (driving him into the ground; hitting his knee) and one unquestionable dirty play (lowering his head to spear Murray in the kidney). Was he suspended? No. The league allowed Chizik to handle it internally. Why werent we afforded the same respect? Because the league and the NCAA want an undefeated Auburn to play an undefeated Oregon in Glendale.
Consider this also … the NCAA crawled our a**** over hotel bills. Held out players to the very minutes before the Georgia game. Here, the NCAA says they have evidence Newton’s father hustled his son, but natch don’t sweat it Cam … you’re money on Wednesday before the big game.
For all their shtick about “us agains the world” and whining about Bama, Auburn is one of the SEC “haves” and we’re one of the have-nots. If there was even a hint of scandal with Marcus Lattimore, the NCAA and the SEC would be sitting him so fast that it would make your head spin - so that the big money will flow.
Frankly, GM I am SHOCKED you could possibly equate being late on the rent, or getting a hotel discount (!) with a player letting his father pimp him out. Its not even apples and oranges. But I’m sure Aubie fans will be more than happy for that gift (“even GABA says that Cam’s deal is like the Whitney Hotel so just shut up …”).
Win lose or draw, more information is bound to come out that’s going to be worse and worse … but why should Mike Slive care? He’ll be cashing the big check anyway … and he’ll be putting the screws to South Carolina since they just don’t count like favored-son Auburn.
They wore garnet helmets.
by tryptic67 on Dec 1, 2025 5:25 PM EST reply actions
Time for the Have-Nots to Have Some.
So the NCAA is going to let Cam play. So be it. Let’s just send em back to Aubarn crying. I felt bad for ‘em in 2003 to go 13-0 and not make it to the title game, of course they didn’t really impress against VT. But who cares. F*** ‘Em. Let’s just whip ’em and send ’em home.
It’s not that I don’t agree with everything you said. But nothing’s going to change in the next three days. I think more will come out, but until then: LET’S. JUST. WIN!!
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Dec 1, 2025 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
Well...
Newton, according to the NCAA, didn’t “let his father pimp him out.” According to the NCAA, Newton himself knew nothing about what his father was doing, and neither did Auburn. Is that true? I have no idea, and I hope that if further investigation is necessary that further investigation is conducted. But if it is true, it makes thing quite a bit different than if Newton and Auburn were in on the deal. Should Newton and Auburn be punished for the actions of anyone other than Newton and Auburn? I’m not sure that I believe that they should.
We have players, on the other hand, who, at least according to the NCAA (and as you know, I’m pretty skeptical about this), did knowingly receive benefits. The NCAA could have dropped the hammer on us. Instead, it gave us a little bit of anxiety and that was about it. It wasn’t handled well, but it wasn’t as bad as it could have been.
I don’t disagree with the general premise of your post, which is that Auburn is one of the Haves and we’re one of the Have-nots. In fact, I’ve been worried sick about the likelihood that we’re going to be subjected to some Florida-Arkansas-style shoddy officiating this weekend. However, in the Newton case, I don’t think the NCAA has been all that inconsistent. As I said, if more facts come out later, we can take the NCAA to task then, especially if there’s evidence of a cover-up. But I’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Dec 1, 2025 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
Incorrect
The NCAA did make a finding that Cecil Newton solicited money from Mississippi State. That meets any reasonable test of pimping out Cam.
The NCAA - likely at the behest of Mike Slive and CBS - decided to take Cam’s word that he didn’t know what his father was doing. Or that Auburn didn’t know. Cam? You didnt know what your daddy was doing? Right? OK Im satisfied!"
This whole episode is total bullsh*t. Auburn’s “suspension”. Followed by immediate exoneration. And it all makes such perfect sense. Cecil was engaged in a bidding war with just one party. Riiiiighhhhttttttttt. Nothing to see here! Keep moving!
