Did I ever pronounce Cam Newton's innocence? No. Can I prove his guilt? Not with circumstantial evidence and many before who believed had the smoking gun wound up shooting themselves in the foot
I think we can all agree that college football is not the cleanest, most honorable entity in "amatuer" sports. However, as I've matured (try not to laugh) in this business, I've realized you can't will a story to have the outcome you want. Would Cam Newton and Auburn being hammered by the NCAA lead to a tragic trainwreck of comedy in my business? You bet. The same could be said for Texas A&M and Johnny Manziel. However, the result is the same between the two and the reaction is just about the same.
The NCAA is incompetent, the NCAA did not do enough, Mark Emmert sucks, etc. I won't lie that they haven't helped their case with Miami disaster (which should really be the most embarassing) and numerous other cases. However, do we now condemn someone based on circumstantial evidence? There's no innocent until proven guilty? Do we as a society thrive on the downfalls of people that we put so high on pedistal? I would say three are all plausible.
To break down the "suspension" of Johnny Manziel for the 1st half for Saturday's matchup against Rice. - Johnny Football knew that his autographs would be sold for profit. By the NCAA Bylaw Title:12.5.2.2 - Use of a Student-Athlete's Name or Picture Without Knowledge or Permission. If a student-athlete's name or picture appears on commercial items (e.g., T-shirts, sweatshirts, serving trays, playing cards, posters) or is used to promote a commercial product sold by an individual or agency without the student-athlete's knowledge or permission, the student-athlete (or the institution acting on behalf of the student-athlete) is required to take steps to stop such an activity in order to retain his or her eligibility for intercollegiate athletics. Such steps are not required in cases in which a student-athlete's photograph is sold by an individual or agency (e.g., private photographer, news agency) for private use. (Revised: 1/11/97, 5/12/05)
Okay, reports say there was an "inadvertent" violation regarding Johnny Manziel's autograph being sold for profit. Still, did Johnny Manziel profit from these autographs? And don't say nobody signs those autographs for free. Can you prove he took the money? No? Then what do you do?
Gregg Doyel from CBSSports.com states in his column about the NCAA's standard when it comes to enforcement and punishment.
"Manziel wasn't in a courtroom, and the NCAA didn't have to meet that legal standard of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt? The NCAA didn't have to go that far. According to the NCAA's website, "its standard of proof is whether the information is credible, persuasive and of a nature that reasonable people would rely upon in the conduct of serious affairs.""
Later on he writes about how the NCAA is not sure about their "burden of proof".
"That was the burden of proof the NCAA was going for in this case: unassailable proof that Manziel had been paid for his time. And they didn't have it. Going forward, if the NCAA wants to change its burden of proof from "reasonable" to "unassailable," then the NCAA should do that in the future and own it now."
If we look back to the Cam Newton case, "reasonable" would be considered guilty based on a reason that because there's smoke there's fire. There was no "unassailable" proof that he took the money, therefore you couldn't do anything.
I don't share the outrage that Gregg Doyel seems to be showing (my observation), but I agree with him that there needs to be a clarification on what is standard for "burden of proof". I believe it should be unassailable. Evidence that can not be disputed and leaves little gray area for argument. Easier said than done? Yes. However, if you can't prove them guilty or don't want to, why should the player and/or institution suffer due to circumstantial evidence?
What about Ohio State? Did they really get did wrong by the NCAA? Not really. Evidence was found that Jim Tressell attempted to cover up the tattoo scandal. A burden of proof that can not be disputed.
As for the suspension (for a half), I think is quite comical. Manziel also, according to the NCAA statement regarding the matter:
Not really that harsh of a punishment, and we've seen sanctions that we can laugh at before (i.e., Oregon, Mississippi St)
With all of the outrage with the punishment (or lack there of) of Johnny Manziel, where's the outrage regarding these brokers? The brokers who came to ESPN and made the allegations that Johnny Manziel took money for signing autographs? With the lack of subpoena power by the NCAA, I'm sure they would have appreciated them coming forward to discuss the matter since said brokers left the NCAA no choice but to look into the matter (which is the last thing they wanted or needed) since it now got national news. Wait, the brokers didn't talk to the NCAA? Why not?
Could it be that if they talked to the NCAA that maybe they ruin any trust with future clientele? Then why would they come forward in the first place? Maybe for a money play?
"The broker reportedly showed two video clips taken on a cell phone during the autograph sessions, ostensibly for authentication purposes. On the videos, Manziel reportedly tells the broker "you never did a signing with me" and says he would claim to have been approached by multiple autograph seekers if asked about the nature of the memorabilia.
The videos, which ESPN declined to pay for after the broker made an offer, were taken without Manziel's knowledge. They do not show Manziel accepting payment for the sessions."
Hmmmm.....trying to get money for cell phone video without any proof of the allegations of taking money? Congrats, you proved he signed some footballs, what else do you have?
All of this for money play? It seems that way for me. Johnny Manziel stays in the microscope, the NCAA unwillingly gets dragged into the circus that is Johnny Football, for what?
What have we learned? :
- Either fry them all or it's considered corruption
- The NCAA needs to clarify it's "burden of proof"
- If you're going to make an allegation, FOLLOW THROUGH!!!!