There is a rule on the books specifically covering this situation. The NCAA refuses to enforce it. The SEC refuses to treat Auburn like the shmuck programs. And that’s somehow the same as the Whitney Hotel fiasco. Maybe we ought to make Cecil Newton its next manager.
Cam has no honor. Cecil has no soul. Auburn has no shame. And the SEC has no integrity.
Let me be clear on one thing. It’s not that we should expect to be playing Auburn without Cam. We shouldn’t be playing Auburn at all. Cam was ineligible. He should have been bounced months ago. Arkansas is the true SEC West Champion, since they did it without ineligible players … at least who would be ineligible in a league that took things like the rules seriously. But money talks.
And the double-standard goes on, and on, and on.
They wore garnet helmets.
by tryptic67 on Dec 1, 2025 10:32 PM EST up reply actions
The NCAA made a finding that Cam's father and Rogers tried to make money off Cam...
not that Cam let his father pimp him out, which is what you originally said. Now, I get that part of our disagreement is that you obviously believe that the SEC / NCAA is BSing us here on that point—and maybe you’re right. However, until proven otherwise, I’m going to accept the statement that Cam and Auburn are innocent in this thing. The investigation is ongoing and if Cam and Auburn aren’t innocent, we’ll find out about it. I’ll be the first person to lead the tar-and-feather committee when it happens. Until then, I’m sticking to what I’ve already said.
Like I said, I don’t disagree that Auburn is one of the Haves and we’re one of the Have-nots. But it’s not like the NCAA hasn’t been in the business of punishing the the Haves lately. Look what happened to A.J. Green, which we benefited from, I might add. And the NCAA didn’t hammer us for the Whitney thing. I remember Georgia fans saying about us the same thing you’re saying about Cam and Auburn—that we obviously broke the rules and got away with it. I don’t exactly agree with that, but I think it’s helpful sometimes to look at the state of affairs from other points of view. It’s not as bad, in this case, as it may seem.
At the end of the day, I want Cam on the field when we beat the Tigers.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Dec 2, 2025 8:34 AM EST up reply actions
Well
I’m going to accept the statement that Cam and Auburn are innocent in this thing. The investigation is ongoing and if Cam and Auburn aren’t innocent, we’ll find out about it.
I think that requires suspension of disbelief. In order accept the “findings” at face value, you have to accept that Cecil Newton was willing to take cash from one of the smallest of all the SEC programs (Miss State) where his son by all accounts really wanted to go, but was totally disinterested in cash from one of the richest programs (Auburn) where his son had expressed no prior interest. You also have to now totally discount the MSU witnesses who say Cam explained that there was “too much money” at stake for him to attend MSU … the same MSU witnesses who the NCAA apparently believes did participate in pay-for-play allegations.
Next, you have to discount the financial motivation of Auburn, the SEC, and the NCAA in procuring the very outcome that you accept at face value.
Finally, you have to accept as legitimate the following process, heretofore positively unheralded in the annals of the NCAA: (a) at some point last week or over the weekend, the NCAA and Auburn agree on joint facts that will result in Auburn disqualifying Cam Newton for the conduct of Cecil Newton; (b) Auburn and the NCAA provide these joint “findings” to the SEC on Monday without publicizing them to the media; ( c) Auburn disqualifies then Cam Newton on Tuesday without publicizing it to the media; (d) Auburn then appeals its own disqualification of Newton to the NCAA the same day - once again without media notification (e) by some miracle (!) the NCAA appeals committee is able to convene on a single day’s notice and reverses Auburn’s internal decision; and (f) right after the NCAA reverses Auburn’s disqualification, the SEC Commissioner accepts the joint Auburn-NCAA “findings” and refuses to enforce its own bylaws on a strained interpretation of the law that would make a Philadelphia lawyer blush ("well, he asked for money for MSU, but since MSU couldnt/wouldn’t meet the demand, he got nothing for value, QED no violation!).. Only after all of those steps take place in smoke-filled rooms, is the matter made public. Voila! says Aubie … Exoneration.
I say shame.
So, by all means, accept the “findings”. But it’s a whitewash. You know it. Don’t hold your breath that the investigation is still ongoing. It’s done. There’s no crutch that the truth will out someday, or that they’re still looking into this. The NCAA, SEC and Auburn wouldn’t have put on this little kabuki show if the NCAA was seriously looking into Newton. That book is closed. So long as Cecil, Cam and Auburn boosters stay quiet, no one will ever know. The investigation is killed. The Big Game is saved. Cam can practice with the team! Awww, isn’t that swell! I bet he didnt have to miss a practice or nothin!
we obviously broke the rules and got away with it. I don’t exactly agree with that, but I think it’s helpful sometimes to look at the state of affairs from other points of view
Pay for play is a complete perversion of the game. it carries a possible death sentence. Not paying hotel bills on time is a misdemeanor, apparently less of a problem that (a) fessin’ up you flew to Miaimi for a big party on South Beach (Dareus) or (b) selling a Liberty Bowl jersey on Ebay.
No one has even accused the Whitney manager of being a booster, nor is there the slightest evidence the staff or A.D’s office knew that about the Whitney room pricing business. But did we get a joint finding? Did we have our players cleared days before the Big Game? Did we have Mike Slime rushing to our defense? No, no, no. I really hope you will consider why you feel its appropriate to continue comparing a quitodian secondary infraction to a cover-up of a major scandal.
At the end of the day, I want Cam on the field when we beat the Tigers.
It’s not about that. In a just world, we’d be playing the Arkansas .
They wore garnet helmets.
by tryptic67 on Dec 2, 2025 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
You present a good case here, and some of what you say makes a lot of sense.
I’ll give it some thought.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Dec 2, 2025 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
I'll grant that I've probably been a bit lax in my interpretation of the events here.
I get sick of following the latest (usually minor) scandals and my general disposition is to just want to watch the games. That may be the wrong attitude in this case, though.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Dec 2, 2025 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Im hot about it
but not hot at you about it. What else can we do now though but play the game? Your point is more than valid too.
They wore garnet helmets.
by tryptic67 on Dec 2, 2025 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
I hear you, and you're entitled to your take on the turn events have taken.
I’m still not sure I agree with everything you’ve said, but that probably says as much about me and my skepticism towards “scandal” as it does about the facts of the situation, which is why I’m trying to keep an open mind and listen to what you’re saying. Anyways, at this point it is what it is. We can both agree that we want to see the ‘Cocks wipe that smirk off Newton’s fact this weekend.
Damn these itals.
Garnet and Black Attack: A Blog By and For Gamecocks Fans.
by Gamecock Man on Dec 2, 2025 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
That's what they want
Dont make waves South Carolina. You dont belong South Carolina. Your offenses are always going to handled differently than their offenses, South Carolina. There’s nothing you can do it about it, South Carolina. You don’t count, South Carolina. You’ve never counted, South Carolina. So go ahead and shut up about it now, South Carolina.
I hear what youre sayin’ sk … if anyone needed an extra iota of motivation, I hope this helps the Cocks but I’m still gonna call b.s. and hypocrisy and greed when I see it.
They wore garnet helmets.
by tryptic67 on Dec 1, 2025 5:48 PM EST reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Start posting about the Gamecocks
- Follow @GABAttack
- Subscribe to Garnet And Black Attack Stories
The Absolut Bloody Hour Countdown
::
Enjoy with ABSOLUT Responsibility®
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
GET YOUR GAMECOCKS GEAR HERE
NCAA Football -- FanHouse
- Nebraska-Oklahoma Renew Storied Rivalry One Final Time in Big 12 Title Game
- Nevada Needs to Forget the Party and Focus on Regular-Season Finale
- Oregon State Has a Chance to Shake Up National Picture With Upset of Oregon
- Miami Captures MAC Championship With Late Touchdown Pass
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
